Barack and His Unrepentent Terrorist Pals From Chicago Go to a Wedding

MSNBC personality Alex Wagner’s wedding occurred back in August of 2014, but news has just emerged that at least two of her guests were old Chicago pals: President Barack Obama and unrepentant domestic Terrorist Bill Ayers. There Obama goes again, palling around with terrorists.

The President and First Lady attended the nuptials of White House chef Sam Kass and MSNBC anchor Wagner in August along with a who’s who of the far left in America today. But two of the other guests were particularly interesting. 1960’s era domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and wife Bernadine Dohrn were also at the Pocantico Hills, New York ceremony.

Ayers and Dorhn are notorious as un-indicted terrorists who were once part of the 1960s radical terror outfit the Weather Underground. The pair were involved in bombings that took lives in 1970 and somehow escaped prosecution for their crimes. Now both are leading cushy lives as professors at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

For a decade now Obama has desperately tried to distance himself from Ayers and Dorhn and many times claimed that he really didn’t know the notorious anti-American bombers quite despite the fact that he launched his political career at a fundraiser in the Ayers’ living room.

For instance, during his first primary for president back in 2008, Obama waved off any notion that he was a friend of the notorious couple saying, “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood… the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago–when I was 8 years old–somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense.”

Of course, not being a contemporary with the detestable does not preclude familiarity, so Obama’s dismissive rhetoric is essentially a classic example of doublespeak.

Still, even as Obama has consistently denied any close relations with Ayers, the former terrorist himself has confirmed that he was indeed close enough to the Obamas to help Barack launch his political career in Chicago.

In one interview in 2013, Ayers admitted it was true that Obama “held a fundraiser in our living room.”

Most Presidential Experts Agree: Obama is Worst President In History
Too Cold For Global Warming Protest
  • LiberalNightmare

    If your going out to dinner with Bill Ayers, the first rule is to let him pick the restaurant.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    “Guilty as sin, free as a bird,” Word has it that when the bride and groom left the church, they were showered with shredded copies of the Constitution – Ayers threw pieces of the American flag.

  • Commander_Chico

    I went to a wedding once, one of the other guests was a paroled drug dealer.

    I guess that’s my fault.

    Alex Wagner is pretty hot.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      You really think Obama didn’t know Ayers would be there?

    • FrenchKiss

      You must be blind.

      • Commander_Chico

        and you must be a fag. French kiss a dog’s ass.

        • FrenchKiss

          Don’t respond to my posts asshole.

          • Brucehenry

            Says the dumbass to the guy he/she just responded to.

          • FrenchKiss

            Fuck you asshole.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh the irony

          • FrenchKiss

            Eat shit and die

          • Commander_Chico

            Yeah what are you gonna do about it?

          • FrenchKiss

            Says the tough guy hiding in his mommy’s basement behind a keyboard.

          • Brucehenry

            So no concept of irony at all? Okay.

        • jim_m

          the homophobe speaks up. Is there ANY group that you don’t hate?

          • Commander_Chico

            Farmers, bakers, barbers, bartenders. Half Asian women like Alex Wagner.

            Pretty much everyone else.

            http://i.imgur.com/pJz6krD.jpg

          • Inclusive. I respect that.

            😉

    • Paul Hooson

      It’s an interesting story here. Fascinating bit of scandal journalism…But, it connects too many dots together, wrongly suggesting Obama approval for domestic terrorists…Over at Wizbang Pop, I use sensational stories sometimes for ratings, but it usually involves topless celebs…My best day there…186,000 viewers one day, mostly to see vintage Betty White nude photos of all things…

      • Commander_Chico

        Try some original content, take some pictures of your strippers.

        • Paul Hooson

          I’ve done some nude photos of my dancers before that I took. Look up my Viewpoint Dancers story in my archives…

          • Commander_Chico

            Tonight I was at a party with an ex-stripper. She was putting on a show and offered to strip for $700. Sorry, I’ve seen enough naked women to know it’s not worth that much.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        It connects dots long ago connected and ignored by the MSM. What would you have thought if Romney began his political career in the living room of unrepentant KKK members and then attended a wedding of mutual friends[unlikely, as they would be Ds, but worthy of a thought experiment nonetheless]?

        • Paul Hooson

          It’s a pretty good scandal journalism piece, Walter. So. I’m not really critical of it…One thing that Warner forgot here is that Dick Cheney and Obama are distant relatives, so you have to ask whether that accidental shooting of Cheney’s friend on that hunting trip was really an accident or not? When you get into it, there’s a lot more far reaches to be made here…

    • Animal_Mother

      She so hooony. She love you long time. Fiteen dollah. Suckeesuckee.

  • Brucehenry

    This is definitely juicy stuff. You guys should TOTALLY use it against Obama in his next campaign.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Like his “stance” on gay marriage, we wouldn’t be learning about this if he had another campaign to run. Maybe some day when they don’t have to worry about Obama’s or their, legacy, the LA Times will release the Khalidi tapes. And maybe then the MSM will show as much interest in his college years as they do Scott Walker’s.

    • jim_m

      So you don’t care that he lied? I don’t expect you would feel the same if it were a GOP pol who lied the way that obama does. obama’s lies are beyond number. But then you see it only as a means to an end. And like obama, you see the only unethical means as the failure to use a means to achieve your ends.

      • Brucehenry
        • jim_m

          I’ll take that non responsive answer as an admission to the truth of my comment.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure Jim take it however you like. You believe whatever The Voices tell you anyway and there’s no persuading you otherwise — why shouldn’t I have a little fun?

          • jim_m

            You fail to grasp the fact that I enjoy calling you out as an amoral, nihilistic partisan.

          • Brucehenry

            And I you as a hopelessly ignorant delusional madman.

          • jim_m

            Yes, but since your measure of reality is ideologically based it is meaningless, seeing as it has no relationship with fact.

          • Brucehenry

            Whatever you say genius.

          • Commander_Chico

            I see him more as a Major Frank Burns-type. Without the Major rank.

          • Brucehenry

            Is there a way to make this his involuntary avatar?

            https://thecampofthesaints.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/frank-burns-004.jpg

        • GarandFan

          But it isn’t like I didn’t TRY! SEE: IRS, ATF, DOJ, EPA….

        • Paul Hooson

          Humor aside, I don’t think the Republican Party as a whole ever accepted any of these bizarre beliefs. A few extreme individuals embraced some of these thoughts…

          • Brucehenry

            You didn’t hear that Obama was coming for your guns throughout Obama’s first term? You didn’t hear it here on Wizbang? I did.

            You don’t still see Wizbangers claiming “death panels” are absolutely real? I do.

            You don’t still see Republicans clinging to the position that gay marriage will ruin the USA? I do.

            I’ll grant you the anti-Christ and the birth certificate thingies.

          • Paul Hooson

            I might have heard a few extreme views like that here…But, the mainstream Republican Party never embraced most of those extreme views is my point. As a whole, those mainstream Republicans are the one’s who nominated mainstream Republicans like McCain and Romney as their nominees, and rejected more extreme choices…

            During the 1970’s, John Birch Society members referred to themselves as conservatives, although their views were much more extreme than many like a George Will, who also calls himself a conservative…

          • Brucehenry

            Well was the post addressed to “mainstream Republicans”? I posted it in reply to Jim, who isn’t “mainstream” anything.

          • Paul Hooson

            The caption makes a reference to the Republican Party. I was a registered Republican for a time, and I never embraced such views. And my grandmother and mother were registered Republicans, who never embraced such views. In fact, we where each moderate to liberal in many of our views…My objection is that mainstream Republicans do not embrace those views, although a few more extreme conservatives may embrace those sorts of views.

            The caption was funny, but not really representative of mainstream Republicans who are reasonable and moderate persons.

          • Brucehenry

            Fair enough. There used to be such a thing as a liberal Republican, like Rockefeller or Jacob Javits or John Lindsay. You know, Republicans who loved their country.

            Those Republicans are all dead now.

          • Paul Hooson

            My mother was a strong friend of Senator Mark Hatfield’s wife. I have pictures of my parents with Mark Hatfield. Hatfield was a real legend in Oregon.

          • Brucehenry

            Hatfield was another, but also a deeply flawed man in his personal life, for which he lost his career and legacy.

          • jim_m

            obama was another, but also a deeply flawed man, but Bruce ignores his flaws and defends him as a perfect human being because he needs to ignore those flaws as obama advances an agenda Bruce wants to see advanced. All flaws are acceptable under those circumstances.

          • Brucehenry

            Not at all. Obama’s flaws and virtues are still being revealed and it remains to be seen how he will be judged by history, as George W Bush keeps reminding us (about himself.)

            Here’s another example, just to get your wingnut gears grinding: John Edwards, who in his personal life is just about as slimy as any politician ever, yet who in my opinion was EXACTLY right about policy and about the existence of “Two Americas.”

          • jim_m

            Yet you would have found his slimy behavior to be disqualifying in a GOP candidate and you believe that it should have been kept concealed in his. Hypocrite.

          • Brucehenry

            No I was pretty fucking angry at the thought that he would conceal such brazen behavior. Imagine if he had won the nomination, as I had originally wanted back in 08. John McCain, or maybe even Sarah Fucking Palin, would be president today! It still makes me wake up in a cold sweat when I dream of it.

          • jim_m

            Ah, so you admit that you have no problem with his moral lapse except for the potential vulnerability to your cause. How crass.

          • Brucehenry

            I have pointed out that however flawed he was as a man, however despicable his behavior, his policy positions were right for the country and it’s too bad his douchebaggery has discredited them.

          • jim_m

            No he discredited himself. His ideas were already discredited.

          • Brucehenry

            Says you, but there are many people today who espouse his “Two Americas” rhetoric, myself among them.

          • jim_m

            Funny then that you support the policies of obama that have made the divide bigger than ever before? Kind of makes it look like you really don’t believe any of it and care even less about the lives you have ruined in the process.

          • Brucehenry

            Perhaps you noticed that Edwards LOST to Obama? I voted for Obama because I wouldn’t vote for McCain. I agree with him a lot more often than I agree with wingnuts like yourself, but I still wish that a hypothetical Edwards without the moral failings had won the nomination and then the election.

            LOL, that’s kind of facetious there, dumbass, in case you don’t get it.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Liberal Republicans are dead? When did Jeb Bush pass away? And Romney? You know Mitt – the one you guys always say is the original architect of ObamaCare.

          • jim_m

            So you deny that operation choke point has targeted legal FFL’s?

    • Brett Buck

      It doesn’t bother you that the President of the United States hangs around in a social setting with an admitted communist and unrepentant terrorist bomber? Nice moral center you have there.

      • Walter_Cronanty

        While I’m sure Bruce is somewhat embarrassed, like most lefties this is just something to laugh off, like President Clinton lying under oath [it was just about sex] or Obama lying about….well, almost everything. As long as he continues on the path of destroying the US in the name of whatever lunatic idea is the fad of the day, palling around with admitted terrorists, sitting in Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years, refusing to properly identify those who would kill us, lying about Obamacare and same-sex marriage, having an administration so devoid of ethics it sics the IRS on people because of what they believe and then stonewalls any effort to release documents about what they did – while calling themselves the most transparent administration ever- etc., is A-OK with Bruce.

        • Brucehenry

          I’m not embarrassed. What should be embarrassing but apparently isn’t is the spectacle of grown men repeating verbatim the hysterical word-salads and hair-on-fire boilerplate of geniuses like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh.

          So enjoy your group hysteria, and I’ll enjoy mocking it.

          • jim_m

            Your mockery is merely a tool by which you avoid confronting the truth, You have consistently refused to address whether or not obama has lied about his polices and positions or his personal beliefs.

            All of these things do matter and you would find a republican behaving in the same manner as having disqualified himself for public office. But you find obama doing so humorous because you believe that any means to reach your ends is acceptable.

          • Brucehenry

            Dr Jim_Freud_m speaks. Do you have as much knowledge of psychoanalysis as you do of SE Asian and ME history? That is to say, absolutely less than none?

          • jim_m

            Once again non-responsive. Care to answer the question for once?

            Of course not. You won’t admit that you consider your ideological opposites as people who are undeserving of human rights or being treated in a civilized manner. They are to be lead by force or deception into the utopian future you believe in.

          • Brucehenry

            What question is that Jim? If you mean the one about whether it bothers me that Obama was at the same wedding as Bill Ayers, or whether he held a fundraiser in Ayers’ living room, the answer is no. If you mean did I find his explanation of how well he knows Ayers adequate, the answer is yes.

            What might bother me is the Republican insistence on asking foreign policy advice from Henry Kissinger, known and notorious war criminal, a man responsible for infinitely more deaths than Bill Ayers.

            http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/henry-kissinger-2016-election-114885.html

            EDIT: Reading this story does bother me, since Hillary, Kerry, and Samantha Power are all quoted as speaking glowingly of Kissinger, as despicable monster in my opinion.

          • jim_m

            My reference was to obama’s lies about his policies, his affiliations, his beliefs. You don’t care that he lied because at every point it advanced your agenda. You approve of any means that advances that end. This is why I keep telling you that you will apologize for fascism all the way to filling the gulags and beyond.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes you do keep saying the same nonsense over and over I’ll grant you that.

          • jim_m

            And you deflect once more without answering.

            I rest my case. You will accept any means to achieve you end.

          • Brucehenry

            Why do I question your sincerity when you declare “I rest my case?” LOL.

          • jim_m

            You shouldn’t. Your continuous deflection surrounding my claim only further justifies my conclusion. This issue has been raise multiple times and every time you dance around it and refuse to address it directly. You know that you would condemn such behavior from anyone else.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh yeah, that’s why.

          • Commander_Chico

            Kissinger looks pretty good compared to the murderous morons of recent years. At least the guy had a thought-out vision.

          • Brucehenry

            The Mother Jones piece has him “indicted” for the deaths of a least a million people. Even makes Cheney look like a piker, almost.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yes, I looked at that MJ piece. It assumes Kissinger’s omniscience and omnipotence, as if he could have “red lighted” the Pakistan military in Bengal or the Argentine military’s actions. Both events were rooted in indigenous tendencies.

            In the context of the Cold War with tens of thousands of Soviet tanks and tactical nuclear weapons in Central Europe, there were some constraints on American action.

          • Brucehenry

            Goering and Goebbels weren’t omniscient or omnipotent either but we still hold them responsible for war crimes.

          • Commander_Chico

            They weren’t held responsible for the actions of the government of Paraguay, for example.

          • jim_m

            Wait, isn’t every GOP politician a war criminal to you? Kind of make s the epithet pretty meaningless.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Yeah, I should have guessed. Like most lefties, you’re incapable of feeling shame when it comes to Obama. The only shame you feel is for your country.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m never ashamed of my country but have often been dismayed and ashamed by the actions of its leaders. As have you. Only different leaders.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Yeah, you’re ashamed when we have a booming economy and are a world leader. As long as Obama leads us into European-style impotence and irrelevance, you’re proud as hell.

          • Brucehenry

            You mean like when FDR and Truman were president? Nope. JFK? Bill Clinton? Nope.

            Now, did any of those presidents do anything to be ashamed of? Hell yes. Japanese internment comes to mind. Vietnam. Ignoring the Rwandan genocide.

            Proud of our history when we lived up to our ideals, unafraid to acknowledge when we didn’t. It’s not that hard, you should try it. Take off the rose-colored glasses and look at history unflinchingly sometime, Pollyanna.

            Speaking of being proud to be an American, check out this movie. You can get it on Netflix DVD. Makes me proud to share citizenship with such a man, a man who changed the world.
            http://www.amazon.com/King-Filmed-Record-Montgomery-Memphis/dp/B009NI2XN2

          • Walter_Cronanty

            “You mean like when FDR and Truman were president? Nope. JFK? Bill Clinton? Nope.” As I’ve pointed out before, the only good Ds are long dead.
            “Proud of our history when we lived up to our ideals, unafraid to acknowledge when we didn’t.” I, too, am proud of those moments. I’m even more proud of the way our country has faced its shortcomings and unabashedly did what was necessary to correct them – see, our Civil War, Civil Rights movement, etc. You, on the other hand, seem to want to wallow in our darkest hours, refusing to acknowledge how we have progressed. Instead, the US is bad, bad, bad.

          • Brucehenry

            One man’s acknowledgement is another’s wallowing I guess. You can claim that an honest assessment of history is “wallowing in our darkest hours” all you want, it doesn’t make it so.

            But just to entertain us, let’s take a look at your pride in the way our country “has faced its shortcomings.”

            You DO know that the Civil War was hard fought, right? And that for every Union soldier who fought on the side of the angels there was a Confederate trying to kill him? For every civil rights marcher in Selma there was a peckerwood heckling him, throwing stones and worse? Policemen who represented the authority of the state who set dogs on brave marchers and firemen who knocked them down with firehoses? BTW these cops, firemen, and peckerwoods were the salt-of-the-earth Real Murricans whose ideological descendants are GOP voters today. States’ Rights and nullification and all that shit. You DO know that for every Brave Pioneer who “conquered” the West there was an Indian killed or displaced?

            So yeah America has progressed, but not without struggle, and sometimes the guys who were writing the history books couldn’t tell who were the bad guys and who weren’t. Hint: They weren’t always who YOU think they were, genius.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            And most, if not all, of those “peckerwoods” were Ds, just like Byrd from W.Va.

          • Brucehenry

            They sure were but today not so much.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            And most, if not all, of those “displaced” Indians had displaced other Indians.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes and you have no problem with remembering that. So why shrink from remembering the “conquest” of the West as it was?

            Telling the unvarnished truth about certain aspects of our history is no more “anti-American” than telling the truth about Richard III is “anti-English” or telling the truth about Nicholas II is “anti-Russian” or telling the truth about Innocent III is “anti-Catholic.”

          • Walter_Cronanty

            You’re right, except that’s all you talk about – you wallow in it.

          • Brucehenry

            As I said one man’s wallowing….

            To what degree is myth-busting allowed before it becomes “wallowing,” Walter? I submit it’s rather a subjective thing.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Whatever, wherever the line is, you crossed it long ago.

          • Brucehenry

            As I thought, you can’t think of or cite any one thing I’ve ever said that demonstrates my “guilt,” you just get the feeling that I’m one of those Blame-America-First pinkos you like to bitch about.

          • Brucehenry

            BTW Bill Clinton is very much alive and hugely influential and his wife is probably going to be the next president.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            And you’re still not ashamed of his lying under oath, are you?

          • Brucehenry

            He shouldn’t have been questioned under oath about such an inconsequential matter. If I should be ashamed of his lying about extramarital blowjobs maybe you can share the degree of shame you felt when you learned Ronald Reagan had lied to us all in a nationally broadcast speech about Iran-Contra.

            Iran-Contra — now THERE was an impeachable matter. Lying about extramarital blowjobs? Not so much.

          • jim_m

            Bruce claims that sexual assault and sexual harassment are inconsequential matters. Let’s all remember that.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            He did it to help the contras, which I understand you can’t abide because they weren’t communists, while Clinton lied to cover his own ass. There is some dispute as to what he knew [“Several investigations ensued, including those by the U.S. Congress and the three-person, Reagan-appointed Tower Commission. Neither found any evidence that President Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair ], nevertheless, he should have remained silent, instead of lying.
            And what about Obama’s constant lying?

          • Brucehenry

            The contras not only weren’t communists, but they were murdering peasant-killing bandits, so I understand why conservatives supported them.

            As to what Reagan knew it is my suspicion that, given his popularity, even Democrats were unwilling to find reason to impeach him only 12 years after Nixon’s resignation. It would have been an uphill battle but it would have been the right thing to do in my opinion. There was a law, or rather a BUNCH of laws, that were openly flouted by a lawless executive branch, and it was an unfortunate precedent to let that shit slide. Reagan has his personal charisma to thank for the fact he skated, as I see it.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            And Obama’s constant lying?

          • Brucehenry

            What do you want me to say? Do I believe Obama when he says he isn’t siccing the IRS on you? Yes I do. Do I believe him when he says he isn’t responsible for Fast and Furious or whatever the newest and bestest GOP scandal du jour is? Yes I do. Do I believe him when he tells his version of the Benghazi events? Yup.

            So just to be clear, I don’t buy most of the WND/Drudge/FOX/Redstate bullshit that “proves” Obama is a big fat liar-dy liar. What you swallow as Gospel Truth is up to you.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            So, no responsibility for those, and other, lies – like same sex marriage, if you like your plan you can keep it, etc. Nice.

          • jim_m

            You’re a fucking stooge. You really believe that when he “joked” about siccing the IRS on enemies that he was only joking? You really believe that the recent discovery of 16,000 emails between the WH and Lois Lerner and others related to the investigation of conservative groups that obama knew nothing about it?

            It begs credulity.

            He knew about Fast and Furious and he knew about Choke Point. He knew he was violating the rights of Americans but you approve of it because as far as you are concerned the right people were having their rights violated, and if those are rights that you don’t care to exercise yourself then you don’t care how they get violated.

          • Actually, I can believe he didn’t really ‘know’ anything about it. I figure Valerie Jarrett’s been doing an excellent job of keeping Obama out of the loop – which he doesn’t really care about in the first place.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, but for the left they cannot have it both ways. He cannot be the greatest genius ever to sit behind the Resolute desk and be completely clueless about everything going on around him.

          • I’m not disagreeing with that. But the man’s a sock puppet, able to read a teleprompter well… and that’s about it.

            Who’s got their hand up his asterisk like Mike Rowe assisting with a difficult calving on “Dirty Jobs” is a matter of conjecture…

          • jim_m

            Oh, I agree. obama is the least intelligent, most intellectually incurious President we have ever had.

          • jim_m

            Oh, and communists never killed anyone? I suppose you are now arguing for the nonpersonhood of anyone who isn’t a communist.

          • Brucehenry

            Pathetic strawman from a pathetic ignoramus. Read a fucking history book, sounding out the long words if you have to, and get back to me in a month when you finish it.

          • jim_m

            I’ve read the bloody history of communism. You are claiming that they are not masss murderers?

            the Sandinista revolution toppled the Somoza regime, which had ruled Nicaragua for 43 years. The rebels victory was widely hailed as a triumph over what was seen as one of the worst violators of human
            rights in the Americas. Ironic ally–and tragically for the close to
            three million Nicaraguans the Sandinistas have proved that they surpass their predecessors in abusing the basic rights of their own people in Nicaragua is an all-out war on the human rights of all those who oppose the regime. The victims number in the thousands and include journalists, businessmen, politicians, Catholics, Moravians, the Miskito Indian tribes and even Nicaragua’s entire Jewish community What has erupted Today’s human rights violations affect all aspects of Nicaraguan life. There are restrictions on free movement; torture; denial of due process; lack of freedom of thought, conscience and religion denial of the right of association and of free lab or unions.

            Ah, but they attacked Nicaragua’s Jewish community, so I guess that is why you excuse them.

            The people you defend here were bloodier murderers than those you protest so fuck you and your bullshit self righteousness

          • Brucehenry

            Heritage Foundation propaganda. How quaint.

            Add Latin America, along with SE Asia and the Middle East, to the list of geographical areas the history of which Jim knows nothing about.

            BTW however evil the Sandinistas were or were not, the law was the law. No sending money to contras, no selling arms to Iran.

          • jim_m

            You can find it in other places dumbass. You really think that a communist regime doesn’t kill people? Even amnesty international has documented their destruction of Indian villages and the torture and murder of those who oppose the regime.

            Once more you prove that you will excuse absolutely ANYTHING in the name of advancing a far left agenda. You just excused torture and mass murder to advance your agenda!

            One more point proven.

          • Brucehenry

            Except I haven’t said one word in defense of the Sandinistas, only criticized the contras. There were other, less murderous opposition groups.

            My point was about Reagan breaking US law and skating instead of being impeached as he arguably should have been. Whether the Sandinistas were evil or not is irrelevant to my argument.

            You would understand that if you were not so wedded to the use of strawmen.

          • jim_m

            You criticized the contras and you hve since then dismissed the fact that the Sandanistas, who by attacking the Contras you defend, committed mass murder

            The condemnation is delivered not so much by the documentary maker, Lee Shapiro, who filmed his report in late 1984, as by the Miskito Indians themselves. And unless one chooses to believe that both the Indians and the missionaries among them were somehow suborned or cajoled into testifying, theirs is compelling evidence that the Nicaraguan Government murders innocent people.

            The Miskitos and their ancestors have lived in eastern Nicaragua since pre-Columbian times. Mr. Shapiro may be guilty of sentimentality when he says that the Miskitos, ”though poor and humble, were content with their simple lives,” but it is incontestable that until the Sandinistas gained power they never fled Nicaragua. Now, Mr. Shapiro says, one-fourth of the Atlantic Coast Miskitos are refugees in Honduras.

            The documentary makes specific charges: 49 Miskito villages along the Coco River were burned down by Sandinista soldiers; 65 bombs were dropped on six villages in 11 days. Miskitos, speaking in translation, tell tales of horror: people hanged, machine-gunned and burned. ”Oh my, it is so bad,” says an elderly man on the verge of tears. ”Just like there was no God.” Consider now the possibility that the Miskitos are lying or exaggerating their oppression. A Miskito pastor, presumably a Moravian (the Moravians have a long history among the Miskitos), says, for example, that Sandinista soldiers tied up members of his church and set them on fire. Do we believe an atrocity story like that or not?

            Possibly we believe or do not believe according to our political persuasions – that is, whether we approve or disapprove of the Marxist-Leninist Sandinistas.

            Even the NYT admits that leftist like you are willing to excuse and ignore mas murder because it advances your agenda.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I already read the link and again, I made no claims as to the virtue of the Sandinistas, only to the well-documented murderousness of many Contra bandits.

            Again, irrelevant to my argument, which is that US law forbade what the Reagan administration did.

            Indeed, if the Contras had been a bunch of Francis of Assisis what the Reagan administration did would still have been illegal.

          • jim_m

            Yes, you have said repeatedly how you believe that Reagan knew everything going on in his admin and how obama knows nothing.

            It’s bullshit. You know it. You are preserving this blind spot because you don’t care what means are used to get what you want.

          • Brucehenry

            Nope I have said it was arguable that Reagan knew more than even the Democrats let on, since they may not have found it politically tenable to try to impeach Ol’ Teflon Ron given his charisma and continuing personal popularity, especially so soon after Watergate. I have never claimed with certainty that “Reagan knew” anything.

            You have produced cites about congressional committees and Tower commissions unable to substantiate any charges against Reagan but guess what? Issa and his acolytes have produced exactly nada to impeach Obama with, too.

            So enough with the blind spot bullshit. You’ve had one for going on 30 years now.

            BTW you claiming that I said “reagan knew everything” is another example of your constant use of strawman argument. You’re addicted to it; you don’t even know you’re doing it, because you are an idiot.

          • jim_m

            That’s a joke. Dems were calling for Reagan’s impeachment. Everyone was saying how Reagan had to have known and how blaming it on the dead CIA chief was BS.

            And yet you deny the possibility that obama knew anything about the IRS, Fast and Furious, NSA malpractice, and on and on.

            There’s a credibility gap here and it’s all yours.

          • Brucehenry

            Some Dems were saying so, sure, just as some wingnut Republican House members are calling for Obama’s impeachment. It never went anywhere because Dem leadership knew it was a loser, and that another impeachment crisis would be bad, in their estimation, for the country.

            I agree it was probably a loser, but I think the fact that it wasn’t attempted set a bad precedent.

            But here’s an NBC documentary exposing the REEEEAALL truth:

            https://screen.yahoo.com/president-reagan-mastermind-000000075.html

          • jim_m

            You area avoiding the elephant in the living room. You refuse to accept that obama has known about any of the multitude of scandals that has plagued his admin. You find it ever so easy to believe of Reagan, who you and the left have derided as an idiot, yet the greatest mind of the century, Barack Hussein Obama, is incapable of doing what the simpleton actor did.

            How lame you are.

          • Brucehenry

            And yet you refuse to believe that the wise and avuncular Reagan, smart enough to figure out how to defeat the Soviet Union when everyone else had failed, was unaware of the multitude of scandals, including Iran-Contra, that plagued HIS administration; and you simultaneously believe that the clueless, incompetent, lazy golf playing man child Obama is a mastermind octopus puppeteer.

          • jim_m

            Are you kidding me? Of course he knew about Iran Contra! What you miss is that the dems didn’t pursue it because they knew that the Boland amendment was unconstitutional, something obama would be arguing if he were coming against it.

            And you stil deny that obama knows anything.

            Meanwhile you point out the discrepancy n your side’s own argument that Reagan was stupid but smart enough to defeat the Soviets.

          • Brucehenry

            Well I concede there is some controversy about the Boland amendment but Reagan had signed both of the laws in question.

          • jim_m

            Doesn’t matter who signed it.

            You still can’t admit that obama knew. You still won’t face the double standard in your views.

          • Brucehenry

            If I was judge and a president came to me claiming a law he signed was unconstitutional I’d ask him why he signed it, then.

            There is no more proof that “Obama knew” than there is that “Reagan knew.” The double standard is as much yours as mine.

          • jim_m

            Not if you actually read my comments where I said that I believed absolutely that Reagan knew. You claim that obama did not and you still make that silly claim.

            So I fail to see the double standard at work in my beliefs.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes just a few moments ago you did, as a tactical ploy, as transparent as glass.

            What you fail to understand, Jim, is that other people aren’t the gullible dipshit ignorami that you yourself are.

            You insist over and over again that it is unknowable whether “Reagan knew,” then suddenly claim “Of course he knew but it was unconstitutional!” when you got nothing else.

            Do you really think other people can’t fucking read? Because that’s you pal, not the rest of us.

          • jim_m

            Not a tactical ploy. I don’t think the issue has ever come up here before. I certainly wasn’t commenting on the internet at the time of the scandal.

            What you fail to realize is that people aren’t the gullible dipshit ignorami that you yourself are.

            You claim that Reagan must have known. I really do believe and have always believed that he knew. The unconstitutional remark was about impeachment.

            And yet you believe that obama knows nothing about what goes on in his admin. Why Bruce? Because he’s black?

          • Brucehenry

            Yesterday you proved over and over how little you know about history. Your buffoonish comments, so ridiculously uninformed, amused me.

            Today here you are again, but in addition to ignorance, you throw dishonesty into the mix.

            Over and over you have claimed that I have said “Reagan knew.” I didn’t. I’ve said I SUSPECTED he knew more than he, or Congress, let on.

            You insisted repeatedly that I was defending alleged Sandinista atrocities. I never did any such thing.

            Now you claim that YOU never said what you have been saying throughout this thread — that Reagan likely DIDN’T “know,” or at least that it was never proven that he did. Suddenly you claim you weren’t saying that all along but instead that “Of course he knew but it doesn’t matter because Constitution.” Which of course you haven’t.

            Yes it amuses me to beclown you when you reveal how terribly ignorant of history you are but my patience runs out when you unashamedly lie like a rug as you just now have.

            I’ll be back another day, I’m so fucking done with your lying ass for this weekend.

          • jim_m

            No. I said that you claimed that Reagan knew. Not once did I say that he did not. The whole point was to illustrate the double standard that you have. You are only disappointed that I am not holding the same double standard.

            The only dishonest one here is you.

          • jim_m

            It would have been a pretty poor illustration if I held the same double standard. I suppose that you assumed that I, like many on the right, believed that Reagan did not know, but you fail to remember that in the 80’s I was a liberal. I believed at the time that Reagan knew and I have never changed that belief. I also thought that the whole thing was stupid because I thought that the Sandinistas needed to be opposed and that the dems were wrong for trying to criminalize foreign policy.

          • jim_m

            Oh, yes. You forget my past. You forget that I once thought as you do. You forget that I really never believed that Reagan didn’t know. Now you are running away after making false accusations and making yourself look like an ass. Again.

          • jim_m

            Tactical ploy? You forget that I was a liberal in the 80’s you fool. This I have told you before and you forgot. Once more we see that you are just a desperate liar.

          • jim_m

            Wow. So why is it that you find it so hard to believe that Reagan knew nothing of Iran Contra when you find it so easy to believe that obama knows nothing of the multitude of scandals that have occurred on his watch?

            You’re so full of crap. You’re not even a convincing hypocrite. You are willfully blind .

          • jim_m

            Here’s the NYT, that well known organ of right wing propaganda, repeating that your heroes are mass murderers.

            So deal with it. You are an apologist for mass murder. When do we get to hear you deny the Holocaust?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            She’s the one who landed under sniper fire in Bosnia, right? And promised the father of murdered Navy Seal Tyrone Woods that the US would “… make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.” Very much like her husband, she’s an accomplished liar, so I’m sure she’s one of your favorites.

          • Brucehenry

            If you don’t like her don’t vote for her I’m just saying she’ll probably be the next president.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            And you’re OK with that.

          • Brucehenry

            Given a choice between her and Cruz? Huckabee? Paul? Bush 3? Sanfuckingtorum?

            Yeah, I am.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            While none of your named possible candidates is my current favorite [reserving the right to change my mind] I would prefer any of them over lying Hillary who’s only claim to fame, besides those she makes up, is that she married Bill.
            Un, on second thought, let me get back to you about Jeb and the Huckster.

        • WHO’S THE BUSTER

          Wow, I have read “palling around” twice on this thread.
          Who would have thought that “Palinisms” would survive long after her political (and most likely after Iowa, her career as a celebrity) have expired.

          Next thing you know I will be hearing “lamestream”. Just how many times did she repeat that rather weak wordplay?

          Oh well, you could always tell that she thought of herself as both clever and funny because it elicited so much laughter. She was seemingly unaware that it wasn’t laughing, but snickering at her being unintentionally funny.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            I was commenting on Obama palling around with terrorists long before Palin was a candidate. It was only leftists and the MSM [B
            IRM] who didn’t know and/or ignored Obama’s radical leftist parents, mentors, friends, acquaintances, pastors, etc. – or they giggled in delight.

          • Brucehenry

            The truth is everyone knew but didn’t see these things as problems, only you guys, who imagine yourselves smarter than everyone else, because you, clever, cunning individuals that you are, are able to see RIGHT THROUGH the lies of the lamestream media in a way in which we sheeple cannot.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            No, I don’t think I’m smarter than anyone else. I do think that most of the MSM did not lie about Obama, they just studiously refused to vet him. Imagine if Romney had started his political career in the living room of two unrepentant KKK members. What would you say?

            Obama:

            “…declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years.”

            So the media stopped asking questions about it.

            He described one job in New York as:

            “…a job in an unidentified “consulting house to multinational corporations,” where he is “a spy behind enemy lines,” startled to find himself with a secretary, a suit and money in the bank.”

            Yet fellow workers described it as:

            “…a small newsletter-publishing and research firm, with about 250 employees worldwide,… Far from a bastion of corporate conformity, they said, it was informal and staffed by young people making modest wages. Employees called it “high school with ashtrays.”

            Many workers dressed down. Only the vice president in charge of Mr. Obama’s division got a secretary, they said.”

            And the media stopped asking questions about it.

            He dismisses in one sentence his first community organizing job — work he went on to do in Chicago — though a former supervisor remembers him as “a star performer.”

            And the media stopped asking questions about it.

            He was raised by dedicated leftists, hung around with leftists on campus, attended Rev. Wright’s church for 20 years, believed that the Constitution was wrong, and started his career in the living room of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. And yet, he never was asked when his ideas changed, when he began to believe in the United States as a country of opportunity, when he began to believe in the American dream, when he began to believe in traditional American ideals of the free market and individual responsibility.
            One doesn’t have to be “smart” to think up those questions, just genuinely curious and not afraid of the answers that might be given by one’s preferred candidate. Because they weren’t asked and the candidate not vetted, we have a President who has lied repeatedly about his major policy initiatives, from ObamaCare to same-sex marriage.

          • Brucehenry

            Talk about “wallowing” oh my God. Please seek help for your obsessional mania.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            So what would you say about Romney starting his political career in the living room of unrepentant Nazis?

          • Brucehenry

            I’ve had a few things to say about Reagan beginning his 1980 campaign with a speech about “states’ rights” in Philadelphia, MS, so, point taken.

          • jim_m

            Point taken and quickly forgotten in your case.

          • Brucehenry

            Never let it be said that Jim took yes for an answer.

          • jim_m

            Rule one: Never believe a liar. I apply that in your case until you show that you actually have taken the point.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Yeah, that’s exactly like Obama, Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, etc.

          • jim_m

            Jesus what an asshole you are. DO you really think that Palin invented the fucking English language? Grow up.

          • WHO’S THE BUSTER

            She didn’t invent any words, well except refudiate, so let’s say popularized.

            “asshole?”

            Well, allrighty then.

            You do realize these are merely differing opinions on a comment page, right?

            Right?

          • jim_m

            I’m sorry, mr dimwit. What did you mean by accusing people of using “Palinisms”? It sure as hell seemed to be that you thought that everyone who used those words must be an acolyte of hers. While you may be so obsessed with Palin that you have memorized her speech patterns, the rest of us just speak the way we normally do.

            Or maybe you are simply too dimwitted to understand what you write yourself.

  • FrenchKiss

    Alex Wagner is a Jew-hating bitch. It’s not surprising she would invite the chief American Jew-hater.

    • WHO’S THE BUSTER

      “Alex Wagner is a Jew-hating bitch.”

      Just what are you basing that on?

  • JWH

    And both of them were in A Few Good Men with Kevin Bacon.

  • jim_m

    Meanwhile, while the White House prepares the latest set of lies that obama’s best friends are not communists and anti-American terrorists, the JV team beheaded 21 Egyptian Christians. Stay tuned for obama to teach us how this is OK because somewhere sometime a thousand yearrs ago a Christian did something bad. Maybe he should spend less time thinking up recruiting propaganda for the enemy, golfing and partying with his commie pals.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Yeah, that leading from behind policy in Libya is genius, I tell ya, genius! Just remember that the Islamic State is not really Islamic.

      “Libya has largely fallen into a state of civil war and complete lawlessness following the U.S.-led effort that ultimately deposed its late autocrat Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Islamist militias, some of which have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, have been fighting fierce battles against the forces of secular, anti-Islamist Libyan General Khalifa Haftar.”

      http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/15/isis-beheads-21-christians-promises-to-conquer-rome-by-allahs-permission/

  • 914

    Just some random palling around for Barry.

  • Michael Lang

    Wittle Brucie’s fascist mania is in full bloom here.