Nothing Is More Unpopular Than Losing A War

[Flanders]

Here is the first part of Megyn Kelly interviewing unrepentant Communist Bill Ayers:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8as2Ay_qGDM]Interview With Bill Ayres [Part 1] with Megyn Kelly - Kelly File - YouTube[/ame]​

Kelly did alright if beating a dead horse was the goal. Americans who pay attention already know the truth about the violence designed to intimidate; the bombings, getting away with it when he and his equally brutal wife landed in soft spots in academia. Americans not old enough to remember the Vietnam War heard all of it, and more, being dissected countless times after Ayers’ relationship with Taqiyya the Liar became public knowledge. If Kelly wanted to uncover something new she should have nailed Ayers on these points:

Ayers, while refusing to talk about his specific involvement in bombings, typically defends his group by characterizing it as one of many protesting an unpopular war that was taking innocent lives abroad.

The worst generation in America’s history stopped saying “unjust war” when they realized somebody might ask “Do you mean unjust to Communists?” If you insist on sticking with unpopular ask Ayers how popular was being slaughtered by North Vietnamese Communists.

I never heard of a war that was popular to the losers. Indeed, how the hell can America losing a war be popular to anybody except Communists. More to the point, Ayers and the Left would not get away with calling the Vietnam War unpopular had America won. The same would be true of Iraq and Afghanistan had Taqiyya the Liar not snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Here’s the true reason for the Left’s opposition to the Vietnam War:

But often lost in conversations Ayers has engaged in over the years about his radical past is the indisputable fact that the ultimate aim of the Weather Underground was to overthrow the U.S. government and replace it with a communist regime.

Employing the language of the global communist movement – “comrades” battling “American imperialism” to “liberate” the “oppressed masses” through “revolution” – Ayers’ group clearly had much more in mind than ending the Vietnam War.

Obama friend tried to overthrow U.S. government
Bill Ayers doesn't want to discuss whether he's guilty of sedition
Published: 18 hours ago
ART MOORE

Obama friend tried to overthrow U.S. government​

There has never been any doubt that the leaders of the Vietnam anti-war movement were fighting for Communism rather than fighting against an “unpopular war.” That is what Ayers does not want to talk about. Ayers had 40 years to hone his bullshit on the other stuff to perfection. Should he ever be cornered he cannot get past the true reason he and the others opposed stopping the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia.

I’ll leave it to Megyn Kelly to challenge Ayers’ standard crap. I only heard him say one thing that deserves a comment. Move the cursor to 16:00 in the above video to hear him doublespeak the slippery slope.

Is that not the slippery slope to Mao and Hitler and the others?

In Ayers’ worldview fighting against Communism puts America on the slippery slope to Communism or Facism. I wonder if he thinks that fighting Islamic fundamentalism puts America on the slippery slope to a worldwide Muslim caliphate.

Finally, Ayers knows that nobody in the media will mention Communism in the same sentence with the Vietnam War. If they did they would have to question John Kerry’s motives along with the motives of the rest of them who are still in positions of power in government and in academia.

 

[Flanders]

Here’s a bit more B.S. from Ayers. In this segment he parrots another asshole —— Saul Alinsky. Ayers spouts the same crap that made Alinsky an icon to America-haters:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XfVUktKzPSA]Interview With Bill Ayres & Dinesh D'Souza [Part 3] with Megyn Kelly - YouTube[/ame]​

I’m surprised that neither Kelly or D’Souza pointed out that Colonial Americans fought for independence. Sometimes I forget and call it The American Revolution, but in the interest of accuracy it should always be called THE WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE. Individual Rights only came after independence was won. The kind of revolution that Ayers advocates is all about collectivism.

Indeed, the government America’s Founders gave us placed the individual far above the government. That remains the only government in mankind’s long sorry history of governments where the individual was encouraged to thrive. Ayers, Alinsky, and the rest of them talk about government making things better through revolution. They all make it sound like they want to replace, or improve, America’s bad government with a good government, but their true agenda is to destroy the individual. If they could find a way to kill individuals without using the power of government they would do it.

I hope you noticed that Ayers glorified COLLECTIVIST revolution in America while he failed to mention the results of Communist revolutions in the rest of the world. And just like Saul Alinsky in his novel Reveille for Radicals he uses the word radicals when he means Communists:

The American Radicals were in the colonies grimly forcing the addition of the Bill of Rights to our Constitution. Saul Alinsky

Alinsky’s statement is so absurd anyone who imitates the old Commie cannot be taken seriously. More to the point, Bill Ayers never had an original thought in his entire life. Take the title of professor away from him and everything he says is a pathetic joke. Can you imagine the garbage that guy taught his students. And he did it with tax dollars. The man himself is an object of ridicule irrespective of the platforms society gives him.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Palin wanted to highlight Obama's friendship with a domestic terrorist but McCain manager paid for by Soros wouldn't let her

 

[mamooth]

So after the interview, do you righties love Ayers more or less?

I won't insult you by asking about your love for Alinksy, as I know no force on earth could ever diminish the love a conservative feels for Alinksy, or their unswerving devotion to the tactics of Alinksy. Flanders here will always be carrying a tattered copy of "Rules for Radicals", folded up inside his Little Red Book.

 

[Flanders]

Palin wanted to highlight Obama's friendship with a domestic terrorist but McCain manager paid for by Soros wouldn't let her

To CrusaderFrank: Good reminder. I’ve always said that Barack Taqiyya would have defeated McCain in a landslide had Sarah not been on the ticket.

Regarding Ayers’ friendship with Taqiyya: Any connection to anti-Vietnam War protestors makes everybody in the media, and in Washington, very nervous because of John Kerry and the others who advocated defeat for their own country no matter how they worded it. The only good thing I can see in Megyn Kelly’s interview is Ayers dredging it all up again.

NOTE: M. Catharine Evans over at the American Thinker exposes Ayers’ technique:

After listening to Ayers, we must conclude: once a psychopath, always a psychopath. Ayers exhibited such a cold-blooded glibness when pressed about the murders and firebombings he helped to instigate as a co-founder of the Weather Underground that there’s little doubt he has not renounced violence as a way to overthrow the government.

So does psychologist Robert Hare have the answer to Ayers's motive for appearing on The Kelly File?

From Hare:

Psychopaths view any social exchange as a “feeding opportunity,” a contest or a test of wills in which there can be only one winner. Their motives are to manipulate and take, ruthlessly and without remorse.​

XXXXX​

Could it be that Ayers the psychopath enjoyed hearing Kelly list the numerous bombings his group was responsible for in the 1970s? At one point he did boast about his wife Bernardine Dohrn being on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List when he told Kelly there were a lot of great people on it. Ayers sounded like fellow domestic terrorist "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski.

July 3, 2014
Why Did Bill Ayers Agree to an interrogation?
By M. Catharine Evans

Blog: Why Did Bill Ayers Agree to an interrogation?​

Megyn Kelly could upset Ayers’ game plan by telling him to his face “You helped bring defeat to your own country. You gave the enemy reason to hold out in hopes of a political victory. Everything you stood for and did got a lot of Americans killed. So please don’t tell me the group you founded, the Weather Underground, did not kill anyone.”

 

[CrusaderFrank]

''I don't regret setting bombs..... 'I feel we didn't do enough.'' W Ayers, Domestic Terrorist 9/11/2001

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

Here is the first part of Megyn Kelly interviewing unrepentant Communist Bill Ayers:

Interview With Bill Ayres [Part 1] with Megyn Kelly - Kelly File - YouTube​

Kelly did alright if beating a dead horse was the goal. Americans who pay attention already know the truth about the violence designed to intimidate; the bombings, getting away with it when he and his equally brutal wife landed in soft spots in academia. Americans not old enough to remember the Vietnam War heard all of it, and more, being dissected countless times after Ayers’ relationship with Taqiyya the Liar became public knowledge. If Kelly wanted to uncover something new she should have nailed Ayers on these points:

Ayers, while refusing to talk about his specific involvement in bombings, typically defends his group by characterizing it as one of many protesting an unpopular war that was taking innocent lives abroad.

The worst generation in America’s history stopped saying “unjust war” when they realized somebody might ask “Do you mean unjust to Communists?” If you insist on sticking with unpopular ask Ayers how popular was being slaughtered by North Vietnamese Communists.

I never heard of a war that was popular to the losers. Indeed, how the hell can America losing a war be popular to anybody except Communists. More to the point, Ayers and the Left would not get away with calling the Vietnam War unpopular had America won. The same would be true of Iraq and Afghanistan had Taqiyya the Liar not snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Here’s the true reason for the Left’s opposition to the Vietnam War:

But often lost in conversations Ayers has engaged in over the years about his radical past is the indisputable fact that the ultimate aim of the Weather Underground was to overthrow the U.S. government and replace it with a communist regime.

Employing the language of the global communist movement – “comrades” battling “American imperialism” to “liberate” the “oppressed masses” through “revolution” – Ayers’ group clearly had much more in mind than ending the Vietnam War.

Obama friend tried to overthrow U.S. government
Bill Ayers doesn't want to discuss whether he's guilty of sedition
Published: 18 hours ago
ART MOORE

Obama friend tried to overthrow U.S. government​

There has never been any doubt that the leaders of the Vietnam anti-war movement were fighting for Communism rather than fighting against an “unpopular war.” That is what Ayers does not want to talk about. Ayers had 40 years to hone his bullshit on the other stuff to perfection. Should he ever be cornered he cannot get past the true reason he and the others opposed stopping the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia.

I’ll leave it to Megyn Kelly to challenge Ayers’ standard crap. I only heard him say one thing that deserves a comment. Move the cursor to 16:00 in the above video to hear him doublespeak the slippery slope.

Is that not the slippery slope to Mao and Hitler and the others?

In Ayers’ worldview fighting against Communism puts America on the slippery slope to Communism or Facism. I wonder if he thinks that fighting Islamic fundamentalism puts America on the slippery slope to a worldwide Muslim caliphate.

Finally, Ayers knows that nobody in the media will mention Communism in the same sentence with the Vietnam War. If they did they would have to question John Kerry’s motives along with the motives of the rest of them who are still in positions of power in government and in academia.

Seems like a good bloke.

He bombed a few buildings, hurt no one against the US slaughtering 6,000 people a day.

 

[Flanders]

Seems like a good bloke.

He bombed a few buildings, hurt no one against the US slaughtering 6,000 people a day.

To Urbanguerrilla: By your standards Joseph Goebbels was an even better bloke. He did not bomb ANY buildings!

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

Seems like a good bloke.

He bombed a few buildings, hurt no one against the US slaughtering 6,000 people a day.

To Urbanguerrilla: By your standards Joseph Goebbels was an even better bloke. He did not bomb ANY buildings!

Well there you go, you can only condemn someone for what they did, not for what they didnt do.

 

[Flanders]

Well there you go, you can only condemn someone for what they did, not for what they didnt do.

To Urbanguerrilla: Does that mean liberals should stop condemning hate speech since speech alone is not action? Be careful now, you are treading close to saying that politically incorrect speech should not be punished which is what I believe.

NOTE: The most vile speech requires the most protection. And yes, even the crap that Goebbels spouted would be protected so long as the government does not ban opposing views.

 

[Urbanguerrilla]

Well there you go, you can only condemn someone for what they did, not for what they didnt do.

To Urbanguerrilla: Does that mean liberals should stop condemning hate speech since speech alone is not action? Be careful now, you are treading close to saying that politically incorrect speech should not be punished which is what I believe.

NOTE: The most vile speech requires the most protection. And yes, even the crap that Goebbels spouted would be protected so long as the government does not ban opposing views.

It all very much depends on what you mean by 'hate speech' and 'politically incorrect speech', certainly we should go the extra mile to defend free speech, which is a fundamental tenet of democracy and freedom imo.

 

[Flanders]

It all very much depends on what you mean by 'hate speech' and 'politically incorrect speech',

To Urbanguerrilla: What a sly way of saying you would ban some hate speech and some politically incorrect speech?

Perhaps you should tell me what you mean. An example of the speech you would ban would help tremendously. For my part, I cannot separate hate & politically incorrect speech from all other speech regarding the First Amendment.

certainly we should go the extra mile to defend free speech,

To Urbanguerrilla: If you are willing to go the extra mile perhaps you would care to address my concern. I cannot find one Founding Father that said there are exceptions to freedom of speech:

First Amendment​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

which is a fundamental tenet of democracy and freedom imo.

To Urbanguerrilla: Now you’ve gone and torn it. See #7 permalink in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/297114-the-rotund-one-blows-it.html

 

[whitehall]

Why would an unrepentant terrorist consent to an interview on Fox? Plug a book? Vindicate his past conduct? I like Meagan Kelly but I think she was unprepared and she didn't do a very good job. There is no doubt that Ayers is guilty of the felony murder of his former girlfriend and three other comrades who were killed by the bomb they were making which, according to testimony, was intended for a Ft. Dix dance. You can include a couple of hundred other felonies which were all dismissed by a friendly federal judge and the democrat party dominated "justice" dept didn't have the will to appeal the decision. It's alleged that Ayers' wife Bernadine Dohrn helped plan the Brinks armored car robbery that resulted in the murder of two Police Officers and two Brinks guards in the 80's. For some reason the democrat party dominated "justice" dept at the time declined to prosecute.

 

[Flanders]

I like Meagan Kelly but I think she was unprepared and she didn't do a very good job.

To whitehall: I thought the same thing, but if you read the praise she received from the professional know-it-all class she aced it. Any journalist with an ounce of brains could have crucified that bum by not playing his game.

I’m sure Kelly had the facts at her fingertips, but to me that she was unprepared intellectually, or she simply did not want to defend the Vietnam War.

Basically, Vietnam was the right war at the right time. The only thing wrong with Vietnam was that it was another Peace Without Victory war that ended in defeat instead of Peace Without Victory like Korea. I’ve always believed that there would have been no Vietnam War had the Korean War been fought with total victory as the goal.