Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:08PM

When is the Wall St Journal going to finally write a piece on the Wall St Journal no longer being relevant?

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:08PM

Look, I'm for the bombing thing

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:08PM

Technically speaking, are we really supposed to help out Georgia? Its Russia's backyard. We can play that game but it will lead to a more serious conflict and possible cold war scenerios.

As far as Tehran, who cares? We don't really need to do anything anyway. I guarantee Israel is not going to wait to lay it down if they feel like it.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:09PM

That was informative and upbeat! I didn't realize we had any cultural status left to lose. This must mean the Germans are going to stop worshiping David Hasselhoff.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:10PM

How about instead of cash, we give the Palestinians a hundred and fifty million dollars worth of explosives and AK-47's? That's all they're going to spend it on anyway and we've got the shit just lying around.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:11PM

Damn rumor mongering is bullying my favorite European bank. :(

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:12PM

Damn rumor mongering is bullying my favorite European bank. :(

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:12PM

So, can anyone tell me why that HSBC PDF that was up earlier is "not legal to distribute in the US, Canada, or Australia," according to the disclaimer on it?

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:13PM

We are all Georgians now. We must spread freedom and democracy to Georgia. Maybe the WMD that were lost in Iraq are in Georgia? Ever think of that geniuses? We must attack before we are attacked. Memo to Sara Palin: that's the Bush Doctrine.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:13PM

I totally agree, @4. Pretty jaded with the World Cop title anyway.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:13PM

In the general thesis, I agree. The US has had terrible fiscal policies and our debt and economic troubles will diminish our influence.

However, America has been brilliant in exporting these problems. The subprime crisis was really only possible because European banks bought tons of cruddy assets and now they suffer. This 'US problem' has certainly harmed Europe's influence.

The run up and crash in oil prices has affected all of the petrol states - Russia, Canada, Venezuela, Brazil and the whole Middle East. If energy prices continue to fall and oil goes below $60, these countries will have no economic leverage.

That leaves China which has huge surpluses yet has sunk most of those into US sovereign and agency debt.

The US still leads the planet in GDP and overall wealth. China does have a massive population and huge reserves. But as we move more and more toward economies built on human capital, the Chinese are going to be our biggest competitors. Has this crisis helped them out? A little bit, sure, though their biggest export market is in trouble.

So in short, yes, the US is in trouble and can't play Daddy Warbucks to this crisis - but neither can anyone else.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:14PM

@9- by "up earlier" do you mean "currently up"? b/c it is.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:15PM

I beleive its because the investments are not SEC registered. You can sell them to high net worth individuals or corporations with the appropriate paperwork on file. But distributing the HSBC doc to the public is deemed an offering, which is not allowed.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:16PM

Andrew Lahde's farewell letter made it on cnbc before DB???

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:16PM

We are all Georgians now. We must spread freedom and democracy to Georgia. Maybe the WMD that were lost in Iraq are in Georgia? Ever think of that geniuses? We must attack before we are attacked. Memo to Sara Palin: that's the Bush Doctrine.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:19PM

"Andrew Lahde's farewell letter made it on cnbc before DB???" are you a fucking idiot? db had it up a minimum of an hour before cnbc:

http://dealbreaker.com/2008/10/andrew-ladhe-goes-too-far.php

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:20PM

#15 Go home

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:27PM

they've been bombing to stay relevant for a while now..
Chomsky

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:33PM

Andrew Lahde's farewell letter made it on cnbc before DB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:36PM

cnbc employee@23- are you seriously going to keep spamming that (categorically false) comment? try saying something funny, or if not funny, useful.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:38PM

I used to be a fun, likeable Khmer Rouge apologist.

- Gnome Chumpsky

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:39PM

Echo what 12 said.

I love these lib MSM articles whining about US losing prestige, the US losing its influence, the US going down the tubes, etc. Wah Wah Wah.

Call me when kids all over the world stop eating at McDs or KFCs, wearing Nikes, watching Kobe Bryant, and listening to our crap music and watching MTV. Or when 95% of the world's countries stop looking to us for a handout and to come to their aid when they are attacked by the islamofacists.

Or better yet, call me when those in the US that are considered poor - you know, the ones who somehow can still afford to eat plenty of fast food and own Ipods and cell phones - stop complaining long enough to go to the booths and elect Obama. ONLY THEN I'll realize that this country is headed towards the sh!tter.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 4:52PM

@ 27, you had me up until the Obama thing.

Have you seen the polls?

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 5:00PM

With 12 and 27 on this one. Focus on what people do, not what they say or write. Let me know when the US starts experiencing net migration outflows because things are so bad here and so great everywhere else.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 5:05PM

27 Actually I would think the US has headed for the shi!!ter if it turns out that enough people actually take an airhead like Sarah Snowpants serious. She is in fact a charming lady, but no way VP material.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 5:05PM

@28 general agreement, but the big question is whether Putin can keep this going if the price of oil craters. Despite the sensible rush to diversify, Russia is very much a petrol state.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 5:06PM

girl @18 sings the loony left tune again.

Considering the fact that 90% of the $150MM goes to people who would love to see nothing more than America destroyed and Americans killed - that is an AWFULLY generous amount.

I really do not think that is the case with the $4B going to Israel.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 5:07PM

30 You know, that day could come before you know it. Americans live better than they deserve, the result of running huge defecits, importing cheep labor and basically creating sprawl. Those things can't continue forever.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 5:09PM

34 Not to be too provacative here, but maybe the reason they want us killed has something to do with a perceived injustice regarding the 150m/4b split.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 5:12PM

Oh yeah. This will be the Iceland and Dubai century.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 5:14PM

@ 29 - like i said (or meant to say) - when Obama gets elected, that's when I know we are headed to into the dumper.

I have seen the polls. Obama Hussein up anywhere from 2 to 10, depending on the polls. That's what scares me.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 5:18PM

38 What should scare you is the alternative: a doddering fool, with a prom queen as his backup.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 5:22PM

38 Let me guess what scares you: he's going to change the US into a Muslim nation and a socialist state. No? then what. Please tell

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 5:32PM

@35 - 30 here. It is certainly possible but every time things have been bad here, there are almost always worse everywhere else.

Either way, time to go drinking.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 5:39PM

@ 39 & 40 - leaving aside the specific facts that Obama is incredibly inexperienced, naive, has no foreign experiece to speak of, no executive experience, and hasn't held a real job in his life, what scares me is putting any Dem in the WH with a Dem majority in Congress. That should scare you and anyone else who cares about freedom.

@39 - Given the above, I'd prefer a doddering fool.

@40 - Obama's not Muslim.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 5:47PM

Ah yes, freedom. To lie about your income and take out a loan you have no hope of ever repaying. God Bless America.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 6:09PM

Like the Patriot Act and the nationalization of the banking and mortgage industry are the hallmarks of a free country.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 6:48PM

#36, 34 here. You really think that the Palestinians want Americans dead because they get less money? Really? What planet do you live on sir.

Not to mention that the US doesn't owe them a dime. Try once again, will you?

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 7:10PM

#46 Why do you think they want Americans dead? Because of some bullshit religious stuff? Stop being obtuse.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 7:44PM

#48, you know that referring to it as 'bullshit religious' stuff may land you in serious trouble? when will infidels like you learn?

And just to be clear here, they dont just hate Americans. I really do not see any German or Australian being the target of their particular affection either.

Let us also not forget that the supposed source of their angst is a tiny nation which occupies 8000 measly sq miles in the midst of almost 150k sq miles + of uninterrupted muslim territory. Also, this tiny nation is also devoid of the one precious (and very very profitable) natural resource of that region (hint: trades by the barrel).

So this piece of land - which for all practical purposed should be an afterthought - faces an existential threat with all it neighbors hell bent on wiping it off of the map and but for America, they would not exist. I repeat - their EXISTENCE is the cause of all the furor, not any of their policies.

SO once again, why does America owe 150MM dollars to people hell bent of destroying it, and why is that somehow equivalent to supporting a friend and ally - who just wishes to be left alone?

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 8:18PM

@42:

You would rather have an old "doddering fool", whose mental strength is in question, and who has surrounded himself with less intelligent people, than a mentally sharp, SENATOR (that, and the experience needed to get elected to that position, is sufficient executive experience, IMO), who has surrounded himself with other sharp characters (one of whom is from the other party)? Biden aside, Obama has stated that another Republican senator, Richard Lugar, will be apart of his administration.

It might be scary to you that a Dem Pres. could reside with a Dem. Congress, but he has exemplified his ability to work with the other party, and support some of their stances.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 8:36PM

"he has exemplified his ability "

Are you sure? Have you followed Obama's career or even what he said in the debates?

Once again, what was the one SINGLE legislation that Obama supported in his short career that went against the base of the Democratic party - the one where he took a principled stand? The only times he has voted with the Republicans was when botho Democrats and Republicans agreed on the issue. Please enlighten me with an issue where he supported the opposition and opposed his party.

'Sharpness' is a wierd criterion to evaluate a politician against - especially when you seem to be making it the only criretion and overriding everything else. Some of the most vicious people on this earth have been tremendoudly sharp people. I daresay but bin laden is probably also a very very sharp guy. As was Stalin. So what does that count for in their favor?

And given that Obama stated that he would go for public financing and then went back on it, given that he first said that he could never dissociate from Wright like he couldn't from his grandmother and then anyways ended up dissociating from him anyway, it takes quite a leap of faith (or purposeful ignorance) to take anything he says on face value.

Also, I would highly question the judgment or mental faculties of someone who voluntarily chose to associate over long periods of time (and till it was not politically inconvenient) with outlandish characters like Wright and Ayers.

With due apoligies to Bill Buckley, I would rather have a random person picked from a farm someone out there be president than have Marx or Stalin be so (mind you, both were very sharp people but fatally flawed otherwise).

ps. Being SENATOR (your emphasis) is having legislative experience, not executive.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 9:42PM

NewAlpha is ripping off ADI Groupe via seed investments in shit funds. Why do you think this is? Is someone getting paid off? These fuckers are are going to get slammed $/prison.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 10:05PM

Get ready to be burned #50:

1) "Please enlighten me with an issue where he supported the opposition and opposed his party."
--He supported FISA legislation. Next to no other dems did. As an aside, McCain did too.

2) "'Sharpness' is a wierd criterion to evaluate a politician against - especially when you seem to be making it the only criretion and overriding everything else."
--I would like to make it clear that it is not my only criterion. Assumptions make for weak arguments. Additionally, it is not a weird criterion. Would you support a candidate whom you considered to be inconsistent with mental sharpness? During the last debate, McCain certainly displayed a lack of awareness (and self-awareness) at times (see: Ayers/AKORN argument).

3) "Some of the most vicious people on this earth have been tremendoudly sharp people. I daresay but bin laden is probably also a very very sharp guy. As was Stalin. So what does that count for in their favor?"
--Because a good man and an evil man share a trait, it does not devalue that trait. Let's assume you are smart. We can safely agree that Hitler was, too. Does that devalue your intelligence? No, it is valued by your employer everyday. Being smart, being sharp, etc., counts for something.

Be rational. You're trying to put down someone's perspective by comparing fucking Bin Laden and Obama. The Wal-Mart greeters can see that that is absurd.

And you mentioned Ayers. Did YOU not see the debate? Did you hear what Obama said? When Ayers' was a radical, Obama was just a child. They later "worked together", by being on the same boards of groups working on education reform and anti-poverty issues. Are you similar and/or influenced by the random people on your boards?

Sorry, about the executive/legislative confusion. Here's some executive for you: he directed Illinois' Project Vote, he founded Public Allies, and, founded Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Most of his earlier career was practing and teaching law, however.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 10:13PM

P.S., Bush had plenty of executive experience. Did that get him anywhere in the eyes of America approval, or from both his and his opposing party? Bill Clinton has NONE. He certainly has been considered a good president by a substantial percentage of America.

Disclaimer: I am not a democrat. I just completely disagree with your reasoning.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 11:04PM

#52,

- Are you seriously going to push the Ayer's excuses Obama is trying to come up with? Maybe I am just different from you but I would never in my life look forward to even sharing the same building, leave alone sharing foundation memberships, accepting employment offers and being guest of honor at house parties of bin laden or tim mcveigh (if he were still alive). NEVER.

So are you pushing the excuse that it is ok to be buddies with terrorists of their acts of terror occured when you were a kid? Really? And then harp on your judgment?

- He voted for FISA AFTER he had become the Presidential candidate. He also suddenly dissociated with his mentor of many years Jeremiah Wright, suddenly supported gun-rights and death penalty. Hello? Can we go back to non-campaign behavior? You burned nothing but your own brain cells here!

- You offered 3 qulifications for Obama

1) He has surrounded himself with smart people (who? Pelosi? Biden?????) I doubt there are any 'smart' politicians around. As far as the policy experts go, please show which policy expert on the McCain side is a retard compared to the Obama side, objectively. Very weak argument.

2) He has executive experience - FALSE. If anything McCain has way more.

3) He is 'sharper'

Given that 2 of the 3 qualifications are clearly suspect, the only one worth quibbling over (and hence solely important - as per you, not me) is sharpness. No, given a lot of other things it is NOT a disqualification.

But you have NOT offered anything else other than sharpness! All I said that your single legged argument fails as the bad traits can very easily overcome that good trait? Delve into Walmart greeter bashing once again, shall we?

Also, I didn't compare bin Laden and Obama, I essentially compared bin Laden and McCain (by taking your argument forward.) If bin laden is sharper than McCain, and lets say knows how to chose the right people (he does know how to chose the covert ops / explosives experts for sure) should we elect him?

I never made an argument out of 'executive experience' or 'sharpness.' YOU did. So why question me on the relevance of experience (do I sense some overcompensation?)

I also think that McCain is not a sharp person. More importantly, I think he has all his policies wrong. He spent his life trying to be a Democrat (other than in national security issues) and I love to see how Democrats are giving it back to him. I would never vore for a person like him.

However, that hardly translates into an argument FOR Obama, who is even worse. He is a slick guy who talks from both sides of his mouth. It also helps that he has limited track record and hence he cannot be as effectively pinned down in his duplicitous campaign through past actions.

The only limited information available on him is through his past associations. And in each of his interactions, he seems to be terribly comfortable with and naturally attracted to the radical leftist elements. He is no Bill Clinton, who was clearly left of center.

So one candidate is an idiot and one is dangerous. Unfortunately, precisely at the time when the country needs a good leader - it has been handed this. It is a sad choice either way. I do not disagree with your reasoning because I see non. I certainly disagree with your choise - all the more so if you are not making it without party and/or racial considerations.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 11:14PM

There is some chance Obama is lying about how liberal he will be as president. One can hope it is all an act. His role as black prodigy and Democrat Senator running for president didn't give him much wiggle room, after all.

Pelosi, Boxer, the black leaders, and Congressional leaders have this personally insulting "kid in the candy store" attitude towards Barack which may backfire. Obama may be smart enough to do "First Black President" legacy control on day #1, and realize that Congress is so Democrat it will pass whatever the fuck he wants, however conservative.

That's mostly bullshit except for my sliver hope. Keep hope alive.

Posted by guest , Oct 17, 2008 11:20PM

"Maybe I am just different from you but I would never in my life look forward to even sharing the same building, leave alone sharing foundation memberships, accepting employment offers and being guest of honor at house parties of bin laden or tim mcveigh (if he were still alive)."

--I hope you don't do comparable analysis in your profession. Are you really trying to compare Ayers with Bin Laden and McVeigh. Use some judgement, guy. Let us not argue about their actual relationship, since it has not been made absolutely clear to the public. I hope we can both agree that, everything else aside, Obama is not a man whose intentions for office are any different than those of our previous presidents. Do you think Biden and Lugar would associate with anyone but that?

"He voted for FISA AFTER he had become the Presidential candidate"

--So? He got the candidate slot locked in. Since he didn't have to pander to the party, he could show a little bit of independence, that's a good trait. McCain has been the same way.

"You offered 3 qulifications for Obama"

--I'm not offering qualifications. I'm not even an Obama supporter. I wish everyday Romney or Bloomberg were candidates. (Haha, aren't these the "ideal conditions" Bloomberg was looking for, in terms of competition. Such is life...)

Posted by guest , Oct 18, 2008 1:10AM

"Are you really trying to compare Ayers with Bin Laden and McVeigh."

Yes, yes, yes 10,000 fucking times yes!! Please explain what is different? I will agree to one thing, the other two were 'sharper' and more capable terrorists. Other than that, planting bombs to kill innocent people is terrorism in MOST people's books. If anything, this guy is on record - 30 years hence - wishing he had done MORE! Seriously, what ARE you trying to say here? That Ayers is a good guy? Really?

"Do you think Biden and Lugar would associate with anyone but that?"

Is that what you are going by? Did you know that the was hero and patriot Eisenhower endorsed Nixon and yet that guy turned out to be a lying sack of shit?

I really cant understand what you are trying to say here.

- Are you saying that Ayers is not a terrorist? Why? (And you are wrong if you think so, even Obama agrees he was a terrorist.)

- If he is, and Obama chose to associate with him then is it justified because he tried to kill people when Obama was 8?

- And if so, then would you gladly hang out with any terrorist if their crimes were committed 20 years hence? So all Nazi/KKK hunting etc should be immediately banned as those folks are now respectable members of the society and hence convicting 90 year old men for crimes committed before the current law enforcement folks were even born is unjust?

You are going around in circles my friend because you are trying to defend the indefensible and you know it.

As far as the non-partisan working-across-the-aisle thing goes, I think that is the biggest irony as well as tragedy of this election. McCain is the TRUE bi-partisan guy, actually most Republicans dont even consider him to be Republican. He voted for immigration reform, against torture, for campaign finance reform, against tax-cuts, called out the radical right in his own party and still has an uncomfortable relationship with them and has also voted for some of the most liberal appointees to the Supreme Court. When there was a stalemate, he took the lead in creating the gang of 14 to get things done. And all of this has been before, during and after campaigns - showing that he is a TRUE independent.

On the other hand you have Obama. Check the box with EVERY position of the liberal wing of the Democratic party. Had the chance but didnt join the gan-of-14 (why?) Always voted against conservative judges. Slavish devotion to unions and union interests.

And somehow, he is supposed to be (in liberal circles) the 'unifier' and McCain is not. I dont like McCain, and am somewhat glad that he is facing what he is (should have know better than to be act so stupidly earlier). It is very tragic though. And totally unfair. And you still keep trying to equate Obama's single post primary pre-election act with McCains decades of actual bipartisan work. I do not like it, but for those who profess to prefer bipartisanship - McCain should have been the unambiguous choice.

The very fact that he is not validates my non-preference for bipartisanship. I am open about it. The ones who say they are for it are also not really for it. Else there is no way they would equate Obama and McCain.

Also, you keep repeating that you are not an Obama supporter and yet keep strongly defending him and repeating his talking points and trying to make him look better. So maybe you are an Obama fan, devotee, employee, lover?

Posted by guest , Oct 18, 2008 1:26AM

Republics got to fuck up the country for the last 8 years. Give the dems their chance at least it will even out the money grubbing from the tax payer to the parties...

Doesn't matter who gets elected. Welcome to the recession.

Posted by guest , Oct 18, 2008 3:49AM

@57, this is 56.

You put so many words in my mouth to make a point of your own, it's not worth it anymore. In no way was I trying to say that Ayers was not a terrorist (btw, he never said "wishing he had done MORE" in the context you're taking it; he was talking about citizens doing more to prevent Vietnam). I'm not trying to argue for him, I'm arguing what is fact.

You have no idea what it is to be objective. I am not an Obama supporter. I suppose you should take a nice trip to your subconscious. Your attempts at comparable examples, in addition to the claims you make, reveal a lot about you. As far as I go, I am 50/50 right now. I don't care if you believe me or not, you're past reason.

Posted by guest , Oct 18, 2008 3:57AM

#57, this is how you style your arguements:

1) Bid Laden is a leader.
2) Leaders are good.
3) Bin Laden is good.

We call this a fallacy.

Posted by guest , Oct 18, 2008 4:37AM

Me: Was Bill Ayers a terrorist?
You: In no way was I trying to say that Ayers was not a terrorist (note the double negation - typically a sign of evasion.)

You earlier said that comparing Bill Ayers to Laden and McVeigh (both terrorists) is fallacious and evidence of poor judgment. So apparently he is NOT a terrorist yet you did not not say that he isn't?? You havent even made any statements, only elaborate equivocation.

Also, here are direct quotes from Bill Ayers (along with him stomping the flag). The NYT tried to handle their socialist buddy with as delicate hands as they could yet this is what came through all those filters.

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' ..... Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ''Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at,''........''it's been quoted so many times I'm beginning to think I did,'' he said. ''It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.'' ...

So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said. (Note - this was very specifically directed towards whether he would commit violent acts - whatever the stimulus - again).

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

The only difference between Ayers and Stalin/Castro/Pol-Pot/Mao Zedong is that he was not particularly sharp. The objective was the same - setting up a communist totalitarian society and had Ayers and people like him succeeded, that is what the US would have become. Thankfully, there were some dumb folks who decide to cling to their guns and religion and they helped this country evade the fate suffered by those other people.

And yet somehow in leftist circles he is the little angel. He is involved in education I hear. I can only imagine what a man - who till date does not see wrong in what he did - will look forward to inculcate in any of the children unlucky enough to come under his influence. This is a man who fought for something and lost, but has not given up on it (communism) and is seething over his defeat.

So I will try once again. No words in your mouth. 2 VERY simple questions. They can actually be answered in monosyllables.

1) Was Bill Ayers a terrorist?
2) If someone committed an act of terror when you were young, is it ok to associate with him professionally and socially later on even though he may not have repented for / rejected his criminal acts?

No prevarication please.

Posted by guest , Oct 18, 2008 12:57PM

1) Yes he was a terrorist. However, like most things, there are degrees of terrorism. Bin Laden and McVeigh killed many many people. Bill Ayers has never killed anybody. He was a fucked up hippy, pissed about Vietnam, and performed sloppy Fight Club-esque acts. To compare someone who orchestrated 9/11 with a man who has never killed a person is flat out ridiculous. You're looking at this in black & white.

2) It is okay to be around a guy like that if you: 1) disagree with his past; and, 2) are working on something meaningful (hey, kinda like dispersing education grants to kids that need it). Should Obama have given up the opportunity to help some poor, smart kids out, because someone on the board of the group would be a political liability later? A real man would stay with the group, and do some good.

BTW, you accurately posted: ''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.'' There is another side to that story, so we don't really know the truth.

So, to be fair, he has said this: Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he said he had "no regrets" and that "we didn't do enough" he was speaking only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War, efforts which he has described as ". . . inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade."[22] Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.

Posted by guest , Oct 18, 2008 1:24PM

"He is involved in education I hear"

Yeah, he is a "distinguished" professor at U of Illinois.

Though I wouldn't compare him to the likes of Bin Laden, I have no idea how he got such a job lol...

Posted by guest , Oct 18, 2008 1:30PM

@60 - you were just undressed and made to look strupid. I believe the kids these days call it "pwned!".

Posted by guest , Oct 18, 2008 1:41PM

EP, you are obviously a tad naive and clueless about foreign affairs (what was that throwaway sentence on Palestine all about? The US is not Israel, let's not conflate the two nations).

I liked your blog - you were insightful about your work, an area you obviously knew well.

Not so sure if you should be spreading yourself so thin writing about matters better left to experts on foreign policy and diplomacy.

Would you have a career diplomat mouth off on the workings of the private equity industry? Didn't think so.

Posted by guest , Oct 18, 2008 4:23PM

"To compare someone who orchestrated 9/11 with a man who has never killed a person..."

But Ayers tried his best and his intention was to TOTALLY kill multiple innocent people and continue with it till his preferred form of governance/societal structure was in place! The "sloppy Fight Club-esque acts" included killing policemen, maiming judges and soldiers and the blast which killed half of these people involved a nail bomb they were building - which I would presume would NOT have been used to just scare kittens.

So if somehow the US had managed to avert 9/11 by keeping those 19 jihadis off the planes, then as per your logic bin Laden would not really be a terrorist! And then you put out an elaborate defense of the man who has clearly stated that 'violence' is still not off the table.

Not that it matters, you simply demonstrate the lunacy that marks the followers of the messiah. Is this country so devoid of ANY bright minds in the field of education that an unrepentant terrorist needs to lead the initiatives? Grants cannot be distributed to kids without the involvement of a terrorist? Really?

I am waiting for the day when bin Laden is appointed 'distinguished' professor of religion or islamic studies in some university. Or maybe international relations. Or gender studies. Hmmm, human rights?

Btw, I still will NEVER associate with bin laden for ANYTHING. Maybe you will, thats your choice.

Posted by guest , Oct 18, 2008 4:32PM

Oh, and here is something from Brian Flanagan - a buddy of Ayers' from the weather underground.

"Probably the most compelling of the interviewees is Brian Flanagan, whose name, unlike Ayers', Rudd's, or Bernardine Dohrn's, may be unknown even to '60s buffs. (It was to me.) Now a tavern owner in New York—who padded his income a bit recently by winning $23,000 on Jeopardy—Flanagan shows real anguish as he reflects on the Underground. The only person in the film to invoke Sept. 11, Flanagan compares himself and his former comrades to Islamist terrorists and to Timothy McVeigh, suggesting that all shared the conviction that their own knowledge of what was right for society entitled them to break laws, to kill, to engage in terrorism. He is not particularly eloquent, especially compared to some of his more "glamorous" co-conspirators, but he stumbles onto the film's more profound utterances. "When you feel that you have right on your side," he says at one point, "you can do some pretty horrific things."

Oh, and the nail bomb that killed the groups members was being manufactured to kill soldiers participating in an Army ball. That is your kind of harmless Fight Club-esque fun, right?

Posted by guest , Oct 18, 2008 4:45PM

See you don'te listen. "So if somehow the US had managed to avert 9/11 by keeping those 19 jihadis off the planes, then as per your logic bin Laden would not really be a terrorist".

-I said Ayers WAS a terrorist. So, as per my logic, Bin Laden would still be a terrorist. I said there were degrees of terrorism, not that Ayers wasn't a terrorist.

"you simply demonstrate the lunacy that marks the followers of the messiah".

-What are you talking about? I'm not a follower of any religion, Ayers, or Obama. All I've done is tone down your irrationalizations (Ayers is comparable to Bin Laden, Obama is unfit because he was on a philanthropic board with Ayers, etc.)

"Btw, I still will NEVER associate with bin laden for ANYTHING. Maybe you will, thats your choice."

-Where the fuck did this come from? Who said anything about associating with Bin Laden? This is getting ridiculous...

Posted by guest , Oct 18, 2008 4:51PM

From #69, "Who said anything about associating with Bin Laden? This is getting ridiculous..."

From #63,"... It is okay to be around a guy like that if you: 1) disagree with his past; and, 2) are working on something meaningful... A real man would stay with the group, and do some good..."

So if 1) you disagreed with bin laden's past and 2) were working on something meaningful (like feeding orphaned afgani children?) then you think it would be ok to work with him?

I may be missing something here but that is what that logic seems to work out to. Help me with it if I am wrong.

Posted by guest , Oct 18, 2008 4:55PM

"I said there were degrees of terrorism"

Oh ok. So there are GOOD terrorists/criminals (I presume anyone with predilection for left wing / socialist / communist cause) and there are BAD terrorists/criminals (right wingers, corporations, Bush, Cheney, Palin etc.)

Got it. You win. I have nothing to say.

Posted by guest , Oct 18, 2008 4:57PM

You're right there. But you're missing the point. Bin Laden is a much much more vial terrorist than Ayers was. In the big picture, associating with Ayers is barely an issue compared to associating with Bin Laden. Do you get it?

Posted by guest , Oct 18, 2008 5:03PM

""I said there were degrees of terrorism"

Oh ok. So there are GOOD terrorists/criminals"

NO! See, this is what I was talking about yesterday when you I said you are putting words in my mouth.

It does not been good/bad terrorism. It means there are levels of bad terrorism. Do you not see a degree of difference between orchestrating something like 9/11, and simply blowing up a statue. Different scales buddy.

That's like saying a bad trader who lost $300 million is comparable to a trader who lost $1 million.

Posted by guest , Oct 18, 2008 5:05PM

Stop implying I am some left-wing/commie, too. I am a conservative in the classical sense.

Posted by guest , Oct 19, 2008 1:30AM

It is interesting, we are a country in denial, no one wants to see the truths that are staring them in the face.

Posted by guest , Oct 19, 2008 1:57AM

"A centrist Democrat with more experience might be able to tame Congress's worst excesses. But Obama will be America's most liberal president in decades, possibly ever, and he has almost no experience at all. His short career in politics has shown him to be a go-along, get-along kind of guy. How can anyone imagine his standing up to liberal bulls like Charles Rangel, Barney Frank, John Conyers, Henry Waxman, John Dingell, Charles Schumer, or Carl Levin?"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/713lugxf.asp?pg=2

this is a surprisingly good article considering where it is.

Posted by guest , Oct 19, 2008 2:12AM

When I say denial I mean that a lot of people are clueless about the economic situation. Today the stores were packed and people were buying. I'm not sure if they are unaware of the economy or if it is a myth that only some are worrying about.

Ironically, my most liberal, had a foray into communism in college friend told me he is voting for McCain. I was, shall we say, totally shocked. But, he is worried about our government and he said, he doesn't think any one party should have all the power, the balance, he thinks, is important. He made a lot of excellent points as I sat there dumbfounded but you know what? He has me really thinking now about who I should vote for.

Posted by guest , Oct 19, 2008 2:54AM

You know you are absolutely spot on.

It is entirely crazy on the internet tonight. There is a guy on one of the nut job forums asking if anyone has ever seem Obama eat a ham sandwich. (I laughed out loud) There are lots of people trying to explain to lots of other people, their version of the economic collapse. This can be hours of entertaining fun until you realize that these people are going to vote. And then there is this guy:

http://www.urbansurvival.com/week.htm

Haven't decided what I think of this guy yet.

On another note, if you follow "the eggs" there is a hysterical post about how they have died, which they probably didn't, the server at Princeton is probably down.

Oh the world has gone mad.

Posted by guest , Oct 19, 2008 4:58AM

Bloomberg '08

Posted by guest , Oct 19, 2008 9:58AM

OK, that is your prerogative #83, case it is "a free country."

Posted by guest , Oct 19, 2008 2:48PM

I am amazed at how the 'Democrats' seem to actually believe that their party is ACTUALLY a better choice, conveniently forgetting the Rangels and Murthas and Jeffersons and the rotten mess that the Democratic Party is in ANY area where is has managed to achieve single-party status (New York, Chicago, most of CA, Baltimore, DC, Philly....???)

Not defending the other party either. I am not a member of either party. However I find the strong defense of one party to be quite retarded.

Eg #75 (strong Democrat no doubt) made a strong pitch for an underfunded Dem challenger. Where is the pitch for the underfunded vet with 15-years of service who is up against ultra corruptocrat, marine hater, racist Rep John Murtha?

Or the pitch or attempt to remove the thief named Charles Rangel from his cushy House seat from right here in NYC? Why are the brave volunteers from Columbia Univ trekking all the way to OH, VA and NC to make a difference when they can do it in their own neighborhood by helping remove a thief - something that has much greater real-life impact?

So let us take this for what it is and stop getting sanctimonious about it. #83 believes that other towns are strange. Guess he has never stepped out of his NYC apartment!