Comments on: Democrats Demonstrate Why Neither Can Be Commander-In-Chief

By: 75

75 — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:53:19 +0000

AJ, Why, I do believe he/she/it did! And just to make sure we got that right, he added a plug for the “prize-winning” Jimmy Carter…you know…just in case we misunderstood him.

By: truthhard2take

truthhard2take — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:31:14 +0000

“Ass” meaning 75 of course.

By: truthhard2take

truthhard2take — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:30:37 +0000

Guffaw like the ass you are,

Prize-winning Jimmy Carter was on target when he said after supervising it, the Fatah versus Hamas election was the freeest ever held in the Middle East.

By: AJStrata

AJStrata — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:30:11 +0000

75,

Did H2T just say electing Hamas is like electing the Dems and it is inevitable, sooner or later, the dems will get the same nod as Hamas?

I think he/she did!

By: truthhard2take

truthhard2take — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:28:20 +0000

Gosh,MissedKittyOne

You mean the ruling elite didn’t get around to defining “victory” til 2005?

By: 75

75 — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:26:37 +0000

“Every open democracy elects such as Hamas.”

That’s funny, Truthy!

By: truthhard2take

truthhard2take — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:22:09 +0000

I don’t take them “at their word” and I trust only Ron Paul and Ralph Nader to get the troops out. I do however trust the true “democrats” of Iraq, all the Sunni and Shia secular and religious fredom fighters, to continue “assisting” Clinton and Obama, in their desires to pull the troops. Which brings me to Strata’s wish for the next Iraqi government to be a “democratic ally” of the American/Israeli Empire. Absurd. Every open democracy elects such as Hamas.
Then our “democracy” does everything to undermine the democratic results, in that instance by supporting the sellout Abbas.

This aside, the Strata rant is pretty clucky for a chickenhawk with only 35% of the public still supporting the war.

By: browngreengold

browngreengold — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:20:19 +0000

Oops!

See if this works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR8p0bro9RM

By: browngreengold

browngreengold — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:18:47 +0000

I thought this video would be especially appropriate for this discussion.

By: 75

75 — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:15:26 +0000

AJ, given our recent discussions, I thought you’d appreciate this…

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080417/D903I7A80.html

By: UrbanGrounds

UrbanGrounds — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:50:27 +0000

John McCain Wins Democratic Debate in Philly…

The parts that I did watch though, I’d say Hillary was the clear winner. Obama looked pissed off that he was still answering questions about his shady relationships, his views on America and Americans, and other things Obama didn’t want to…

By: WWS

WWS — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:33:37 +0000

There was another answer Obama gave, on the topic of economics, which was just as bad (and shocking!) as his answer to the Iraq question. This was so bad that it even made Andrew Sullivan squirm, a man who as Chris Hitchens has said wants to have Obama’s baby.

Questioner Charles Gibbons mad the point that in both 1997 and 2003, tax revenues went up when capital gains tax rates were cut. Would Obama still support tax increases even if they caused revenue collected to actually drop? And Obama answered (paraphrased, I don’t have the transcript) Yes, because some people make too much money and that money should be redistributed to the poor to increase social justice, regardless of other consequences.

Obama is a typical marxian redistributionist – not really a surprise, but still amazing to hear it in his own words. No wonder the Kossacks are mad!

By: missy1

missy1 — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:11:09 +0000

They should be made to answer for withdrawal and explain to us how they will get around the consequences AJ mentions.

This ties in quite nicely with this blog post I found the other day. Victory in Iraq was defined in three stages, contrary to lefty rumors. Now we need to know from the two dem candidates what they think the three stages of defeat are going to look like, make them answer for it, see if they will admit to what is described here:

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/blog_entry/boobookitty/2008/04/09/victory_defined_now_let_s_see_the_definition_of_withdrawal

By: WWS

WWS — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:05:17 +0000

The Kossacks are swallowing their tongues today over how “unfair” the questions were to Obama – meaning they’re outraged that ABC didn’t let him just stand there and spit out his talking points.

And give credit to Hillary for beating Obama like a drum last night – although it’s a pyrrhic victory for Hillary, since every time she nails him her negatives go up more than his.

Ed Morrissey was right, the real winner of the debate last night was John McCain.

By: ivehadit

ivehadit — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:53:58 +0000

Call me cynical, but I believe there are those in the democrat party who WANT there to be a big terrorist event ON THEIR WATCH…so they can “rise to the occasion” (won’t happen) , claim to be the military party, and the ones who have success in protecting America…al for their raw, political power grabs.

Legacy scamming, imho.

How did these Commanders-in chief work out for us:
JFK
LBJ
Carter
Clinton

Wanna trust your chilren’s lives to ANY of the above?
Not me. Ever.