Captain's Quarters Comments - Latest Comments in Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

SwabJockey05 — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 12:21:42 -0000

Best to continue writing for the browsers then, that at least serves a purpose. You'll never get any of the trolls to tell you why they shill for Hildabeast. In fact they’ll continue to deny that they are…even as they pull the handle for her (after she’s been found with the dead girl and Burglar’s stolen Classified documents).

The answer is simple:

In the case of most of the trolls, like teresa, they aren’t very smart. They don’t think about the long term implications of electing a known lying, immoral crook to the WH. All they see is that the Dhimmicrats are more socialistic than the socialist-wannabe Repubs. They want all the “free” stuff Hildabeast has promised them. Simple as that.

As for the others, the “smarter” ones…they do it for a similar reason. They also want the most socialistic candidates to win, but not just to get the “free” goodies. Most of them are already “well-off” and have enough goodies. Their goal is more a matter of control. The more things you want to do that they can PREVENT you from doing…or the more things you don’t want to do but they can FORCE you to do….the better. If the Hildabeast, Slick, Sandy Berglar, Allbright, Stephanapolis et al get to roam free in the WH, these “smart” trolls will GLOAT. People like you will be more under their thumb. They will be able to exert more control over you…and exert their will on you by the FORCE of government. The more you complain about it, the more they will GLOAT.

Tyranny is what it is…nothing more. Really nothing new here. Tactics are the only things that really change in war as well as politics.

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

Phil Weingart — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:10:10 -0000

Yes, I understand this. I write mostly for the browsing spectators, not for the Reflexive Clinton Apologists (RCAs). What I don't understand is why they're RCAs.

The fact that none of them are aware enough of their own mental and emotional processing to tell me how they process the scandals and obvious frauds, the clear evidence of vicious inhumanity, the clear evidence of insincerity, etc., tells me a lot. But I'd still like to hear one of them explain it.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

herddog505 — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 07:37:11 -0000

Karen in Michigan: Hillary's problem is she has NO CORE CONVICTIONS that she can admit to the American public when she needs their votes. If she truly let her real beliefs come forth, the entire country would reject her socialist, blame America first, hate the military stands on everything.

This is undeniably true. The only problem is that none of the candidates seem to have any real core convictions at all (well, Edwards seems quite wedded to his "Two Americas" populist crap; he's quite the one-trick pony in that regard). I've come to accept that most politicians will say anything to get elected, though this election cycle seems to be setting new records for flip-flopping.

Karen in Michigan: She feels ENTITLED to this position...

Absolutely. The Hilldabeast - and most of her supporters, for that matter - seem to believe that, just because she put up with Slick and all his philandering, she DESERVES to be the president. It's weird, really... I've yet to see a dem give us a compelling reason why this loathesome harpy should be president aside from "she deserves it" and "it's time for a woman president".

Karen in Michigan: ... it will be very entertaining to watch her melt down as she stumbles when she gets more scrutiny, should she get the ballot position.

Scrutiny from whom, exactly? The MSM? Don't make me laugh; if you think they ran interference for Jean-Francois Kerry over his Vietnam record, you ain't seen NOTHING yet. The Republican candidate? She and her supporters have already got their defense ready, and they know it works: "He's just a nasty ol' man picking on a helpwess, defensewess widdle woman! Somebody should make him stop being so mean!" Seen this before with the Hilldabeast: the woman who claims she's tough enough to be president not only can't take even a hint of criticism, but plays the Helpless Woman card in response to it. Bah.

Karen in Michigan: My mom and sister are hard core liberals and they can't stand this woman. However, they WILL vote for her if she is on the ticket. They hate republicans more. Sad.

Well, in all fairness, there are lots of Republicans (including me) who feel exactly the same way about the dems, and the Hilldabeast in particular. If The Dope or Silky Pony got into the Oval Office, it would be a catastrophe for the country. If The Evil One and her dirtbag husband get back in, it will be damnation.

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

Karen in Michigan — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 06:18:59 -0000

Hillary's problem is she has NO CORE CONVICTIONS that she can admit to the American public when she needs their votes. If she truly let her real beliefs come forth, the entire country would reject her socialist, blame America first, hate the military stands on everything. She feels ENTITLED to this position and it will be very entertaining to watch her melt down as she stumbles when she gets more scrutiny, should she get the ballot position. However, the election outcome is so important in these grave times, we won't be laughing as she melts down. My mom and sister are hard core liberals and they can't stand this woman. However, they WILL vote for her if she is on the ticket. They hate republicans more. Sad.

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

SwabJockey05 — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 05:47:52 -0000

Phil,

You're wasting your time with the Dhimm wits. They are nothing more than immoral shills for the Dhimmicrats. Hildabeast could be caught in bed with Paris Hilton's pregnant sister, wearing Sandy Burgler's underpants (still stuffed with SECRET documents) and these trolls would still be shilling for her... they’d even be smiling as they pulled the handle for her in the polling booth.

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

SwabJockey05 — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 05:35:45 -0000

lol

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

Phil Weingart — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:04:08 -0000

Brooks is at least 2 years behind the times, which no doubt suits his employer just fine. The latest Rasmussen poll has 34.2% identifying themselves as Republicans, and 36.3% identifying as Democrats. The gap between the two parties is the smallest it's been in 2 years.

http://www.rasmussenreports...

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

lexhamfox — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 19:59:35 -0000

No. I know the difference between India and Pakistan. During the interview in question Bush could not name the leaders of India and Pakistan as well as two other countries. I was responding to JR's point about the gaffe relating to 'obscure' countries (not just Pakistan).

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

onlineanalyst — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 19:20:03 -0000

Because the Dems know that foreign policy is their weakness, they have been working overtime to make the domestic social programs the thrust of their candidacies.

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

onlineanalyst — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 19:05:43 -0000

What is equally appalling is that neither interviewer called Madame Hillary on the gaffe at the time it was made. Was this error an example of how clueless the media themselves are in pursuing stories of international consequence?

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

SaipanDrunkenSailor — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 19:00:59 -0000

The truth.

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

SaipanDrunkenSailor — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:49:07 -0000

So you're saying your side can run the worst possible candidates ever, and still win? That's really raising the bar.

We'll see if it works. Because the Democrats will have the least qualified, most inexperienced major party candidate in American history. Worst . . . candidate . . . ever.

And if a Democrat does manage to get himself/herself elected to the White House, they'll be tossed out on their ear by the voters, before their first term expires, if they're not impeached and removed from office in 2010.

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

Phil Weingart — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:47:41 -0000

What's truly interesting about this, to me, is the clarity with which we're seeing that Ms. Clinton is simply incapable of handling any venue which is not fully scripted. The way Tim Russert unglued her with that question about drivers licenses for illegals, which wasn't really all that fast a fastball, told the tale pretty accurately: this woman has spent her entire public career fielding softball questions from stooges, and will come undone when faced with a truly hostile press.

And unlike our current President, whose weakness is simply a style that's more appropriate for small rooms and a discomfort with public speaking, Ms. Clinton's weakness appears to be intellectual. She's just, simply not smart enough to manage herself.

Personally, I think it's due to the number of outright lies she tells. None of her public positions are her true positions, so she can never speak from her gut. Her positions are all fabricated from calculation and focus groups. Honestly, if I had to remember everything I said, and couldn't simply speak from principle, I think I'd flub the hard questions, too.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

unclesmrgol — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:45:20 -0000

But if I fix it, I'm better than if I didn't, right? Your side would just let the car lie there. Of course, your side has no concept of penance except when paid by others, so your position is an expected one.

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

SaipanDrunkenSailor — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:38:39 -0000

Excellent piece in the Middle East Times:

http://www.metimes.com/Opin...

"Sen. Clinton, a candidate for the leadership of the free world, apparently doesn't know the first thing about the country referred to by some as "the most dangerous place on earth."

This woman is a deer in the headlights. She's terrified of doing anything that isn't completely scripted or rigged ahead of time.

If the Democrats had any sense, they'd force Hillary to use the old "spending more time with family" excuse (even though that would be an extreme stretch) and exit stage left. She's just an embarrassment to everyone involved.

After this latest gaffe though, I hope she gets the nomination. At this rate, she'll be completely off of her rocker by summer.

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

Phil Weingart — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:37:46 -0000

Huckabee's flub was caught immediately, and has been getting appropriate attention.

I'd be shocked if the anchors didn't realize it was an error, and you're completely wrong about the right-wing blogs: they picked it up pretty quickly. Let's not forget that it's New Year's Day, and most of us are kinda taking it easy.

You really need to give it up, Teresa. It would have been an embarrassing blunder for an inexperienced candidate, like Obama or Huckabee; it was a colossal blunder for a candidate claiming to be fully-prepared for the Presidency and a close friend of the assassinated politician.

Your reflexive defenses are doing nothing but wasting bandwidth.

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

Del_Dolemonte — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:36:25 -0000

LOL, try again. Gore was rejected by the people of his own state. In other words, the people who knew him best.

Gore was also rejected by the voters of Arkansas in 2000.

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

Del_Dolemonte — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:28:33 -0000

It's interesting to note that Bush never claimed a direct link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. What he actually said was that they had a working relationship.

It's also interesting to note that a Clinton-appointed Federal Judge in New York, in a 2003 ruling in a lawsuit brought by familiy members of 9/11 victims, said that he believed that an impartial trial jury WOULD find such a connection, based on the evidence presented during the trial.

It's additionally interesting to note that in one of those polls asking Americans whether they thought Iraq had a connection to 9/11, it wasn't just Republicans saying this. As USA Today reported, and I quote:

"A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved. "

Iraq had already been found complicit in the 1993 attack on the WTC, as they gave sanctuary to one of the suspects, who also had an Iraqi passport.

But the biggest deal-breaker for the Iraq/AQ deniers is that Bill Clinton's Justice Department, in its 1998 indictment of bin Laden, specifically cited a relationship between the two.

In the fever swamps of today's left, waterboarding would be preferable to admitting that there was a possibility Iraq might have played any role, no matter how small, in the 9/11 attacks. That would mean Bush was right in going to war, and his haters would rather boiled alive in oil than consider that possibility. As we all know, Iraq is the ONLY country in the world that al Qaeda never operated in.

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

unclesmrgol — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:24:10 -0000

But Pakistan does share an eastern border with Afghanistan. It's Afghanistan's eastern border that they share. I actually think it's impressive that Huckabee actually knows that Pakistan and Afghanistan share a border. I'm even more impressed when Democrats manage to figure out same without immediately wanting to invade Pakistan to force the current regime out.

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

Phil Weingart — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:20:39 -0000

Like Teresa, the other Clinton apologist in this discussion, you miss a clear point that Captain Ed went to the trouble of explaining already. I hate repeating; you really should read the article before commenting.

Bush was a state governor, like Mike Huckabee. He never claimed expertise in foreign policy. We understand that candidates don't necessarily have Presidential experience yet.

Hillary Clinton, however, is staking her campaign on the fact that she has Presidential experience. She even attempted to claim close friendship with the assassinated Bhutto, and was offering policy advice to Pakistan when she made this blunder. Given her claim, the blunder is colossal.

As with John Kerry claiming leadership ability and offering his combat medals as proof of his leadership fitness, claiming to be experienced at the Presidential level makes it fair game to question just how much she knows. And it's pretty clear that she doesn't know what she claims she knows. She's a poseur, and smart voters should note this and dismiss her like she deserves.

Of course, smart voters have long since dismissed Ms. Clinton for reasons of sheer dishonesty, viciousness, and corruption. I hate to insult people I don't know, but anybody who's actually supporting her candidacy must have lived through the 1990s with a paper bag over their heads.

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

unclesmrgol — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:16:19 -0000

Bill was raped? By whom?

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

Phil Weingart — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:10:32 -0000

No one seriously doubts that Hillary is a policy wonk.

If we have anything to say about it, they will now. This was a high-school level error.

...if an in depth knowledge of foriegn national elections was a prereguisite for voters, we would have been spared the last eight years of GWB.

You miss the point, Teresa, after Capt. Ed went to the trouble of explaining it to you. Allow me to quote the relevant portion from above:

Hillary, however, has based her entire campaign as the one person most prepared to hit the ground running in the White House. Someone using that as a selling point does damage to her case when she can't tell the difference between a presidential election and a parliamentary election in a critical state for the war on terror.

You see, nobody sensible expected George W. Bush to know much about foreign policy; he was governor of Texas. Same with Mike Huckabee this year. But Hillary Clinton is selling herself as an expert, not just in foreign policy, but in Pakistani politics (recall her claim of close friendship with Bhutto). For her to make such a claim and then commit a flub of this magnitude should, in a fair world, cause an abrupt decline in her prospects.

But, of course, the press is dutifully deaf to her errors...

(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, "Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture," at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

Seaberry — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:03:28 -0000

Bill never knew what was going on in Pakistan either...well, perhaps he did, and just ignored it. Hillary will be the same or worse.

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

patrick k — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 18:00:01 -0000

I'm simply restating that he was accused and also brought up on impeachment charges that, along with countless other critical lapses in judgment, the press chooses to ignore to further Hillary's pursuit of the White House.

If any repub spouse had Bill Clinton's closet they would be prevented from running for office by a relentless attack by the MSM. They would question the candidate's judgment.

Re: Getting Pakistan Wrong, Democrat-Style

Lethologica — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 17:56:55 -0000

He never said Saddam and Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. He said Saddam and Iraq were involved with AQ.