Comments Posted By Bob
Displaying 41 To 50 Of 66 Comments
FOR THE LAST TIME - BARACK OBAMA IS GOING TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT
You don't know the Clintons that well do you!!! Lets not forget Tony Rescko in Chicago. If he has the goods on Obama and Hillary knows he will be talking big time.
Comment Posted By Bob On 3.05.2008 @ 17:01
I have a letter that my Dad wrote when he was in China at the end of WWII. He said how dirty the Chinese people were,,,,he didn't like it there at all.
Our cat is 14 years old. I can't not imagine treating him the way those dirty people treat their cats. My they all get some plague and die slow deaths.Americans should try,,,,,try not buy their stuff. (I'm typing this on my new MacBook Pro made in China. Thanks Steve Jobs!!
Comment Posted By Bob On 10.03.2008 @ 23:57
Realistically, Fred was a long shot. Yes, he resonated with the disenfranchised conservatives. Yes, he was a mature adult in a room full of same old, same old pols. Yes, his white papers were spot on (at least for me).
Let's get over it.
Rick is in a funk and may not vote. Your choice, sir. But, a null vote aids Hillary. Is that what you want?
Do conservatives really want Hillary in with the prospects of 4 years of misery? What if a white knight - a new Reagan - doesn't come about to save the day ala Jimmy Carter?
There's nothing wrong with casting a vote for a Republican when it is in fact a vote against the Democrats. Chill the emotions. I made the mistake of voting for Carter because I was pissed of at Ford for the Nixon pardon and voted for Perot because I was distraught over both Bush41 and Clinton. Well, I got Jimmy and Bill and look where that got us.
Comment Posted By Bob On 25.01.2008 @ 17:40
COULD CONSERVATIVES WORK WITH A PRESIDENT OBAMA?
Jeez, aren,t you getting ahead of things just a wee bit? I mean it's 11 months to go and you're speculating on Barack to run the table?
His foreign policy view is a complete non-starter for me. It's incredibly naive and idealisitc, IMO. Must remember this is a long war and, surge notwithstanding, it's not even close to being over.
I'm looking for a show of strength
and someone who looks, acts and speaks strong. Thus far, that's Fred even though I'm not in total sync with all his positions.Obama's oratory prowess is engaging but I'm not looking for someone from the speaker's bureau to run the country.
Besides if anyone really thinks a member of the Chicago and Illinois Dem. machine is a change agent, you may want to revisit that thinking.
Comment Posted By Bob On 6.01.2008 @ 19:30
HUCKALIAR CHANNELS LUCIFER FOR AD PLOY
I'm an Iowan who'll be at the caucus for Rudy tomorrow night. I agree with the comments on Schmuckabee. I could see Romney, Thompson or McCain (although I'm still ticked about his opposition to the Bush tax cuts and his support for campaign finance reform and shamnasty), but Huckabee is turning the election into a religious referendum. Almost anyone else would be a better choice.
Comment Posted By Bob On 2.01.2008 @ 13:46
BLOGBURST FOR FRED: JOIN THE MARBLEHEADERS
So far, Fred's campaign reminds me of the title of a recent and unsuccessful anti-war movie about which I wrote a post several weeks back: War Movie, Candidacy Earn Similar Reviews.
Comment Posted By Bob On 27.12.2007 @ 16:45
Rick -- I saw Salon.com's mention of this post just below a mention of my blog (with Debbie Schlussel), thought I would check it out and am glad I did. Here's why: Conservatives without experience in either the military or intelligence communities (I'm not one, by the way) need to realize that classified information gets destroyed every day at the discretion of the person with whom responsibility for the information rests. If every piece of classified information was kept for perpetuity, we would have enough classified data to stretch to the moon and back thousands of time, posing even greater risk to national security.
Comment Posted By Bob On 7.12.2007 @ 13:57
A RESPONSE TO CRITICS OF MY LAST POST
Perplexing, indeed.
It's not really all that perplexing, is it? It's SOP for blogs in general, and especially for Malkin/Ace/etc. You're just finding yourself on the receiving end of it.
Comment Posted By bob On 7.08.2007 @ 15:47
BumperStickerist: I find Kos' "apology" lacking. It's not that he "felt nothing" but that he was "angry" ... And it's obvious that the thing he is most angry about is that these "mercenaries", an inaccurate term at best, would have the sheer _audacity_ not only to willing go into a war zone, but to make money while doing so.
Don't get me wrong. Kos saw a dead body once. That alone, I am sure, enables him to absolutely know the motivations and concerns of all civilian contractors in Iraq. He obviously knows, without a shadow of a doubt, that their only singular motivation is money. It is not possible, at all, that they were soldiers who realized they could be doing the same thing but for better money. It is only that they are evil capitalists, profiting off the pain and suffering of others.
Should soldiers be making more money? I think so! But that doesn't make defense contractors inheriently EVIL. Also, some civilian contractors actually have _special forces_ backgrounds. If I have a contractor who is an ex-SEAL or ex-Delta, has decades of experience, and knows almost all there is to know about counterterrorism and CQB ... You're telling me he should be making the same, or LESS, than a kid just out of basic?
The reason the "apology" is generally ignored isn't because it doesn't "fit the narrative". It's because it's not an apology. It's a diatribe against civilian contractors, and against the Bush administration. I mean, apologies usually include the words, "apologize" or "sorry". He says neither.
"So not only was I wrong to say I felt nothing over their deaths, I was lying. I felt way too much." And what did he feel? Anger. At who? THE CONTRACTORS WHO DIED. I mean, REALLY. _That's_ what you call an apology?
Cuz it's not what I call one, and my guess is that's not what Malkin calls one. But it's what the left (Kos specifically) calls one. And that's kind of the problem Malkin, O'Reilly, and Moran are trying to point out.
Comment Posted By BoB On 26.07.2007 @ 17:26
If Bush had the ability to reduce the sentance, that would have been the appropriate action. But he does not. He either pardons or leaves it alone.
Comparing Clintons pardons to this one is way to shed light on this, but a better way of showing that Libby's sentance truely was excessive is by comparing Clinton's sentance for the exact same crime, lying under oath/obstruction of justice: $90,000 fine and suspension of law license in Arkansas for 5 years. No jail time - a mere slap on the wrist. Pelosi, Jackson, et all, have very short memories.
Comment Posted By Bob On 3.07.2007 @ 11:39
