Comments Posted By Thomas Jackson
Displaying 51 To 60 Of 73 Comments
So this means the Hildabeast is going to get mean soon. Well its nice to see someone with balls. On this basis alone she is more qualified than McCain who can't decide what party he belongs to.
I wonder what platitudes Osama is going to offer us, quick my salts I think I have the vapors now that Saint Osama is so near.
Comment Posted By Thomas Jackson On 16.02.2008 @ 23:30
McCAIN PROVING HIMSELF A CANNY CAMPAIGNER
So McCain is so lacking in appeal he has to try to out maneiver his opponent to try and even the field since he can't raise any where near enough to match him. Any way you cut it this just shows McCain appeal is limited to the news rooms and those contributions go to Leftists, not closet Leftists.
McCain is toast.
Comment Posted By Thomas Jackson On 16.02.2008 @ 23:33
Osama is the king of platitudes but how does McCain stack up against him? McCain's manner does not attract followers or suspension of belief, perhaps because McCain glories in his enemies. Osama hasn't been around long enough but has managed to attain some impressive achievements in this class. The problem here is that no one can ignore McCain's record while Osama followers don't care what his record is.
Comment Posted By Thomas Jackson On 16.02.2008 @ 23:39
WHY I AM SICK TO DEATH OF BOTH PARTIES
I tire of the chest beating RINOs that tell us that the GOP is too conservative. After 8 years of Bush one wonders exactly where the conservative principles were. One can look at McCain and wonder if bashing capitalism is the way the GOP should go? Perhaps its better to treat terrorists the same way we do shoplifters?
Maybe we haven't allowed the government to put its hands deeply enough into the pockets of taaxpayers. Perhaps its the GOPs reactionary stand on the Constitution and we should change to adopt McCains evolutionary Constitution?The concept that supporting a McCain somehow allows us the comfort of knowing we will compromise our freedoms at a slower rate than by voting for Hillary seems to be at best illusionary.
I for one would rather see Osama than McCain. I'd rather have an honest Marxist than a closet one. As McCain has said he has disagreements with conservatives. And I don't expect him to either listen to us or provide lip service in the future.
My check goes to Osama.
Comment Posted By Thomas Jackson On 10.02.2008 @ 18:51
McCAIN AT CPAC - GOOD THEATER, IDLE CHATTER
Guess the folks in Kansas didn't take McCain at his word. My guess is neither will the base.
Looks like its going to be an interesting election. One party running Elmer Gantry and the other running a Bob Dole without the integrity or charm.
Comment Posted By Thomas Jackson On 10.02.2008 @ 18:55
If McCain represents the mainstream of the GOP as you content it will be most interesting seeing your explanation of his defeat at the polls come November. When a party's leadership ignores the will of its members its defeat is predictable. Exactly how does McCain represent the will of the GOP?
Did the GOP embrace McCain's Gang of 14? Did it embrace his amnesty? Did it embrace his decision to renounce tax cuts? I for one would rather vote for Osama or the Hildabeast. Better a real Marxist than a closet one.
Comment Posted By Thomas Jackson On 4.02.2008 @ 17:04
I love Osama. What a compelling story. A man who struggles with the silver spoon that gags him, who must defy the odds of priviledge and strives to better himself by gaining entrance to the best and most elite of schools on the basis of his race. Ah so compelling, what sacrifice, what valor, what willpower.
And when listens to his speeches one wonders, where's the beef? The only thing I hear is the same fluff that someone from Nigeria sends me before explaining why I need to send a check for 5,000 before I can get my 46 million.
No doubt we will hear from him again. The Clintons never seem to tire of their tricks and always turn up. Why shouldn't Osama?
Comment Posted By Thomas Jackson On 4.02.2008 @ 17:10
DEBATE IN SOUTH CAROLINA REVEALS GOP SCHISMS
I thought Thompson gave his usual thoughtful and reasoned responses. The only thing new appears that people listened to what he was saying and have noticed the huge inconsistencies in what his opponents claim as opposed to their actual performance.
McCain claims to want to cut taxes but has sponsored a backdoor BTU tax that will be huge. Probably explains his global warming assertions. As for his not asking for earmarks this has has much credibility as his Keating claims of innocence.
Rudy appears to have nothing to say beyond 9-11.
Ron Paul proves that all you need to be in Congress is a IQ above freezing and be non violent.
I was very re assured by Mitt Romney's assertions that whenever the courts order something he will jump like a puppet no matter how outrageous or ridiculous. This is leadership!
Thompson may not be Reagan but he will do more to put the government on the correct course than the other candidates and certainly is better than the politboro's candidates from across the aisle.
Comment Posted By Thomas Jackson On 11.01.2008 @ 00:08
DEMOCRATS KNEW ABOUT TORTURE BUT DIDN'T OBJECT
I find America's sacrifices for freedom very much esteemed by our allies, such as the French, Italians, Spanish, etc who have never failed to express their confidence in American policies or motives. End snicker.
I find the entire controversy regarding torture a complete joke. American troops did this in WWII to extract vital data, they even did it after the war to secure information about alledged war crimes. There is no doubt that this method has value otherwise it would have died centuries ago. The folks who constantly say you can't rely on this data simply fail to explain why it is unreliable as if their assertions make it true.
Sun Tzu said a leader who ws restrained in his use of force during war was all ready defeated just about sums up what these people wish. War isn't about moral high grounds it is about winning.
There is no substitute for victory and people who tell us differently do not wish America well, and would never serve nor fight for the USA, regardless of the cause. To heed their advice is to court disaster.
Comment Posted By Thomas Jackson On 10.12.2007 @ 17:24
I am unaware of any article that the the US has agreed to that states illegal combatants are subject to any protections at all. While there is an article in the Convention extending to such terrorists it has never been ratified by the US.
So what are you basing such an assertion on and could you point out the ratified article?
Comment Posted By Thomas Jackson On 10.12.2007 @ 17:29
