I’m Rachl Lukis, and I approved of last night’s debate.
Watched most but not all of it - those two clowns become genuinely tedious after a while and besides, American Idol was on! I have to set priorities. (By the way, I can’t figure out a way to write a whole post about the fact that someone who should’ve gotten kicked off about 3 weeks ago finally got kicked off and it was utterly anticlimactic. Buh-bye, Kristy.)
Aaaanyway. Apparently the left is over the Democrat debate last night because ABC had the balls - balls I tell you! - to make it and not yet another couple hours of Barack and Hillary going over the same subjects they’ve gone over in the other 328 debates they’ve had so far, subjects on which they differ about as much as Maggie and Sunny differ on the issue of “Walks”. They both like them a heck of a lot. They would like to have more of them and they will use almost identical strategies to accomplish that goal, such as wagging the tail and smiling at me.
So it was all about lies and gaffes and lapel pins and bitterness, which made it absolutely fantastic. Obama looked like ass and sounded about as charismatic as Ben Stein (”Bueller?…Bueller?”), and he said things such as he disowned Rev. Wright, but then took it back immediately. And, it turns out Obama doesn’t know much more about capital gains taxes than I do. Awesome. Give that man the White House HOPECHANGE!
The part that disturbed me most on a personal level was of course the part where I had to imagine one of these individuals as Rupert’s boss, when they started talking about the war and troops. There is something about people who have never BEEN a troop talking about being the chief commander OF troops that makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit, now more than ever.
I like Ann Althouse’s of this part of the debate the best:
8:52. Do they really have a plan to bring troops home from Iraq? If the military commanders told you that pulling the troops out will destabilize Iraq, would you still go through with your plan? Hillary: Yes. But her plan is only to “begin” to withdraw troops within 60 days and to proceed with caution from there. The idea is for Iraqis to get the message that they need to take over.
Obama follows suit. “The President sets the mission.” He’ll listen to the commanders on the ground “with respect to tactics,” but he provides the “mission.” Mission. Tactics. Mission. Tactics. Get it?
You know, I would give everything I have for Rupert to not have to go to Iraq or for him to be sent home very shortly after getting there. The only problem with what these idiots are saying is that if you do pull the troops out too soon, which everyone KNOWS is anytime in the next year or so, Rupert and all the others are just going to have to go back. Leave a power vacuum in Iraq and the entire Middle East will promptly spring a boner and start fighting over who gets to fill that vacuum. Back go the troops.
Whatever. After that debate and a few more like it, those two probably have no chance of winning. Imagine either one of them from last night in a similar debate with McCain. He’s got his “issues” too but I still think he’d manhandle Barack or Hillary.
I got the under on eight comments before someone explains Capital Gains.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:33 amI listened to it via XM and was alternating between yelling at the radio and shaking my head in disbelief at the utter idiocy comming from both of their mouths. You are right that the thought of either of them as CIC gives me the heeby jeebies. Lord help us… Ooops, sorry, uh, some sort of higher power help us??
April 17th, 2008 at 10:34 amI’m glad you watched it and saved us the pain of having to do so. Blech. Those two just scare me.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:41 amI was busy catching up on the Pope’s visit. I like what he’s saying so far, for the most part. Couldn’t help comparing the character Benedict is showing to those of our current politicians.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:13 amI’ll shoot on capital gains, short version: its the profit when you sell stocks, bonds, precious metals and property (ect…) basically anything you own that isn’t being sold as inventory from a business.
Capital gains taxes are EVIL. They lower the value of pretty much ANY investment you make. If the capital gains tax is 20% for instance, any stock that is giving you a 5% return in now only really giving you a 4% return. This discourages investing, and is pretty much why every time capital gains taxes have been cut, government revenue from them has gone up, since investing becomes more attractive.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:16 amWinner! Only five!
April 17th, 2008 at 11:20 amI’m on lunch break at work.
And I work at a bank, I can’t help it.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:23 amI switched between the debate and Idol. Mostly Idol. I think it was SICK what they did to David Cook and Syesha, making David think he was in the bottom 3 and Syesha think she was safe. That whole part of the show was just downright weird.
As for Hill and BO, I can’t stand listening to either of them trying to sound like they really know or care what normal people in America think.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:42 amLeave a power vacuum in Iraq and the entire Middle East will promptly spring a boner and start fighting over who gets to fill that vacuum.
Goodlord, your writing makes me grin, Wachel.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:43 amI’m starting to like ABC a little. At least in their online coverage, they have been willing to actually look at Obama a little more critically- I think they were the first of the MSM to cover the Wright debacle. Maybe there’s hope that people who don’t read blogs will learn a little about this charlatan before it’s too late.
And the way I look at it, the capital gains tax is a way to go after the people who are willing to save their money and/or take a risk on investments. You’d think the government would want to encourage that kind of behavior.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:48 amYou must be Rush Limbaugh’s illegitimate daughter because he is saying the exact same thing on the radio as I type this.
Eerie.
You’re both brilliant today, my dear!
April 17th, 2008 at 12:41 pmSo, last year I was in a room while Hillary was being briefed on injury rates of military members at war and she was shocked - SHOCKED - to find out that approximately 75-80% of all injuries sustained in wartime are due to non-battle related incidents or illness.
For the average lay person I can see why that would shock you. It certainly shocked me when I learned about it after arriving at my first base as a medic back in 2000, but she’s a US senator who wants to be the president and was once the First Lady. Somehow, given her experience, you’d think that shouldn’t have been so shocking.
Then again, this is Hillary we are talking about.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:01 pmLong before Reverend Wright and bittergate I told my friends the election was going to be a landslide for McCain. Now the Hannity-induced Ayers stain and Duh?-what’s-capital-gains-duh? And the Dems and Hollywood are throwing hundreds of millions into the campaign, and it won’t matter one whit. They’re gonna get pummeled. It’s really a beautiful thang.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:08 pmhM, I have to shake my head whenever I read a story about the high number of troops coming back missing an arm or a leg or two. I weep for them, but in previous wars, a high percentage of those seriously wounded would have come back in body bags or coffins, or been buried thousands of miles from home. Hey, MSM, how about more stories (there have been a few, but pathetically few) about the heroic efforts to bring them back alive.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:14 pmI’ll admit, we saw our share of people missing limbs and it broke my heart, but you wouldn’t believe just how upbeat most of those guys were. I can’t tell you how many times we’d be changing bandages and other patients would want to take pictures and the guy would be totally fine with it. Heck, there was even one guy who was getting his bandage changed when we were picking his bags up who waved us over to see what was underneath the bandage before they put it back on.
As far as how many people are coming back missing parts, you have to take that with a grain of salt if you’re getting it from the MSM. We kept extremely good records on injuries and their causes because our commander had to brief generals every morning on what was going on at our unit. I had to point out to one of my professors that her information was wrong (she read that there had been 10,000 troops with amputations back in 2004) when at the time we hadn’t even seen 10,000 casualties yet.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:20 pmI used to work in an office with retired military guys and yeah, I was surprised when they told me how most injuries are non-battle related. I kept saying “really? really?” and then they regale stories about tank drivers getting lost during night drills and ending up in the sleeping baracks, and other crazy but true stories (one involving alcohol, superman, and an open window).
April 17th, 2008 at 1:41 pmWell that is Obama’s “strategy”.
Cut ‘n Run, Then Run Back In.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:29 pmFor the Dems that would be a legitimate strategy because it would mean that someone else caused the mess by going in in the first place and they (Dems) would just be going in to clean it up like the good samaritans they are./sarcasm
Of course, we would somehow be racist and hateful to point out that what would be causing the problem in the first place would be the pullout.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:44 pmA couple of Bill Mauldin cartoons from WWII:
April 17th, 2008 at 3:07 pmA few soldiers are climbing over a gaggle of wrecked trucks and jeeps, I assume looking for some parts to scavenge. One of them is pointing to a vehicle with bullet holes in the windshield, yelling to the other guys “My G*d, here’s one what was wrecked in combat.”
Another one, Trucks are lined up on a road, drivers gathered around a sgt, who’s saying, “Some of you guys may not make it back alive. A French convoy has been spotted on the road ahead of us.”
I was hanging out with some friends last night, both fairly solid Dems (although the guy owns more guns than I do), and we caught some of the debate. I was surprised to hear them both mocking both candidates’ responses to the various questions. If their reactions are typical of intelligent Dem voters (that’s really not a complete oxymoron), it makes me wonder if we will see a depressed Dem turnout in the general election.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:14 pmLast night’s debates were a good cure for insomnia.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:04 pm“He’s got his “issues” too but I still think he’d manhandle Barack or Hillary.”
Um…gross.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:49 pm