Christie is my guy for now if he does run but Patreus would jump to #1 for me, there's only 1 prob the damn annoying tea partiers (no im not talking about the tea party as a whole but the ones who blindly pick candidates to run and support w/o looking at their record or electability) that could probably oppose the nomination and stir trouble

I still say unfortunately the guy won't run

Wow.  I can't say I'm surprised by anything our Boy Precedent does any more.  I'm sure that his lunatic lefty base will get a thrill when Gen. Betrayus is gone. 

I don't know if any of you saw dumbass Michael Medved's op-ed in the WSJ on Monday (where he said that people who criticize Obama for purposefully trying to bring down this country are out of line and over the top and how every man who's occupied the Oval Officde has been an honorable man).  I think that this latest shenanigan Obama's pulling (in addition to his "budget"--that word just seems like an oxymoron) prove that the people Medved was criticizing, right bloggers, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are absolutely right. 

Geez, can our country survive 2 more years of this hateful, evil man?

I don't know if any of you saw dumbass Michael Medved's op-ed in the WSJ

Medved was always a squish but h'es been an incredible weak voice on our side since Obama's been President, he has no credibility or courage at all, he's also the same guy who said there's no point in calling for repeal of Obamacare

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at February 15, 2011 07:57 PM (6ftzF)

excuse me? any conservative who won't come out against Obama if Christie is the nominee in an election all about fiscal sanity is a coward in my opinion. The way we're headed in our fiscal house, guns and abortion is the least of my fears because we won't have those debates when the country goes bankrupt and chaos reigns

I hope Petraeus gets a parade when he comes home

Are things going better in Afghanistan? Why would Obama want to officially make this his war?

They negotiated a settlement with the 'Moderate' Taliban?

Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at February 15, 2011 07:59 PM (hBqOU)

go horsefuck? would that include Rumsfeld himself who said he should've been let go before he was? Rumsfeld sucked and so does Gates, it was Bush's own leadership to do the surge in front of political pressure not to

I just wish he was as stong fiscally as he was foreign policy-wise

Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at February 15, 2011 07:59 PM (hBqOU)

Hear, hear! 

Gates is a worm of the first order.  He was part of Bush's leftward turn in his second term.

Ace, you are right on.  This president has been running for reelection since January 21, 2009 and has zero compunction to reasses his leftist polictal vectoring.

And on top of it all, the GOP house leadership is loosing for winning and doesn't even know it. 

Medved was always a squish but h'es been an incredible weak voice on our side since Obama's been President, he has no credibility or courage at all, he's also the same guy who said there's no point in calling for repeal of Obamacare

I have never liked him.  He is weak, insipid and has an annoying feminine, whiny voice.  He comes on right after Rush, and sometimes, he'll do a little preview voice over of his show before Rush is over.  He's based here out of Seattle.  I keep hoping he gets fired soon.  He got pushed out of the original station he was on 8 years or so ago when that one put Sean Hannity in his slot.  He also has kind of this snotty prima dona attitude.  I notice that whenever someone calls one of the other talkers and says "I heard this on "Rush" or "You and Mark Levin are the only ones talking about this", the other host will be very gracious and just continue the conversation.  Medved always makes it a point to be all snotty and say "I don't know, I don't listen to other shows."  I cannot stand him!  (Plus he was all excited when McCain was our nominee).  I hate it when Hugh Hewitt pontificates on how brilliant Michael Smeghead is.

Oh, and Y-not, did I tell you that I made your chicken recipe?  (I think it was you) the really easy one with the mayonaisse.  It was great!  (I used drumsticks, though and not chicken pieces).  Quite yummy!

Who said Petraeus is a conservative?

That's not all snark; I'm dead serious. Does anyone have a good background on his politics?

I'm grateful as an American for his service, perseverance, and general bad-assitude but some of our mil-Presidents have gone on to become less than stellar politicos.

I concur, I'm not so excited about running a stealth candidate in 2012 of whom we know nothing about.

Also, I am not as infatuated with the General President concept as many Americans are.

I'm happy he served and he probably deserves a 5th star and a license to kill anyone who looks at him cock eyed, but that's about it.

Unless he comes out with a political platform, I'm not too interested.

If Barry is re-elected, this country deserves the boning it will get.  Our military?  They deserve a true CiC.

it's all about those damn annoying "we're above it all" independents, those tools are the main reason we are in this hell-hole fiscally, remember even w/ low GOP turnout and a historic Dem turnout independents decided the election

OT/PS: O'Reilly just revealed he doesn't know the GOP wanted a rollback to 2008 levels, dude?! plus Colmes just claimed taxes on billionaires will fix the economy, the fuck? has this tool look at History?

Someone smarter than me once said that a wise leader is not afraid to surround himself with people smarter than himself."

A's hire other A's. B's hire C's.

Or, in the case of Obama, a "Gentleman's C" hires other F's.

WRONG!!!11111!!  I'm a Solid B+

Posted by: garrett at February 15, 2011 07:58 PM (Bszq2) 

Neither is Tami.  Her kid is in the Sand Pit now.

Petraeus' next assignment will be to be Valerie Jarret's footstool.

Ottoman emperor?

Christie is my guy for now if he does run but Patreus would jump to #1 for me, there's only 1 prob the damn annoying tea partiers (no im not talking about the tea party as a whole but the ones who blindly pick candidates to run and support w/o looking at their record or electability) that could probably oppose the nomination and stir trouble

Wow. I'm not sticking up for the tea party or any of their candidates, but you should take a step back and read what you just typed. You don't know anything about Petraus other than he is a great general. Shouldn't you know more about him before making him #1?

Fine, Chicago Jedi. You go your own way. Don't mind if I write you out of the coalition and pay you no mind going forward.

Coalition of the Unwilling?

Posted by: Louis Tully at February 15, 2011 08:06 PM (BZEkR)

okay Jane THIS is how we get 4 more years of Obama but as we get bankrupt and chaos reigns, w/ abortion and gun debate suddenly not working we can at least pat ourselves on the back that we didn't stop the bleeding when we had the chance

Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at February 15, 2011 08:07 PM (hBqOU)

I thought she wanted a man-servant to get her some more whine. wine.

Posted by: Ronster at February 15, 2011 08:09 PM (1F/m

I said he and Christie are top FOR NOW, my mind can change but yes i'd put them up there cause they can beat Obama and have more sane fiscal policies, we'll fight the other issues later because the way this guy in the white house is going right now- they'll be nothing else after he's done with it

Posted by: BurtTC at February 15, 2011 08:05 PM (dppZw)

Someone needs to cut Internet access to people living in Fantasyland so they can't keep posting stupid shit on blogs.

Riddle me this, Lucas patron, why hasn't Obama gone gun-grabby?

He wants a second term.  He'll go after them in his next term, and he will go hard.

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at February 15, 2011 08:09 PM (6ftzF)

dude your guns aren't gonna mean shit when the country goes bankrupt, after you run out of bullets the chaos that will reign post bankruptcy will make you wish we had a fiscal tiger to stop the bleeding but no you wanted to be mr. 1 issue

Nope, this is Stormin Norman Schwarkopf part Two.

Drawing down troops in Afganistan signals to the enemy that they won... and my guess is Patreus told the President that... and threatened to resign... much like Schwartz during Desert Strorm...

And in both cases, both have been told that there services are no longer required.

Posted by: DrewM. at February 15, 2011 08:09 PM (HicGG)

Yup.  That's it right there.  The MFM is once again reading way too much into this.

Posted by: Louis Tully at February 15, 2011 08:10 PM (BZEkR)

nice to see you cut out the part where I explained what I meant by that

Petraeus and Christy have both that they're not going to run.  Not in the usual "I have no current plans to run..." type of language, either.

I hope that the rumors are inaccurate and Petraeus is looking to move on voluntarily instead of being pushed out.  Then again, the line in the story about how Obama wants to start negotiating instead of killing those who need killing sounds all too familiar from that idiot.

Posted by: In Exile at February 15, 2011 08:17 PM (5HVYj)

forget it, i'm starting to think more and we're screwed over w/ another 4 years of this clown because clowns like Chicago Jedi, Soothsayer, and Tully)

Washington, Jackson, W. Harrison, Taylor, Pierce, A. Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, B. Harrison, and Eisenhower...

Generals who became president.  On the whole, not an impressive line up.

I also recall Truman once saying, after the elections in 1952, "Poor Ike.  He is going to sit here (in the Oval Office) and say "do this" and expect it to happen."

I am a big fan of Petraeus, by the way.

Well that isn't entirely my complaint. It's just that they've lived their lives in a quasi-autocratic society for most if not all of their lives. I'm not sure I want that in a president.

I kinda like the concept of a citizen president. As much as I hate Obama, I like the idea that some random businessman, doctor, or lawyer can just up and become president.  I like it a little less so when its a General or Admiral, it just reminds me of Europe. I would like to get away from that. It's not that I have anything against generals, it's just I'd rather the president be some guy who served a few years in the armed forces(or not at all) rather than someone who spent their entire working career in the armed forces

He wants a second term.  He'll go after them in his next term, and he will go hard. Posted by: runningrn

Doubtful. Not even Clintoon could get much purchase on the matter 15 years ago. As should be more than obvious now, the courts have already blocked much of the recent firearm legislation.

Furthermore, ObummerCare cases are going to be a big part of his 2nd term. I'm not sure he has the talent, ballz, and savy to take on so many Constitutionally-contravened bits of legislation at once, God Professor of Law aside.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at February 15, 2011 08:19 PM (c5RQr)

then it would be lost, the woman polls worse then Paul, I hate that reality...but it is reality

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at February 15, 2011 08:21 PM (6ftzF)

so Chicago Jedi where do you think Obama was born?

Washington, Jackson, W. Harrison, Taylor, Pierce, A. Johnson, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, B. Harrison, and Eisenhower...

um Washington, Jackson (fiscally), Taylor, Grant (on civil rights), Hayes, Aurthur, and Eisenhower all had good in their Presidencies

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at February 15, 2011 08:09 PM (6ftzF)

Self-delusion amongst Obama voters takes many forms.

Eradicating all the Taliban would probably be like trying to eradicate all the Nazis after Berlin fell.  At some point they'll be marginalized enough that they can't make a comeback and tacit agreements can be made.  I don't know enough about the current situation to know if we're at that point or not yet.

Sure, but I'm not sure we've even crossed the French border into Nazi Germany yet.  The goal has always been to weaken the Taliban and strengthen the Afghan military such that they could handle things on their own.  It doesn't look to me like we're very close to that point yet.

Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at February 15, 2011 08:25 PM (hBqOU)

I never said you didn't have your right to an opinion asshole, I just said your types are the reason I believe we can lose in 2012, btw how's that birther theory going?

Yup.  That's it right there.  The MFM is once again reading way too much into this.

NOOOOO!!!!!11111!!  YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO TAKE AWAY MY TINGLE!!!111111!!!  PRESIDENT OBAMA IS GOING TO WIN THE WAR ON TERROR--IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ--HIS SPEECH IN CAIRO IS WHAT IS GOING TO MAKE IT  HAPPEN1111!!!!1111

Hey..isn't that ambassaador to Luxembourg available now. Is Ogabe making room for her?

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at February 15, 2011 08:28 PM (c5RQr)

I don't like Romney and Huckabee either but polls aren't just bullshit, they mean something after all how can we claim we have the popular opinion on repealing obamacare w/o the polls to back us up? face it I love the woman but she needs to change things soon because she loses to Obama worse then Ron Paul, again RON PAUL

Posted by: Leftover Soothsayers at February 15, 2011 08:25 PM (hBqOU)

Leave teh Kittehs out of it!

Posted by: DrewM. at February 15, 2011 08:23 PM (HicGG)

??

Posted by: CAC at February 15, 2011 08:28 PM (Gr1V1)

Thanks.

I like to call these kinds of conservatives the "sphinx caucus".

They'll cut off their nose to spite all of us.

Whoever is our candidate, I will be out there doing volunteer work for and I would expect the same from everyone here, whether its Palin, Romney, Huckabee or even Ron Paul.

Obama losing is job 1 in 2012.

For those of you worried about gun restrictions from the likes of a Christie or Giuliani, you're nuts. They would never try it. They may be anti gun(as we tend to see it), but their not political tards. They know that if democrats can't even bring up gun control legislation anymore(see Gore in 2000 election), then Republicans would be committing suicide by trying it.

Also on the whole social con/fiscal con debate. If there were ever an election where a Fiscal con/social liberal-moderate could win it will be in 2012.

Social Cons are showing up for election day, no matter what threats they make.

Obama is the great unifer of our three legged stool. We will all bite our tongue and vote against him if we have to and anyone who says otherwise is lying.

I don't like any of our candidates, but I will do almost anything to make O isn't re-elected. I expect the same from all of you

Posted by: CAC at February 15, 2011 08:28 PM (Gr1V1)

you said it better then I could have in a more elegant non-assholish way

+1

Posted by: George Orwell at February 15, 2011 08:34 PM (AZGON)

Try the veal.  It's pure hobo.

Plus ace said we would lose. So lets run Palin.

I'm staying outta this one

It's just that they've lived their lives in a quasi-autocratic society for most if not all of their lives. I'm not sure I want that in a president.

The military is performance and mission oriented as well.  That's something I do want in a president. 

Unfucking our current situation needs to be treated as a military mission.

eh. That's sounds nice, I would much much rather prefer a businessman. They are about performance and mission oriented as well, but they have experience in something that is much more beneficial for someone in public service, a good understanding of commerce. We need people who understand economics from personal experience, not just book learning.

Right now I want to know who the 4 and 5th starters are gonna be for the Yankees this year.

I think Obama put money for that in his budget.

I don't believe Coulter is stumping for the "Great Fat Hope" just because she regards his skills highly, rather its the idiocy of trying to beat an empty suit..

with an empty suit.

Posted by: obvious at February 15, 2011 08:38 PM (P18+/)

Remarkably similar, actually.

I will vote for ... over Obama.

Inanimate Carbon Rod/Side of Beef 2012!!!

clap clap clap

Christie isn't my choice because of his stance on guns and immigration. If it came down to Christie or Obama though I would roll the dice with Christie. I don't know anything about Petreaus's politics but if he ran against Obama I would roll the dice with Petreaus.

Obama is evil and I'm warming up to those who have been saying for quite awhile that he is hurting the country on purpose.

Posted by: nevergiveup at February 15, 2011 08:11 PM (0GFWk)

You have a higher opinion of the way this administration acts than I.  I can definitely see these idiots in the White House deciding to do this and having it get released to others and Petreaus ends up finding out second hand.  Remember how McCrystal or his predecessor had commented how he had almost zero interaction with Obama after being in charge of a Afghanistan for quite some time.  I think it amounted to one phone call and a 30 minute face to face.

Posted by: DrewM. at February 15, 2011 08:39 PM (HicGG)

I followed the link.  The war from the air is different from the rules on the ground.  Do you forget the stories about the rules of engagement in Afghanistan and why they were that way - to win "hearts and minds", which is asinine in the arab/persian/muslim world.

I know that afghans aren't arabs.  I was talking about his strategy in Iraq, you blithering idiot.

@177 CAC, I honestly believe Romney would in Michigan.

I also believe he would win Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana.

the question is could he win enough of the smaller swing states to win the election.

Michigan would be a big get and would help offset the loss of Colorado which is trending blue.

I'm not big Romney fan, but I do think he is the only candidate who could pick up michigan.

Posted by: General Sand Trap O'Bambam at February 15, 2011 08:21 PM (UOM4

That was beautiful.

If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a hoola hoop and some castanets.

And an iPod loaded up with my best speeches.

Don't forget about me!

I'm not a witch!!1111!!

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at February 15, 2011 08:43 PM (myA1

Wait...What?

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at February 15, 2011 08:40 PM (6ftzF)

a possible birther, there we are go folks this is why we lose in 2012 if we keep this up because cowards like this jackass and soothsayer want to be mr. bravery and cost us our future so they can claim how awesome they were for sitting on their asses

All of you morons saying you'd prefer a businessman instead of someone from the military.  How do you feel about The Donald? 

i'm the only moron saying that, i will add a qualifier. A successful businessman

Posted by: Cicero at February 15, 2011 08:44 PM (QKKT0)

If by fired you mean murdered then well yeah.

Posted by: Kommissar with a smoking Tokarev at February 15, 2011 08:45 PM (reUzo)

Yeah, I know...I keep telling Barack he's going about it the wrong way.

@66: "If my choice is between a big government leftist democrat and a big government leftist republican it's game over. I'll ride out the coming storm and rebuild with those smart enough to be prepared."

Christie has his good points - economics.  Agreed that he is weak on guns and also immigration.  He's something of a statist, but he's not exactly a "big government" guy.  He's more one of those "better managed" types.  Better than what we've got, but not exactly good, either.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here)

Exactly right.  Eisenhower had a very good grasp of organizing staff work to support the executive (himself as President).  He had quite a bit of criticism for JFK (in private) over his poor staff organization and allowing himself to get bogged down in details while allowing the big items to be less well managed.

Don't confuse a modern general officer (like Eisenhower, Haig, Powell or Petraeus) with some of the 19th century mediocrities.  This are all highly educated men, who went to intense staff training and preparation for high level executive management.

I have no idea what Petraeus' politics are, but we could do a whole lot WORSE with him as President (and we are in much worse shape now). We don't have much time for purity politics at this point.  I want a vigorous primary debate of the issues to get a nominee who is well understood. Whoever emerges will be heads above the present incompetetent, Obama.

That's not a businessman, that's a schyster.

Sorry, but you need a law license to be a shyster.

Posted by: DrewM. at February 15, 2011 08:48 PM (HicGG)

I don't have poof.  That's for sure.  I'm not into poof.

You can just go back in the archives, here, if you're interested.  Or you can search pretty much anywhere else.  Evidently, you forget things after a week or two.  And you also don't remember what his arguments for the Iraq strategy were.

Also, I would like to point something out, and i've pointed it out before.

Whenever you hear someone saying we have the weakest field we've ever had, keep this in mind.

Between 1952-2004, we've only had 1 ticket that didn't have the surname Bush, Nixon or Dole on the ticket.

So if not having one those people constitutes a "weak" ticket, then i am fine with that.

You know what as far as I'm concerned if you want to argue that one potential candidate is too much of a squish or too much of a RINO or too much of a social con that will scare moderates, and so they wouldn't be a good candidate that's all fine and dandy.  But when you start in on the "I won't vote for them" then you can go fuck yourself. 

Because they may not be perfect but at least they are partially on your side and can possibly be pushed more towards a way you would like.  Obama is going to be the immoveable object so you have just cut off your nose to spite your face.

Social Cons wanting to purge all those nasty evil moderates from the GOP are fucking themselves over royally.  Moderates wanting to purge all those backwards bible thumping social cons from the GOP are fucking themselves over royally. 

So guess what if you want that, you're just like the idiots you claim to hate.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2011 08:55 PM (nj1bB)

What the credit crisis should have taught people is that it will not "start coming apart".  There will most likely be a jump discontinuity, when no one is suspecting it, and that will be it.  That's the razor's edge we are living on.

The Pentagon has denied that the commander of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, is planning to quit by the end of the year.

The Times reported that the Pentagon was looking to replace Petraeus, who was appointed eight months ago.

But the Pentagon said that while it constantly reviewed rotations, particularly as a number of senior posts were about to fall vacant, no decision had been made about Petraeus.

Petraeus is popular in the US, credited with first turning around Iraq and now, as head of Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), helping to reverse Taliban gains in southern Afghanistan and bring a degree of stability.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon spokesman, said: "Despite some sensational speculation by one of the London papers, I can assure you General Petraeus is not quitting as Isaf commander, but nor does he plan to stay in Afghanistan for ever.

"Obviously he will rotate out at some point, but that point has not yet been determined and it will not occur any time soon. Until then, he will continue to ably lead our coalition forces in Afghanistan."

http://tinyurl.com/4ayfawg

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2011 08:55 PM (nj1bB)

It is simply not possible that we can run out of money.  We can always print more.  I have an idea for the new ten trillion dollar bill.  I think that we should go with the Obama Socialistic poster portrait for this one, we can even  keep the yellowish, greenish hues. 

So the White House thinks all the hard work of the war is over, and the winning general can now go home.  This way in 2012 the White House looks like the winner, not the generals and the troops who served.

Please let Patraeus get in the republican primary for 2012! 

Yeah, and not in the far-off future either. Like, in 3-5 years it starts coming apart.

To be honest. I'm not sure anyone can stop it at this point. I know, I know, you'll say why even vote then, if its inevitable why bother. I think we should always try, but look at our gov't now. We're probably within a decade of collapse(not end times but a radical change in the balance of power in the world and a unrecognizable america) and we can't even agree to cut a paltry 100 billion dollars.

We're addicts. Not just our government.

We can't rely on the phrase, "America always makes the right decision at the last moment". I don't know if thats true anymore.

Posted by: nevergiveup at February 15, 2011 09:06 PM

Yeah, that sonofabitch Nixon sent him over there Christmas '67.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2011 08:55 PM (nj1bB)

It starts going sideways at the first failed bond auction and that could happen at any time.

To be honest. I'm not sure anyone can stop it at this point.

Posted by: Ben at February 15, 2011 09:07 PM (DKV43)

I disagree.  We can grow out of it if the proper spending limits are implemented and the proper pro-growth policies are instituted.  In fact, we can only grow out of it ... well, pretty much "only".  But, people need to recognize these two elements.  Of course, they had to understand this back in Oct 2008 when the credit crisis hit.  They did, but America was thrown into a psychotic break and chose Suicide by Indonesian in Nov.  This was all clear, as growth and spending restraint was necessary, but America intentionally chose the guy who would do the exact opposite.

Lastly, there is always default, which is much preferable to monetization.  Monetization is condemning America to hell for a very, very long time and likely destroys the nation as an entity (which would then be a forced default, as it were).

If Obama can't grab our guns, I hardly think Chris Christie will. Show some sense, people.

+1000

Guys, the gun issue is dead for a generation. We won. It won't be attemped by a Republican in our lifetime.  The Christie and Giuliani types are smart enough to know that regardless of what their personal opinions are.

If you are going into 2012 fixated on guns and abortion then your priorites are mixed up. I am pretty conservative on both those issues, but I fully understand 2012 is a different animal. Fiscal issues are all that matters right now. Our government can't walk and chew gum at the same time, we need laser like focus on fiscal issues. Fixing the tax code, entitlement reform or elimination, elimination of government departments, curtailing the power of the EPA, ending fair trade agreements that are one way streets. From now on you don't get access to our market if we can't have acces to your market. Reducing the size of government in ALL areas.

This has to be our goal at the expense of everything else, if only for this election

@187: "There is a single issue facing this country and people better start getting serious about it, finance. Guns, abortion, the right for Steve to blast Gary in the squeakhole, even terrorism, none of these things are going to mean shit if we don't start getting our financial house in order double plus quick."

Ok - let's get serious about finance.  We have to cut the size of the government (Fed) by 40% immediately.  Not in 2012.  Now.  If that doesn't happen, not much else matters. 

Also, in the event of financial armageddon, guns are kinda useful for protecting hearth and home, or refrigerator box and hovel, as the case may be.

There are many things I could say would make me pause at a Christie campaign run...but his weight isn't one of them.  Wtf????

It starts going sideways at the first failed bond auction and that could happen at any time.

Posted by: robtr at February 15, 2011 09:12 PM (hVDig)

That and if/when the world ditches the dollar as the reserve currency.  We really are well and truly boned. 

Good Lord, grasping at straws.   That's all this is.   The slightest effin chance that Patraeus would run and people are creaming.   Half of you don't know jack about his political affinities, but he could be the one.

Jeebus.   It's 2 years out.   I know everyone is skeeved out about even the possiblity of Obama winning another term, but damn, the reek of desperation is putrid.   One day it's this potential candidate, the next "Oh, this guy might run!   It should be him!".

Let's at least wait to freak out until we know who the hell actually is running, because, honestly, there's not a damn thing any one of us can do about it.  

Posted by: nevergiveup at February 15, 2011 09:03 PM (0GFWk)

Heh.  Now that was funny.

Barry fucks up the Stan, he gets a shitload of people right up in his face about their brave kids dying for nothing and shit.  Not good - very not good at all.  Careful Barry, I don't think you know what you're fucking around with, dude.

A report from July:

Posted by: steevy at February 15, 2011 09:20 PM (1wnrF)   

Dude needs to take up smoking.

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2011 09:16 PM (nj1bB)

thank you i hate it when I argue for a candidate that is a moderate so we could win and suddenly im called a McCain backer when I hated him as the nominee, when I decided not to jump on the Hayowrth express I heard it coming, or my fav whenever I mention the fact that Palin can't win I hear how I hate Palin and crap though I defend her everyday on facebook and in public w/ other people

343 No; no, no -- if Barry fucks up the 'stan (or Iraq -- we still have troops there), then I will personally organize that group of bereaved and highly pissed off people, and we will get in the faces of Barry's supporters...with extreme prejudice.

How's that sound?  I personally like it better strategically.

but I'm hating Obama so much lately I have to keep myself from calling him "The Kenyan," just as an insult.

the yeswecanyan?

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2011 09:23 PM (nj1bB) 

Ace, call him President Learning Curve.  Because Oprah told the AM Joe crew in Chicago we need to respect him because he's in one.

Maybe it's time to give Lyndon LaRouche another shot. I don't know if we ever gave him a fair look.

Let's see you want to vote for an anti-gun, pro-illegal immigration candidate who is a fiscal monster killer who will not allow more wasteful spending. Leftists want to vote for an anti-gun, pro-illegal immigration candidate who laughs when people ask him about our debt problem and thinks there's a magical money tree. I won't vote for the devil with an R after his name. will let Obama fuck us over for 4 more years

FIFY

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2011 09:23 PM (nj1bB) 
 That's kinda harsh towards Kenyans don't you think?

How does Ohio State always end up with a center who looks like he's 35?

Because their birth certificates are all stored in Hawaii.

Posted by: Serious Cat at February 15, 2011 09:24 PM (bAySe)

Winston fucking Churchill.  Overweight, cigar-smoking, heavy drinking Churchill.

Anyone ever seen an obese 90 year old?

who wants to live to be 90?

Posted by: Steph at February 15, 2011 09:20 PM (AkdC5)

so the fact some candidates lose worse then Ron Paul shouldn't be a conern to us?

  He's the real (idiotic, uneducated, angrily fapping) deal, I think.

He's quick on the draw, but he's no daisy, he's no daisy at all!

Posted by: iknowtheleft at February 15, 2011 09:31 PM (N49h9)

FTFY

so the fact some candidates lose worse then Ron Paul shouldn't be a conern to us?

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 15, 2011 09:31 PM (UzBwz)

Um, you got that out of my comment, how?

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at February 15, 2011 09:32 PM (zzIii)

what if we get to Iowa and she's still losing worse? then will you cutt her off?

Posted by: YRM (Most Clairvoyant Ace Commenter and Well Known Palin Defender Who Sure Wishes We could be rid of those Tea Party troublemakers) at February 15, 2011 09:23 PM (UzBwz)

Oh really?  Ah which of your RINO dreams beats her in the primaries?  Good luck with that, genius.

Posted by: Steph at February 15, 2011 09:36 PM (AkdC5)

because people have told me not to worry about the fact that people like Palin lose worse to Obama then even Ron Paul himself, its a big deal-breaker for me and i'm concerned about whether we can win w/ her, thus my response

Posted by: DrewM. at February 15, 2011 09:30 PM (HicGG)

Who was McChrystal's boss?

Look, Petraeus was a big advocate for the "hearts and minds" strategy - i.e. highly restrictive ROE.  That's something that was so well-known that I am astounded anyone could have already forgotten it.  It was the centerpoint of his Iraq strategy - that and buying off some of the local sheiks.

Sometimes reality forces its way into the best laid plans.  It's still winter, so we'll see what the story is as the thaw comes.  But, for you to argue that I don't know what I'm talking about because I remember what Petraeus was yelping about for a couple of years is a bit ridiculous.  I mean, you really don't remember the stories from troops on the ground who weren't allowed to shoot at terrorists if they ran into a building with one other person in there?  Do I really have to go dig up the articles about how the terrorists would shoot at our troops and then drop their guns, so our troops couldn't do anything?  Come on.  There were all sorts of stories about this.

Posted by: Louis Tully at February 15, 2011 09:37 PM (BZEkR)

maybe instead of fact I should have said I believe i'll give you that but screaming RINO lover at me isn't going to stop the FACT that there are concerns w/ her beating Obama which DO concern me even though i'm a Palin fan. I'm A Christie guy if he runs, if he doesn't I don't know cause no one impresses me including Romney who went from everyone's hero 2 years ago to now the devil himself

Posted by: Whatever at February 15, 2011 09:38 PM (1U2YZ)

+1

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2011 09:43 PM (nj1bB)

'oh come on ace it's about time one of these purity or no dice clowns gets it

When your Knowns seem like likely losers, then you gravitate towards Unknowns, who, while Unknown, at least don't give you that vibe of "Can't win."

Ace, I get that, although I'm not so sure Patraeus could win.   The left would go ape-shit bonkers.   The only reason they've been quiet about him, now, is because their butt buddie Obama appointed him to replace McChrystal.   

I just think it will be a few more months before we know who will run, and I honestly don't see an unknown anywhere near. 

Posted by: ace at February 15, 2011 09:45 PM (nj1bB)

I should have given more detail to that part of my post but yes your right I just find it amusing because 2 years ago everyone made him like the next Reagan, the guy who will save us from Mac (albeit too little, too late as you said) and now he's like enemy #1, not knocking Romney or anti-Romney people just think it's amusing

Posted by: Chicago Jedi at February 15, 2011 09:44 PM (6ftzF)

Ace asked it be stopped, and even if it is him how is Ace going down the crapper because we dont subscribe to 1 issue politics? has he banned you? no, Charles would ban you in an instant. I bash Allah who Ace & his co-bloggers like and never have I been banned. I've disagreed w/ Ace and his co-bloggers and never have I been banned. We had a concern troll named greg who survived too long because Ace wouldn't ban him. You get more room here to speak your mind then LGF or I dare say Hot Air

because people have told me not to worry about the fact that people like Palin lose worse to Obama then even Ron Paul himself,

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 15, 2011 09:37 PM (UzBwz)

I'm not trying to be a contrarian, but whoever is telling you that is bonkers.   Nobody would lose worse to Obama than Paul.   Just because he wins an effin straw poll somewhere doesn't mean jack.

Posted by: Steph at February 15, 2011 09:52 PM (AkdC5)

your not fimiliar w/ the Rasmussen poll where he beats Paul by 8 but beats Palin by 11 are you? I hope she can comeback and give me a reason to support her but i'm just saying...

your not fimiliar w/ the Rasmussen poll where he beats Paul by 8 but beats Palin by 11 are you? I hope she can comeback and give me a reason to support her but i'm just saying...

Posted by: YRM (Rarest Ace Commenter, Most Common Ace Reader) at February 15, 2011 09:53 PM (UzBwz)

No, I guess that one slipped by me, and if this country is stupid enough to prefer Paul over any other Repub, we're more boned than we thought.

Posted by: Steph at February 15, 2011 09:55 PM (AkdC5)

its the damn independents, I hate those fuckers, yet we need them to win

Let's see you want to vote for an anti-gun, pro-illegal immigration candidate. Leftists want to vote for an anti-gun, pro-illegal immigration candidate. I won't vote for the devil with an R after his name.

So which of us is like the left? Hmmmm....
see!
see!
I WIN
I WIN
I WIN

Posted by: Chicago Jedi, who pooped a little from the excitement at February 15, 2011 09:20 PM (6ftzF)

Nice of you to ignore everything else I just wrote.  You can go fuck yourself.  I didn't say you were like the left.  I was saying you are like those asshole RINOs you rage against that would love to kick you out of the party.

Congratulations you're the tails side of the coin to David Frum's heads.

Go fuck yourself.

Posted by: CAC at February 15, 2011 10:16 PM (Gr1V1)

Wouldn't number 2 be the magic post on this thread?

I honestly don't see an unknown anywhere near.  --

Ehem...

(I'm one of those evil independents too -- very scary)

Petraeus is not going to win, I live in a community of veterans, young and old and they will vote the woman who happened to be from Alaska. 

solar panelThe main products we manufacture and export as below:

　　Monocrystalline silicon solar panel, polycrystalline silicon solar panel, solar power system.

　　solar street light, wind solar hybrid street light, solar garden light, solar sensor light, solar lawn light.

LED lamp for solar garden light, solar brick light, solar street lightsolar post cap, solar road stud, other solar lights and accessories