Posts by CaptBlack

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Dallas pastor defends Wright's concern for U.S.

    03/31/2008 3:19:43 PM PDT · 2 of 32
    CaptBlack to LibertyRocks

    I love how they add in that the talks were moved for “security concerns.”
    Riiiight, like someone from the “Right” would really do anything to that guy. He most likely bailed, IMAO, because he didn’t want to face the heat.
    If anybody has to worry about “security concerns” at speaking engagements, it’s CONSERVATIVES.

  • Bush seeks to salvage legacy at NATO, Putin summits (No bias here, no sir.)

    03/31/2008 3:11:25 PM PDT · 7 of 10
    CaptBlack to NormsRevenge

    Seeking to reassert himself on the world stage in the twilight of his term [and how does the writer know what Bush is seeking?], Bush will press NATO for more troops in Afghanistan, try to keep up momentum in the alliance's eastward expansion and attempt to ease strains with Russia.

    But with Bush even more unpopular overseas than at home, he could have a hard time swaying world leaders at this week's Bucharest summit as they look to whomever will succeed him in January 2009.

    "Many of them are looking forward now to the next president in Washington and are already thinking about what the 2009 summit will bring," said Julianne Smith, a Europe analyst at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies. [Ahh, the old quote from ONE ANALYST at some think tank somewhere...]

    Lame-duck status will not be Bush's only obstacle as he ventures abroad for the first in a series of international conferences marking his final year in office. [But wait, there's more!]

    Overhanging his travels will be the 5-year-old Iraq war, which has damaged America's credibility with friends and foes alike. [Really?? As far as foes, why would we care about "credibility" if they are truly foes? And friends? Which ones? And in what way do we lack "credibility"?]?The latest spike in fighting has increased doubts [Among whom? And exactly how? Many conflicts experience a "spike" in fighting just before the end as the enemy gives a last rousing attempt] of further drawdowns of U.S. forces before Bush leaves office.

    He will also be trailed by a financial crisis at home that has roiled global markets and sharpened criticism of his economic record [Bush's economic record??? He wasn't the one that initiated the sub-prime debacle!!], once seen as a bright spot of his legacy [Really?? All I've EVER heard is constant gloom and doom since the day Bush darkened the door of the Oval office. Links, please!!].

  • Bush seeks to salvage legacy at NATO, Putin summits (No bias here, no sir.)

    03/31/2008 2:57:50 PM PDT · 5 of 10
    CaptBlack to NormsRevenge

    Yeah, I’ve often wanted to ask the journalist how they could know something like what President Bush is “seeking” when he does anything. Did he interview with them? How do they know that’s his motivation?
    If they don’t know, then how is this article classified as straight news and not conjecture/opinion?

  • Chinese military 'hacked into Pentagon'

    09/05/2007 3:04:29 PM PDT · 8 of 18
    CaptBlack to mojito

    Well at the rate that we keep bringing them over to work at “internships” at Microsoft, Google, Sun, et al, I wouldn’t be surprised at their increased skill level.

    I’m totally baffled at why we play fast and loose with a country that clearly does not mean us well.

  • Many Liberians may be ousted from U.S.

    09/05/2007 3:00:35 PM PDT · 71 of 72
    CaptBlack to DoughtyOne

    I’m not suggesting that we pull up the ship to Liberia and all that garbage, I’m commenting on the incoherence of our policies towards foreigners.
    On the one hand, we ship back people who literally are running for their lives. It’s something the U.S. has offered since it’s inception (and most Western countries). Sanctuary or asylum isn’t a dirty word entirely; we’ve often allowed people to find asylum here over the course of the nation’s history. That’s different than blatant illegal immigration.
    My crack was at how we allow folks who come here illegally and who can’t even claim to be running for their lives to stay here, some of whom are criminals of the worst kind, and many of whom become a drain on our system. But those Liberians—well, they gotta go NOW!
    Of course politics is to blame. The Liberians don’t have a Vincente Fox/Calderon to demand rights for them in our country. Or a political party that’s willing to indulge in demographic Russian Roulette to get their votes...

  • Many Liberians may be ousted from U.S.

    09/05/2007 12:53:43 PM PDT · 47 of 72
    CaptBlack to DoughtyOne

    Of course they’ll make these poor saps leave, who might actually have a legitimate claim, i.e., covered under our law (”asylum” or “refugee” status), but Jose Maria Conchita Alonso Reyes La Reconquista gets to stay even though he came here illegally and has no such claim.

    Interestingly, I actually know of a family who fled Liberia and one of the local churches (WA state) in our denomination has assisted them in their flight from some seriously ugly bloodletting.

    But it’s OK to deport THEM.


    I just keep forgetting that Mexicans have an inherent RIGHT to come to the US ILLEGALLY whenever they please.

    Ahh...I get it...

  • Fragging Fred Thompson

    09/05/2007 9:24:11 AM PDT · 25 of 53
    CaptBlack to Parmenio

    Hugh Hewitt is still one of my all-time favorite radio personalities but when he starts one of his “rah-rah” drives for a given candidate, I tend to turn off the radio myself. I wish he’d just stick to analyses of current events and promoting conservative ideology. He’s a great guy and undoubtedly has been immensely helpful to conservatism, but I think he has something of a bad track record (at least with me) on who he supports for office (think Arlen Specter over Toomey, and Arnold over McClintock).
    I used to call into his show a lot and e-mail him on this very topic. It became particularly irksome when he was so onboard for Arnold over against Tom McClintock. Hugh’s mantra is this thing about “electability.” He seems to miss the basic point that a person’s talent and abilities can CREATE electability; it’s not a zero sum game between announced candidates.
    At the end of the day, I always have to come back to the realization that so many of these guys like Hugh are party men first and foremost, and ideologues after. That tends to make the (short-sighted?) pragmatists as well. I grant that this is a somewhat crude representation of someone as sharp and multi-faceted as Hugh, but I think it captures the gist of his approach.
    With that in mind, I think it’s fascinating to realize that some of the most principled conservatives, who are all about adhering to and promoting the ideas behind conservatism (as opposed to cheerleading for who is “electable,”) are women—Anne Coulter and Laura Ingraham. I love just about any article by Anne (I can’t think of any I didn’t like) and I have to say the Laura Ingraham show is running neck and neck with Rush for my all-time fav radio show.
    Anyways, I have nothing against Mitt Romney really (other than he just seems “nice” but still very much a “politician”), and I don’t know much about Fred Thompson. I just wish conservative analysts would stop trying to be so clever by half in divining this or that one’s “electability” and scrutinizing their every movement and focus on what the candidate stands for. As Rush so often says, “Conservatism works every time it’s tried.”
    If pundits and “analysts” would believe that, maybe they’d spend less time reading the tea leaves and this and that poll, or dogging the primary opponents of “their guy”, and start putting pressure on candidates to clearly articulate their beliefs. If that happened, I don’t think it would take long for the “electable” candidate to appear.

  • Bush Laws in Schiavo Case, Texas at Odds

    03/23/2005 9:34:23 PM PST · 1 of 9
    I'm so tired of the death-loving, fact-avoiding, truth-denying Leftist.
  • Edwards Counsels Kerry Against Surrender

    11/03/2004 7:57:12 AM PST · 7 of 30
    CaptBlack to Leapfrog

    Yeah, so we won't hear a peep out of Kerry if Bush contests Pennsylvannia which is closer for Bush than Ohio is for Kerry. NOT.

  • Early voting

    11/02/2004 10:33:17 PM PST · 7 of 7
    CaptBlack to joglers

    if it's a tie, doesn't it go to the congress for a vote? The republican controlled congress?

  • Bush gets one from Maine

    11/02/2004 9:46:33 PM PST · 12 of 16
    CaptBlack to Josh in PA

    totally hugh.

  • Danziger Racism Exposed (Again!)

    10/12/2004 8:24:35 PM PDT · 13 of 21
    CaptBlack to CaptBlack
    Don't forget this doozey as well (from the same article):

  • Danziger Racism Exposed (Again!)

    10/12/2004 8:15:23 PM PDT · 8 of 21
    CaptBlack to K4Harty
    The cartoon is:

  • Danziger Racism Exposed (Again!)

    10/12/2004 8:02:54 PM PDT · 1 of 21
    Ok. Here goes...I tried and tried to search and see if this was posted already. If I'm doing something wrong, please correct me but here it is just in case!
  • ABC News Poll, Kerry won debate 45-36, but Bush is still up +4.

    09/30/2004 10:03:47 PM PDT · 68 of 86
    CaptBlack to Perdogg
    I'm stunned that people really care about this debate. The debate, moderated as it was by Jim Lehrer and covered by the MSM would have been a "Kerry victory!" if the man had wet himself publicly and came in drunk. What's the worry?

    These debates don't mean much. I didn't even watch. It was a foregone conclusion it was going to be called for Kerry. I went out with a friend and had some good beer, a good dinner, and good conversation.

  • FOX News Really Inept but alas, they're all we've got

    09/15/2004 4:50:15 PM PDT · 11 of 18
    CaptBlack to Tribemike
    Since Lee left the scene, we have been trying to play "nice" and it just emboldens the enemy...kind of like Jimmy Carter's approach to foreign policy.

    But that's just it--they don't see the Left as an enemy of any kind. They don't realize that the stakes are the difference between a viable society and a hopeless downward spiral. Sometimes, a part of me wonders if maybe the Dems don't have some dirt on certain Republicans that keeps them at bay. There doesn't seem to be any other explanation for why nearly an ENTIRE PARTY prefers the gelded approach.

  • POLIPUNDIT asks: How come John McCain is nowhere to be seen?

    09/15/2004 3:49:44 PM PDT · 8 of 9
    CaptBlack to Checkers
    I said the EXACT same thing a few days ago. Still no McCain.
  • Scarborough on NOW doing CBS, bloggers etc!

    09/14/2004 7:27:30 PM PDT · 60 of 209
    CaptBlack to rocky88
    I'm making a friendly wager that it will die down, there will be no hearings on it ala Hugh Hewitt's initiative, and the "Anybody but Bush" sheeple will go into the booths hanging their nasty chads on the idea that Bush "avoided" Guard service.

    The killing part is that, if it's true, Bush didn't take a physical, so what?? The REAL danger to avoid would have been pilot training! If he wanted to skate, he should've claimed some kind of bogus medical deferment and avoided flying a notoriously dangerous jet aircraft!

    What's so freakin' ominous about not taking a physical?? I'm a former Guardsman now Reservist and the OIC for a small maintenance flight and I'm hear to tell you that it's not the end of the world, or the end of a career to reschedule for a physical. These folks need to get a life.

  • From A Democrat - "Why John Kerry Is Losing Democrats."

    09/13/2004 12:02:24 PM PDT · 33 of 138
    CaptBlack to CaptBlack
    I forgot to mention also how he says that John Kerry served in Vietnam and got some medals but George Bush's service was a bit foggier.

    Nice little partisan dig in there based, of course, on lies.

  • From A Democrat - "Why John Kerry Is Losing Democrats."

    09/13/2004 12:00:04 PM PDT · 30 of 138
    CaptBlack to Happy2BMe
    I notice that there was a soft, thinly disguised attempt to indict Bush along with Kerry as bringing the election to a new low. Sounds like homey still can't handle the truth.

    "Flip-flopper" is no where even NEAR a "low", while calling someone:

    • Hitler
    • Stalin
    • Murderer (he knew 9/11 was coming and let it happen
    • Criminal (under the UCMJ, "AWOL" is a serious crime punishable even by death in some instances)
    • Liar (he misled, etc., etc.)
    • Racist
    • Unfit for command
    • Stupid

    ...truly IS a low.

    What, pray tell, has Bush said that even closely compares to that? This guy is just angry, not repentant. If he were more truthful, he'd call a spade a spade and just admit what everyone plainly knows when they are being honest: George Bush, whatever faults he may have, is a man of PROVEN CHARACTER and the way he's run his campaign shows it.
    John Kerry, on the other hand, is a man of PROVEN CHARACTER as well--proven that he's an inconsistent, self-seeking, opportunistic FOOL--and the way he's run HIS campaign clearly shows it.

    There is NO equivalency between the two--period.