Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 17 August 2008

Various driveby media television networks ^ | 17 August 2008 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Alas Babylon!]

Accepted, thank you!

[Sal]

Thanks, Morgan. I finally played your link in #365 and it was stunning. McCain did great; Obama was...well, Obama. McCain looked so comfortable besides giving good answers. (I admit I didn’t watch the last half of Obama’s side, but I did watch all of McCain’s and was very surprised in a good way.)

[maica]

What if it spread.

&&&&&

What a concept! And David Gregory might believe that he thought it up all by himself. ;)

[STARWISE]

Glad you saw it .... makes such
a difference to previous perceptions,
doesn’t it?

[patriot08]

Interesting. Thanks!

[snugs]

In Britain you can buy in the chilled cabinet raw pastry maybe you have similar in the States.

I actually do make my own pastry I have found if I use a food mixer it is quite easy, a trick my mum taught me. I use double in weight flour to fat and then just enough water to bind together. The fat I use is half hard margarine and half white vegetable fat our makes are cooken and trex I believe you call it shortening and your major make is Crisco.

The rest of the recipe is really really easy. My earlier photo was as taken just as I got the tray out of the oven here is plate with cut slices on it.

[Sal]

The blacks would riot, and then leave the party in droves. It would be 1968 all over again. My feeling is that even the superdelagates would rather Obama lose than risk that. 2012 is only 4 years away.

I don't rule ANYTHING out at the Rat convention. OTOH your statements above just made me realize what an advantage they have.

However much they may hate us, deep down they know we will not destroy the country itself (barring an enforced amnesty which they want anyway and which we will HAVE TO stop again if necessary). We do NOT have the luxury of saying oh what the hell, 2012 is only 4 years away...

[STARWISE]

Wow! That looks simply yummy ........... ;)

[Sal]

That's not butting in; I love to hear from you.

I also think they would not be making such straight out hard talk without the ability and will to back it up because if that happened, they'd be through--objects of ridicule forever.

The fact that the Germans broke the news that THEY are proposing NATO membership for Georgia PDQ after they were the drag before tells me that they KNOW what'll happen if this situation isn't resolved in the right way. The Wall wasn't so long ago and it was real life for them.

I hope the extent of the possible includes secret commitments of harsh action if absolutely necessary, but which might push brain-damaged thugs over the edge if advertised or crammed in their faces. (I'm a cram-it-in-their-faces person myself, but I understand why it's sometimes better not to.)

I think the fourflusher in this is Vlad and the poker player is calling his bluff. God, how I hope it is a bluff.

[Sal]

Yes, it does. There are still things I worry about with him, but some of them have been laid to rest and I worry about EVERYTHING with Hill or Obama.

[STARWISE]

I know ... and them? Dangerous ...
watch for a bloody convention.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Rotten bastards like Obama and the rest of the rotten scumbag Democrats should be BOILED in oil for what they have been perpetrating. They are SCREWING with peoples lives.

[Polybius]

Please explain how Bush has only been “blessed” with military victories, whereas the others somehow “earned” them.

I do not recall ever stating that Lincoln or Churchill "earned" a military victory on the battlefield.

Unlike in the days of the medieval warrior kings or when Caesar led his own legions across the Rubicon, modern heads of state do not command troops in battle.

I did say that they both WON THEIR WARS.

I did say that George W. Bush has put America in a position where America could very well lose the war in the next election IN SPITE of spectacular battlefield military victories.

Modern era American Presidents are "blessed" or "cursed" by the Armed Forces they inherit.

Lincoln (in the historical Big Picture, a "modern" head of state) was "cursed" by the fact that the cream of the crop of the ante bellum U.S. Army officer corps ended up in the in the service of the Confederate States of America. It took quite some time and an extremely sorry procession of Union Generals ......

George McClellan (disaster at Seven Days)

John Pope (disaster at Second Bull Run)

Ambrose Burnsides (disaster at Fredericksburg)

Joseph Hooker (disaster at Chancellorsville)

...... before Lincoln finally got a General that could consistently be at the Confederate jugular.

George W. Bush, by contrast, inherited a U.S. military that, even after the Clinton years, could clean Iraq's clock without much difficulty.

By the way, Lincoln made some really great speeches, but his hard work, grit, gifted behind-the-scenes political skills, and “stubborness” were just as important, if not more, than his speeches.

By contrast, George W. Bush was opposing the Surge that is now winning the war and which McCain was championing as late as the Fall of 2006.

The "gifted behind-the-scenes" skills are sorely lacking in Bush.

Bush knew what strategic goals need to be accomplished but his execution of those goals has led us to the very real possibility of defeat, by America's own Home Front, in next November's election.

[Polybius]

You know, it seems to me that you have a woeful understanding of Civil War History. Lincoln didn’t do beans about keeping morale up. Have you heard of the New York Draft Riots?

Oh, you mean the New York Draft Riots where Irish immigrants, relatively fresh off the boat, took exception to going to war for a land they had barely gotten to know?

< sarcasm> Yes. Certainly that correlates PERFECTLY with the fact that recent polls show that half of the ENTIRE U.S. Home Front say they are considering voting for Obama, who has promised to lose the war, in November of 2008. < /sarcasm>

Before you talk about "woeful understanding of Civil War History", you should first take notice that, in the election of 1864, Lincoln crushed the defeatist Democratic ticket headed by McClellan by an Electoral Vote margin of 212 to 21.

Comparing with the mood of the United States of America AS A WHOLE in 1863-64 with the immigrant New York Draft Riots of July of 1863 (when the vast majority of the Union was celebrating the victory at Gettysburg) is like comparing an orchard of apple trees with the orange pulp that's left at the bottom of a glass of orange juice.

Lincoln had a high, squeaky voice. He wasn’t an orator in the style of the day.

Yet, in spite of his ungainly physical appearance and his unpleasant voice, Lincoln could mesmerize an audience as with his Cooper Union Address in New York City in February, 1860:

An eyewitness that evening said, "When Lincoln rose to speak, I was greatly disappointed. He was tall, tall, - oh, how tall! and so angular and awkward that I had, for an instant, a feeling of pity for so ungainly a man." However, once Lincoln warmed up, "his face lighted up as with an inward fire; the whole man was transfigured. I forgot his clothes, his personal appearance, and his individual peculiarities. Presently, forgetting myself, I was on my feet like the rest, yelling like a wild Indian, cheering this wonderful man."

"Woeful understanding"?

In regards to understanding the Civil War, you can't see the apple orchard for the pulp at the bottom of your orange juice glass.

[Morgan in Denver]

I’m glad you saw it. We did force ourselves to watch all of the Obama hour because I wanted to hear his answers without the assistance of a teleprompter and to learn what his positions are on specific issues.

I agree with you too, McCain did well.

[Fishtalk]

Seriously.

This is something I would love.

And that dough you make....it’s a talent. One can always tell a home-made pastry from a store-bought.

My mother-in-law gave me her recipe for pastry and she makes great pies.

Me?

Not so much.

[dinoparty]

I’ve been a supporter of the Iraq mission from day one. However, I believe all of us supporters must have the courage to accept the consequences (good and bad) of the policy without coming up with elaborate theories (i.e. excuses) as to why someone else (e.g. “Bush”) is responsible for all of the bad consequences, while our “policy” is responsible for the good ones.

[MNJohnnie]

For the very first time, I found myself truly liking McCain

Me to. McCain was positively Reaganesque. Love the response on abortion. No hesitation, no pause to consider his best politically correct answer. Spoke shortly and directly to his beliefs. He can still lose me between now and Nov but McCain won me over by his answers at Saddleback Church.

[MNJohnnie]

By contrast, George W. Bush was opposing the Surge that is now winning the war and which McCain was championing as late as the Fall of 2006. The "gifted behind-the-scenes" skills are sorely lacking in Bush.

Sorry that a direct lie. I know you are madly in love with McCain but you are simply rewritting history here.McCain was father of the Baker Commission, not the Surge. He merely hooked onto the Surge because it was the last chance his dying presidential Campaign had in 2007. His support for the Surge was a hail mary political play. He is trying to claim credit for the plan Petrus wrote and Bush backed.

None of what you posted is even remotely true. You McCainiacs would be wise to drop this "Attack Bush" tactic. It does far far more harm to your guy then help.

[Alas Babylon!]

Well, looks like you prayer got answered!

Biden got it.

Now you need to pray Obama/Biden loses in November, since you seem to have Our Lord’s Ear!