|
Posted on 03/03/2006 7:07:54 PM PST by Mia T
Indeed.
thx :)
bookmark
The Republican punchbowl is littered with these turds... who 'float' when they see the camera.
|
You sure the fella on the left isn't Franco Harris?
Puffery emited by the clintons' perpetual promotion machine--the barely perceptible discontinuous miasmic belches--defies not only the laws of logic and decency but also the first law of thermodynamics -- conservation of energy. That is, if one fails to considers entropy. The second law of thermodynamics states that the quality of energy in a closed system is degraded irreversibly. Physical, chemical, and electrical energy transform into thermal energy --heat. Reversing the process, e.g., heat into physical energy, cannot fully occur within the system without an inevitable loss of energy in the form of irretrievable heat. Energy is not destroyed; it is merely unavailable for producing work. The irreversible increase of this nondisposable energy in the universe is measured by the abstract dimension called entropy.... There is a lot of talk these days, most notably by voluble nervous Democratic operatives like Susan Estrich, about the clintons sucking up the oxygen, but no one is paying attention to the irreversible transformation of light into heat by the clintons. Once we understand that the latter process is irreversible, we will begin to do what we must. Mia T, 6.23.05
ping
fyi
weekend ping ;)
However, concerning militancy, when the Hindus decided to reassert themselves (starting, I believe, in the 600s) and take back India, it wasn't all that peaceful
Interesting that both the Hindus and the Buddhists make claims to being ultimately very peaceful ~ which they really aren't.
In fact, I consider both "brands" to be very similar to the Democratic party ~ lots of claims to helping out the victim class, but lord forbid you challenge their prerogatives. The Dems still act like they run Congress (for example).
Henry VIII didn't pick on writers so much ~ his wives kept him busy.
|
It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief."
|
These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real. Defeating the enemy isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically antimilitary--(an image, incidentally, that is only enhanced today by her clumsy, termagant parody of Thatcher), forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration." It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief." Mia T, 10.02.05 |
;)
I agree with you. We, a country in wartime, are in a very bad place. Bush, however, is not without blame.
It should have been obvious to him that the port deal (among other things) would be a lose-lose politically for the GOP. Common sense and the survival instinct will trump arcane explanations anytime.
You don't spend political capital (political capital that you don't even have) on such a loser. And certainly not post-9/11, not in an election year, not when the specter of 'clinton-the sequel' is looming large.
You want to 'reward' the UAE? You give them a deal that has no national security consequences-real or apparent. You don't relinquish your only strong suit to the democrats.
What could he have been thinking? Was he thinking at all?
I think Franco Harris could get a good paying job as a body double for Clinton's friend Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum. Which one is the real Sheik?
ping :)
To All - Bookmark this page, a virtual library of Slick and wife and e-mail the video of Dick Morris to everyone in your address book Liberals and Republicans alike! http://www.deletehillary.com/clinton-dubai.swf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
... While America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times.