For a while I was hoping Hillary Clinton would get the Democrat nomination, but now I’m thinking maybe Barack Obama would be the better general election opponent. First he agrees to unconditionally meet with America’s enemies within the first year of his administration, and now he’s threatening to invade Pakistan. Y’know, a Muslim nation that not only didn’t attack us on 9/11 (where have I heard this before?) but whose government is actually an ally? Oh, and did I mention that Pakistan already has nukes?
–
Dean Barnett posts an appropriate bumper-sticker on the subject, and Mitt Romney nailed it, too: “from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.”
–
Dean Barnett posts an appropriate bumper-sticker on the subject, and Mitt Romney nailed it, too: “from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.”
Conservative Standards 
Obama could have a new hit song based on his stance.“Bomb, Bomb, BombBomb Pakistan!”(To the tune of “Barbara Ann”)
LikeLike
Odds are, Paul Shanklin’s already on it!
LikeLike
You ought to study up on the world’s linguistic and cultural divisions. Pakistan is NOT an Arab country. Neither is Iran or Afghanistan. The predominant language is Urdu. Aspects of Pakistan’s culture (with the exception of Islam) is more closely related to that of India. Yes, all these countries are predominantly Muslim, which is not the same as Arab.Now I don’t neccessarily agree with Obama’s proposed policy. But in fairness you should acknowledge why Obama proposes to invade Pakistan. Because that is allegedly where important remnants of Al Qaeda and the Taliban remain.Typical know nothing conservative you are.
LikeLike
Thank you for educating me, O Enlightened One of the Church of Liberalism. Heaven forbid I get a detail wrong!That’s Nobama’s official reason. I think the real reason is that Hillary was calling him names on foreign policy, and this empty suit recklessly & wildly overcorrected. Last I saw, he’s already omitted the line from subsequent Pakistan references.Oh, and while we’re on the subject of what’s “typical,” arrogant descent into ad hominem is characteristic of today’s Left.
LikeLike
Calvin,There was no ad hominem committed. That means attacking the person. I just noted that you don’t really know what you are talking about. Perhaps “know nothing” was simply overstating the case. Certainly you know something, and certainly SOME conservatives know alot. You however know very little.It might seem to be an unimportant detail to you if you are only interested in slandering your opponents instead of understanding the situation. Although I see you thought it important enough to correct it.Also, to be fair, you might also note that it is a Republican candidate, Tancredo, that has actually proposed to bomb an actual Arab ally, Saudi Arabia. In case you don’t know, Mecca is located there. This would of course inflame even moderate Muslims in U.S. allied countries like Indonesia, Jordan, Egypt etc.. If you can’t stand to here how insane that is from a liberal, go read Michael Medved’s most recent column at Townhall.com.See, there is a conservative who might actually know quite alot, along with Dennis Prager.However, people like Ann Coulter, who you seem to be a fan of, is the queen of ad hominem, and know-nothingism.(For example, Coulter claims that biology is hardly a science. HA!
LikeLike
“There was no ad hominem committed. That means attacking the person.”Exactly. Which you did. If you wanna risk looking foolish by going into denial mode, be my guest.“You however know very little.”No-substance drivel; thanks for making me look good by comparison! (Oh, and I will admit to committing ad hominem there. In my view, you’ve earned it.)I already know about Tancredo proposing to bomb Mecca. He’s a loon. But since he’s a grade-Z candidate, and life only grants me so much time to blog, I haven’t bothered with it. The difference here is that Obama’s win has a semi-realistic chance of actually happening.(On the flip-side, I could waste time with every bit of Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich & Gravel nonsense, but I typically don’t.)Yes, I’m a fan of Ann Coulter. Queen of ad hominem? Actually, she’s the queen of skewering richly-deserving bad guys.It’s true that she’s said a couple things worthy of condemnation, and I’ve criticized her in the past. But the thing is, here horrible Coulterisms usually turn out to be liberal lies (ex: the recent “Edwards getting killed” snafu).Have a direct quote (preferably w/ citation info) for the biology statement?
LikeLike
DEAR LORD!I made a typo in that post! I’m eternally shamed!
LikeLike