17 Comments

• 1. Retired Spook  |  November 20th, 2007 at 2:41 pm

  The vast right-wind conspiracy strikes again. Time for Hillary to invoke the Sgt. Schultz defense.

  Sergeant Schultz

  Feldwebel (Sergeant) Hans Schultz (John Banner) is Klink’s bumbling, highly unmilitary sergeant of the guard. Schultz is a basically good-hearted man who, when confronted by the shenanigans of the prisoners, will simply wegschauen (look away), repeating “I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!” or, more commonly as the series went on, simply “I see nothing, nothing!” in order to avoid becoming involved in any way. This eventually became a catch phrase of the series. (emphasis added)

• 2. Psycheout  |  November 20th, 2007 at 2:49 pm

  She’s a Democrat. She can’t help herself. It’s who they are.

  Have a little tolerance. /sarc

• 3. Vote for Hillary  |  November 20th, 2007 at 3:27 pm

  I like to think of America as a suffering patient, where Hillary is an experienced doctor. What we need here is some good medicine.

• 4. Joel  |  November 20th, 2007 at 4:04 pm

  VFH,

  Your comment shows you do not like to think. The debate is over!

• 5. Bigfoot  |  November 20th, 2007 at 4:10 pm

  Hillary an “experienced doctor”? As Deroy Murdoch points out:

  While Clinton has been an outspoken liberal activist since the 1960s, she never has run a business, a city, a state, or a Cabinet department. She was a partner at Little Rock’s Rose Law Firm, but did not administer it. Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families aside, she headed none of the non-profits whose boards her website says she joined.

  What has she supervised or presided over? A failed (thank God) attempt to force socialized medicine down our throats, the Senate subcommittee on the Superfund and Environmental Health, and (ironically enough) the Wellesley College Republicans, back in 1965. (She had been a “Goldwater Girl”.)

  Now it seems she can’t even obey the law limiting campaign contributions to Americans, and she wants to be our chief law enforcement officer? That’s not good medicine, it’s malpractice.

• 6. Ricorun  |  November 20th, 2007 at 5:13 pm

  How did Giuliani ensure that all those that attended his fund raiser in London were actually legit? Perhaps he has some tips for Hillary.

• 7. Retired Spook  |  November 20th, 2007 at 5:28 pm

  Rico, are you referring to the fundraiser as described by the New York Times :

  And in a later speech at a luncheon fund-raiser where Americans here contributed to his campaign, he again raised the prospect of military force. (emphasis added)

  Even this smarmy post at HuffPo didn’t accuse him of taking illegal contributions.

  Sorry, Rudy may be a creep in some respects, but he isn’t even in the same league with Hillary when it comes to dishonesty.

• 8. Retired Spook  |  November 20th, 2007 at 5:36 pm

  I gotta get me one of these.

• 9. Retired Spook  |  November 20th, 2007 at 5:53 pm

  BTW, our local liberal rag of a morning paper published a report card for Hillary last week. They gave her a 3.7 (out of 4.0) for intelligence and a 1.4 for integrity. Even the Libs know she’s a crook. Unfortunately, a great many of them don’t care.

• 10. GOP4ME  |  November 20th, 2007 at 5:59 pm

  That’s it? That’s the best the ‘Rats can do? This from the skunks telling us theirs is the party of truth and justice?

  It’s the blatant hypocrisy of the libtards that drives me so fargin’ nuts

• 11. Casper  |  November 20th, 2007 at 6:11 pm

  My biggest fear is that next election we will have to chose between Hillary and Giuliani, the two biggest sleeze buckets running.

• 12. phnx  |  November 20th, 2007 at 7:21 pm

  OK, Vote for Hillary, tell us all about her experience. Give it your best shot. We’re all ears…oops that’s Obama.

• 13. Ricorun  |  November 20th, 2007 at 11:49 pm

  Spook (quoting the NYT): And in a later speech at a luncheon fund-raiser where Americans here contributed to his campaign…

  Perhaps I should rephrase my original question… How did he know they were all Americans? And if his campaign can figure it out, why can’t the Clinton’s?

  The BBC News article that was referenced within the reference that was referenced in Matt’s topic indicated that the Clinton fund-raiser was hosted by a group called The Irish-Americans for Hillary Group. They then reference a reference in another newspaper, the Irish Independent, to add the spicy quote: “The paper said that some Irish people who were so desperate to attend the fundraiser have been seeking out US citizens through whom they can channel the $2,300 (1,600 euro) admission charge.”

  So I looked it up (as you know, I do that kind of stuff — I like to know how much truth there is to the slander). As far as I can tell the article in question is this one. If so, it’s from the gossip page, and the article makes a number of other titillating insinuations. Also if so, the BBC’s description is itself a bit of an exaggeration of what the Irish Independent said.

• 14. Retired Spook  |  November 21st, 2007 at 8:24 am

  And if his campaign can figure it out, why can’t the Clinton’s?

  Is that a rhetorical question? As I said before, Giuliani may be the least ethical of all the GOP candidates, but he can’t hold a candle to the Clintons when it comes to the lack of integrity.

• 15. Ricorun  |  November 21st, 2007 at 4:06 pm

  Spook: Is that a rhetorical question?

  Okay, now I’m really confused. Are you saying we should presume guilt until proven innocent?

• 16. eric  |  November 22nd, 2007 at 11:06 am

  Retired Spook,
  3.7 out of 4.0 for intellect? The woman flunked the D.C. bar exam. D.C.! It is supposed to be one of the easiest jurisdictions to gain admittance.

  I have had experiece with two difficult bar exams and I passed with ease (trust me, I’m no Steven Hawking).

• 17. eric  |  November 22nd, 2007 at 11:08 am

  BTW, I love the Hillary nutcracker. I need to get one for my father. Unfortunately, he is a huge Hillary fan (and left wing kook).