Ben Stein: Obama Will Be Real Dangerous
February 15th, 2008 at 01:45pm Matt Margolis
Ben Stein on was on “Kudlow & Company,” yesterday, and gave his views on Barack Obama’s economic plan:
“Mr. Obama could become president and derail everything because his understanding of economics is 100 percent wrong. … I must say I’m so scared about Mr. Obama becoming president. I can hardly tell you.
[…]
[Obama] understands nothing. He wants to shut down the oil companies, take away their profits. Kill every state teacher’s pension fund that’s invested in XOM [Exxon Mobil]. I am terrified of this guy. Either somebody has got to wise him up or he has to wise up himself or he will be real dangerous.”
Bad on the economy. Bad on fighting terror. But hey, at least he can give a good speech, right?
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Economy
66 Comments Add your own
1. Kahn | February 15th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I HOPE that shifting to socialism and nationalizing assets doesn’t do any harm to the economy.
2. Diana Powe | February 15th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Wow, the wingers must be truly be afraid that a Democrat will win the White House to come up with this blather. “He wants to shut down the oil companies, take away their profits.” Oh, really, Ben? When did Senator Obama make that statement? Obviously, even if this hysteria had any basis in fact, it depends on none of Ben’s interlocutors having ever heard of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. Sorry, Ben. You’re just being a propagandist.
3. Libsbane | February 15th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Another illusory misdirection vis-à-vis Youngstown; by the queen of misdirection. Stick to the issue at hand; Obama’s “economic plan” is detrimental to free market economy; pay raises for teachers mandated by the Federal Government; confiscatory taxation of profits from industries deemed “evil” and retaliatory legislation proposals aimed at “predatory” industries which are in actuality market driven.
Can’t tell who the scarier one is; Obama or brain-dead sycophants to the Obama cult of hope. Sad and scary.
4. SEW | February 15th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
But he has a nice smile and he is full of hope. We can! The queen of misdirection, Liberal Little Miss Non Sequitur. Supported herself issuing criminal charges against the homeless and mentally ill.
Peace. Hope. Yes we can! Awesome platform.
5. Diana Powe | February 15th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Really? What a fascinating imaginary insight you have into my career, SEW. Got any juicy details or do you just hate the police in general?
6. TheHarbinger | February 15th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
From Ben Steins mouth straight to the bank baby! I bet you cold win Ben Steins money. I just love him on the Visine commercials.
What a weak flippin topic. Get a grip Margolis. Stick to the business side of the blogging world.
Hack.
7. SEW | February 15th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
At least you answer to your description. But if 60% of the Dallas jail inmates are mentally ill, did you specialize in the non mentally ill? What a liberal stance on mental illness.
Kudlow also has very revealing comments about Hussein’s magical economic plan.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGYxYWM4NjkxMjUwMzBhZDAwNTg2NjZmYmU5MWU2ZmQ=
8. NeoClown | February 15th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Cutting off our oil supply would pose a risk to our national security, and Bush policy states:
“The United States should act preemptively against a threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat is not immediate.”
Obama made a threat; Bush has a doctrine.
It’s “Shock and Obama” time.
9. Diana Powe | February 15th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
SEW,
Don’t know about “Dallas jail inmates” because the City of Dallas hasn’t had its own jail since the early 1980s. All of their arrestees go either to the Dallas County Jail, specifically the Lew Sterrett Justice Center, or to the detox facility if they’re charged with public intoxication. Plus, I worked for the City of Richardson. “[I]f 60% of the Dallas jail inmates are mentally ill…” Huh? Where did you pull that statistic from and what does it have to do with anything except your weird fantasies about my work as a police officer?
10. Sunny | February 15th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
“He wants to shut down the oil companies, take away their profits. Kill every state teacher’s pension fund that’s invested in XOM [Exxon Mobil]. I am terrified of this guy.” Ben Stein
Matt:
This kind of rhetoric does nothing but hurt the Republican Party; this is why former members have left the party in droves. We are so tired of such blatenly false accusations. This kind of drivel is pure garbage. When did Barack Obama EVER say that he plans to shut down oil companies, and further, where would he ever get the power or authority to do so? This is such insane blather I can hardly believe that you would post such blatant propaganda. The Republicans have got to get past their fears - which has controlled and ruled this party since September 11, 2001. This is how the party has kept its members in line for such a long time. Scare the hell out of everybody. Those of you who fall for this garbage are in serious need of therapy. How can anyone believe such nonsense? Unless you actually prove that Barack Obama has made such statements, you need to back off this kind of stuff - it makes you look silly and like a sissy. As I said yesterday, you really are turning into a drama queen! I truly am sorry you are so afraid of this man.
11. McLame2008!!! | February 15th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Barry knows everything about nothing; he enunciates this in every speech. He does know how to smoke dope, snort coke, and fool the crap out of a bunch of young potheads.
Cows, your candidates want socialism. They want MORE government regulation of ALL big business. And guess what? Once you’ve cast your vote for these phonies, you’re just another member of the have-nots to them.
We in the GOP may be disappointed in our leadership, but at least they don’t promise billions in entitlements they won’t deliver. Hillbama talk a mean game. Talk…
12. SEW | February 15th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Sunny the conservative, by her own description, always supporting the most liberal Senator. He has a nice smile and provides hope. Who needs Leno or Letterman, BFV has BluRayHD comedy.
Read Kudlow.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGYxYWM4NjkxMjUwMzBhZDAwNTg2NjZmYmU5MWU2ZmQ=
13. Joel | February 15th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
For I have seen him coming riding on a cloud of smoke and mirrors. He will establish his kingdom! In it he will hold all power and authority. And you will respect his authority, for he is the new messiah of hope. Love and hope for love is all we need. And the light of his hope for a brighter tomorrow will bring hope to our future.
Out, out brief candle.
Life is but a walking shadow,
a poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more.
It is a tale told by an idiot full of sound a fury,
signifing nothing.
May the Hope of Obama be with you.
14. Joe | February 15th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Mark,
When does SEW’s comments get deleted for being “off topic”…. and just plain ignorant?
15. Ricorun | February 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
And here’s what George Will had to say about the Obama-conomy.
And…
16. Ricorun | February 15th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
A more substantive article (with lots of links) can be found here. I’m still looking for something substantive on McCain’s economic plans. Can anyone help?
17. Sunny | February 15th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
So SEW, you are quick to put down those of use who might hold a different opinion than yours, disparaging our professions with your insults. Exactly what do you do to pay the bills?
18. Darva Conger | February 15th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I knew the right wing GOP’ers were afraid of Obama, but it is just now sinking in that they know they have no counter to him.
Therefore, they drag out Farris’ teacher to throw Molatov cocktails and scare the sheep into voting for McCain.
Pretty weak.
19. plainjane | February 15th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
He’s a comedian for God sake.
Well if Repugs are confident with horse trainers in charge of FEMA emergency response then I guess they have no problem with a comedian developing their economic policies. See ya in November 1/20/2009
20. coulterfan | February 15th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Obama is an empty suit, full of empty promises and messages of hope. . .
Just like REAGAN! or FDR! or JFK! or MLK!
They could ALL ‘talk a good game’, but even Richard Nixon described Reagan as a ‘lightweight’!
PS It’s going to be tough running as the anti-hope party! Reagan took hope and optimism from the Democrats, but Obama has taken it back. Meanwhile, McCain and his dour “100 years of more wars and less jobs. . . we can’t do it” pessimism - how do you think that’s going to work for you?!??!?
21. neocon | February 15th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Darva,
Obama himself will lead people to vote for McCain once the GE debates start and his polcies are really brought to light. The man is the most liberal Senator in the Senate economically and socially, which has never played well in the general. Just ask Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry. Couple that with his inexperience and weak foreign policy positions and McCain, the experienced, patriotic war hero who has successfully reached across the aisle, however sometimes to my chagrin, will be far and away the winner.
22. SEW | February 15th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Joe#14 Sorry Bud, the topic is Obama/Kudlow. Obama’s magic economic plan. And that’s what I posted. Obama, Kudlow,economics and addressed the ot posters dian and Sunny.
23. Darva Conger | February 15th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Neocon:
The Dems will tie McCain to Bush night and day. They will make clear that a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush’s third term.
Experience got us Rumsfeld and Cheney. Many Americans have had it with experience.
They want inspiration and truth. McCain has very little of the former, and pissed away the latter by snugging up to the Evangelicals who trashed him in 2000, changing his mind on torture, caving in on immigration.
24. js | February 15th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Lies are not inspiration, deciet is not truth. Obama just lets words flow, they really have meaning. He might just be good at evangelicalizing crowds, but he is in a fools parade with the rest of the DNC.
25. SEW | February 15th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Joe, in case you missed it, here it is again. Barak the economy killer. Please refrain from the ot Bush economy, remember the topic is the magical Hussein economic plan.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGYxYWM4NjkxMjUwMzBhZDAwNTg2NjZmYmU5MWU2ZmQ=
26. LOLguy23 | February 15th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Deleted - off topic.
27. neocon | February 15th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Darva,
McCain is hardly Bush, that’s just one strategy the left will try and fail at. How many times has McCain successfully reached across the aisle winning praise by liberals and the MSM? That pragmatism will be hard to ignore in the GE. And if you try paint him as a warmonger, one will only have to look at his record to know he speaks from experience and knows that war is hell which needs to be avoided. So you’ll fail there to.
Re: evangelicals, one only needs to look at Obamas Trinity Church and his recent comments about his kingdom and the “brothers keeper” speech to be a little worried about his own evangelism.
All in all it will be tough sledding for the inexperienced liberal Senator from Illinois. And that doesn’t even include Hillarys soon to be attempts to take him down.
28. SEW | February 15th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
#17 Sunny– “Exactly what do you do to pay the bills?”
I use a debit card or write a check.
29. Darva Conger | February 15th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
NeoCon:
McCain?
Not a warmonger?
“Bomb, bomb, bomb . . . bomb, bomb, Iran.”
Guess you forgot.
30. neocon | February 15th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Great sense of humor Darva.
I am anxious for the debate on foregin policy between the inexperienced, sadly misguided Obama with zero military experience, who wanted to invade Pakistan and talk with Iran, and the former POW, patriotic American war hero McCain who led the efforts to implement the successul surge strategy and who has eminently more foreign policy experience.
Really, good luck with that.
31. Darva Conger | February 15th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
NeoCon:
What did McCain’s “experience” get him? Singing about bombing Iran to the tune of Beach Boys song when our on intel folks said the nuke threat from Iran ended in ‘03?
And as for Pakistan, look friend, that hell hole is no ally of the U.S. Within its borders it harbors the ass who killed 3000 people in NYC and DC. It has exported its nuke technology to our enemies and keeps the guy who did it in house arrest. Mushareff is a dictator who says he backs the U.S. but never delivers. And don’t get me started on what happened to Buhotto.
We invaded Iraq to get Saddam, why can’t we invade Pakistan to get Osama bin Forgotten? Of thats right, the nukes. The nukes of Pakistan ensures the U.S. won’t do a damn thing to hold Osama accountable for 9/11. He sure as s*** knew where to run, didn’t he?
Now you might understand why NK, Iran and others want nukes. Once you have ‘em, the U.S. won’t tell you to do s***. Keep going with this fantasy that Pakistan is our friend. Just like the Shah of Iran was our friend. See where that got us?
Wanna bet that come this November the “surge” will still be working?
It is not a matter of the U.S forces being successful, that is a given, it is a question of that worthless ass government doing anything with the “stability” we’ve afforded them.
The time will come when the American people will say, “Enough, we sent over more men. The Iraqis sat on their asses, they did nothing to bring about a ‘Greater Iraq’ bring our troops home.”
The same thing happened in Vietnam. Americans finally felt that the corrupt South Vietnamese government was not worth the blood of any more Americans.
Surge or not, the same conclusion will be drawn here. Mark my words. Americans are not cowards, we don’t turn tail, but we do expect our allies to be equal to our efforts.
32. neocon | February 15th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Darva,
You ridiculed the intelligence community for getting Iraq wrong, but somehow that got Iran right. Wow, you are a lemming.
The rest of your drivel is just an embarrasing example of your lack of foreign policy knowledge. Come this November, many of our troops will be home, the ISF will have secured Iraq. “Worthless ass government” comment was great coming from one who believes we need to repair our international image. LOL. Just a tip, in order to build allies, it’s best not to call your friends “worthless asses”.
BTW read the following link, if you have the guts.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080215182516.1kw853y4&show_article=1
As I said, I look forward to that debate.
33. SEW | February 15th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Neocon, I’ll surf ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC tonight on this. And pick up a NYT and WaPo in the morning for for detail. LOL.
34. phnx | February 15th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
“Just like the Shah of Iran was our friend. See where that got us?” Darva, he (or his heir) would still be our friend if Carter hadn’t thrown him under the bus. It was that masterful piece of diplomacy that has given us the mess of the middle east.
So genius, your answer is to invade an Pakistan, brilliant! After that what’s your next step to win the hearts and minds of the Pakistanis? And what is your exit strategy? what? you don’t have one?
35. neocon | February 15th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
SEW,
Yes, I am sure the MSM will be all over it.
36. Darva Conger | February 15th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
NeoCon:
The intelligence community got Iraq wrong because they were beat over the head by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld in 2002 and 2003 to arrive at conclusions that supported the premise that Saddam had nukes and was ready to use them in the next 15 minutes. They got the analysis of Iran right because ideologue blow hards like Rummy and Wolfie are gone and discredited and Cheney is just plain discredited. It is you Bush backers that have acted like lemmings for lo these 7 years. We’re probably only now getting the true intel we need minus the political influence. And what did former Bush-bots like John Bolton do when the report came out? They trashed it.
Come this November the “pause” the Gates is clinging to will still be in effect and the Marines and the Army will be coming apart at the seams and the Iraq will be no more secure then as it is now.
?Worthless ass government? is exactly what I meant. If they were not sitting on an ocean of oil, we’d have no one there. The nation will fall apart into Shiastan, Kurdistan and Sunnistan. It will happen no matter how long we stay and no matter how many troops we lose.
The longer we stay in Iraq the more damage to our international image. Staying there will improve it no more than staying in Vietnam improved out image overseas during the ’70s.
37. Darva Conger | February 15th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
phnx:
It is hilarious that you “freedom” loving conservatives are so anxious to embrace dictators like the Shah. Yep, Carter thru him under the bus. Right.
You better open a history book. When we found out the Shah had cancer, Carter gave into to pressure from that good old GOP stalwart Kissinger (the master of U.S. diplomacy, recall the fall of Saigon?) to let him in to the U.S. for treatment. It was our decision to let the Shah into the U.S. that caused the Iranian nutjobs to storm our embassy in Tehran. Yeah blame Carter, it was his decision ultimately, but your GOP master diplomat clowns were in on it too.
Now to Pakistan. Obama never once used the term “invade.” That is what you conservatives dream up. It is what you must resort to because the facts do not back you up. Obama said: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.”
So, are you telling me that if you knew the location of Osama bin Forgotten in Pakistan that you would not send in all the assets at America’s disposal (Delta Force, Tomahawks, whatever) in there to kill him or capture him? You wouldn’t do that because Pakistan is an “ally?” Wouldn’t an ally understand? Wouldn’t an ally help us find him?
An invasion is an incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. Pakistan has admitted AQ forces come from its territory into Afghanistan and said it cannot stop them. A mil op to defeat AQ in Pakistan would be welcomed by most Americans, except those that backed Bush because they’d be constantly reminded that GWB did nothing of the sort. He didn’t think of him much, to tell the truth.
Pakistani exit strategy? Simple, when Delta has Osama’s severed head in a sand bag, or we find his body parts all over the inside of smoldering cave, then exit. How hard is that? Must be really hard since Bush has never tried to do it.
38. neocon | February 15th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Darva,
I get it. So the same intelligence on Iraq that Clinton spoke of in 1999, and again reiterated by Bush in 2001, was also manipulated by Cheney. Wow, he must be good.
This is the last time I will ever address you. You’re just too stupid to debate with.
39. phnx | February 15th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Let’s see…Shah or Amedinijad?? Tough choice.
I love how you want to absolve Carter of his responsibility in the mess that is now Iran. I suppose Kissinger was responsible for the disaster of a rescue mission the Carter tried.
Re: Obama
Fact is you have no idea where Obama is and neither does our military or I suspect he would be toast right now.
Your invasion or military incursion or other euphamism, would be the tipping point to overthrow the government in Pakistan, who in case you forgot, has nuclear weapons. so your brilliant exit strategy would leave the nukes in the hands of the terrorists. Oh that’s right, you don’t think the war on terror is real.
40. phnx | February 15th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
errrr Osama
41. neocon | February 15th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
phnx,
no, I think you got it right. LOL
I do like how Darva advocated invading Pakistan, absent any threat against America and sans an exit strategy. You gotta love them dimwitted liberals.
42. SEW | February 15th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
dimwitted Darva
“Now to Pakistan. Obama never once used the term “invade.” That is what you conservatives dream up. It is what you must resort to because the facts do not back you up. Obama said: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.”
So, are you telling me that if you knew the location of Osama bin Forgotten in Pakistan that you would not send in all the assets at America’s disposal (Delta Force, Tomahawks, whatever) in there to kill him or capture him? You wouldn’t do that because Pakistan is an “ally?” Wouldn’t an ally understand? Wouldn’t an ally help us find him?”
So which is it dimwit, invade, or invade?
43. Ricorun | February 15th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
SEW: So which is it dimwit, invade, or invade?
If you don’t understand the difference between a limited surgical strike and an invasion, you really shouldn’t be calling other people dimwits.
44. Darva Conger | February 15th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Deleted - off topic; the topic is how Obama will deal with things, not how someone else did in 1999.
45. Judith | February 16th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Gosh, Darva, I thought you said when Obama is dead, we exit. Hope it is soon.
46. Kahn | February 16th, 2008 at 2:32 am
Rico - tell us the difference between a “limited surgical strike and an invasion”.
You DO realize that the region is remote and rugged. And that it is on the other side of a major mountain range from where our troops are. And several hundred miles north.
It would be like supporting a mission in Northern Nevada from L.A. county. Get it?
How many men would YOU use? Set up a forward support base? Where? Hoe big would it be? How would you get supplies to your forward base and/or your men undetected? How would you get them out after the strike? What if they are carrying wounded? How flexible would your plan be as to extraction point in case of problems?
Yoo know, the INCREASING military knowledge gap on the left is truly frightening. Maybe we do understand, and you don’t. Please, can the knee jerk and think about it.
47. Kahn | February 16th, 2008 at 2:33 am
I can not believe I spelled you wrong and didn’t catch it before posting. Yikes, must be late.
48. Darva Conger | February 16th, 2008 at 3:08 am
Yeah I get deleted for “off topic” for countering what NeoCon said in #38 (about the intel Clinton supposedly had in ‘99).
He gets away with his ‘99 comment about Clinton, but my stuff hits the trash can.
49. bongoman | February 16th, 2008 at 6:16 am
38. phnx: I love how you want to absolve Carter of his responsibility in the mess that is now Iran.
Should we absolve ourselves of responsibility for the part we played in Iran in 1953? Or do we conveniently forget that part of history?
50. Ricorun | February 16th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Kahn: Rico - tell us the difference between a “limited surgical strike and an invasion”.
The successful extraction of hostages from Entebbe by Israeli commandos would be an example of a limited surgical strike. The unsuccessful attempt to extract US hostages from Iran would be an example of a limited surgical strike. The raid on the “aspirin factory” (and the neighboring terrorist training camp) in Sudan would be an example of a limited surgical strike. The recent Predator attack WITHIN PAKISTAN, that reportedly killed Abu Laith al-Libi, one of bin Laden’s top lieutenants, would be an example of a limited surgical strike. And that one took place in the very kind of terrain you suggest is impossible to penetrate.
In contrast, our situation in Iraq would be an example of an invasion. Ethiopia’s incursion into Somalia would be an example of an invasion.
As for tactical details, I’m certainly not capable of suggesting what they might be. But on a hypothetical level, are you sure you don’t understand the difference? Am I that naive to think there is one?
51. SEW | February 16th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Rico#43, Your interpretation of a limited surgical strike is “send in all the assets at America’s disposal “? That is my definition of an invasion. I realize that “is” has different definitions, but you are really pushing limited surgical strike here.
52. Darva Conger | February 16th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Ricorun:
No, no, no. The recent Predator strike WITHIN PAKISTAN wasn’t an invasion because it was conducted under the careful watch of of the Supreme Decider Himself, War Time Mission Accomplished President George Bush.
A Predator strike WITHIN PAKISTAN under President Obama on the other hand would be a reckless and heartless blow against the sovereignty of a great nation, an ally in the War on Terror (c) which would cause the downfall of dictator Mushareff and allow the clerics access to the Pakistani nukes.
I am surprised you cannot figure that out.
53. SEW | February 16th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Darva, You and Rico can spin your statement all you want, but here it is again. “send in all the assets at America’s disposal” And Rico spins that I can’t tell the difference in a “surgical strike”. Well guys, using all the assets at America’s disposal is not a surgical strike. Spin all you want.
And now you spin that to mean a “Predator strike”!
And bring W into this as well. Clearly Cult Obama and BDS here. Get well soon. Cultist.
54. Some Assembly Required | February 16th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Sew,
A cult is what the majority congregation labels the minority one. Last I checked, bush supporters are not in the majority
55. Ricorun | February 16th, 2008 at 10:41 am
SEW, upon re-reading Darva’s original comment, I understand your comment better. He/she(?) did say “all assets at America’s disposal”. And though he(?) followed it with an example of what he(?) meant in a distinguishing context, I can see where someone predisposed to a highly literal reading might be confused. I should have considered the fact that you are such a person. So I apologize. But still, “all assets at America’s disposal” are Darva’s words, not Obama’s. Obama was clearly talking about an action that I have defined as a “limited surgical strike”, not an invasion. And regardless of what Darva said, do you recognize a difference there? Or do you generalize all gradations of attack into the general heading of “invasion”? And if you do, wouldn’t it be accurate to say that Bush invaded Pakistan already?
56. SEW | February 16th, 2008 at 10:47 am
More spin? So does “send in all the assets at America’s disposal” mean a ‘limited surgical’ strike to you also? Is that a Predator strike, and does Delta Force arrive and exit on a Tomahawk?
Keep spinning. “Send in all the assets at America’s disposal”. Some surgical strike.
57. SEW | February 16th, 2008 at 10:56 am
And Rico, I referred to Darva as a dimwitt, not Obama. So From where does the confusion arise? Your brain, not mine.
Rico—”If you don’t understand the difference between a limited surgical strike and an invasion, you really shouldn’t be calling other people dimwits.”
Bush did a limited surgical strike. Clearly. And that would be the same for Obama. And that might work for OBL, who is likely already dead,, but not for a GWOT. Libs seem to think taking OBL out wins the GWOT.
58. Ricorun | February 16th, 2008 at 10:57 am
SEW: So does “send in all the assets at America’s disposal” mean a ‘limited surgical’ strike to you also?
Absent any clarifying context, no it doesn’t. Absent any clarifying context it would mean “invasion” to me. However, (a) clarifying context was available, and (b) irrespective of (a), Obama didn’t say “send in all the assets at America’s disposal”. You do understand that, right?
59. Ricorun | February 16th, 2008 at 10:59 am
SEW, ignore #58 as you already answered the question in #57.
60. SEW | February 16th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
#54 SAR
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWU3NmEwNzhmYjVkZDdlNzVmZDhhODVmMmViZTRlODM
61. SEW | February 16th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Sorry, wrong link in 60.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/48404.html
62. Ricorun | February 16th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
In keeping with the new theme of ridiculousness…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RkTh7RwJqc
63. FmrMarine | February 16th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
darva
>>>>>>The intelligence community got Iraq wrong because they were beat over the head by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld in 2002 and 2003 to arrive at conclusions that supported the premise that Saddam had nukes and was ready to use them in the next 15 minutes<<<<<<
check this out MORON
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE
64. phnx | February 16th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Since this topic is about Obama, how many of you leftist support Obama’s Global Poverty initiative? How many of you even know about it??
We have a social security system that is unfunded, and a medicare crisis that makes the unfunded SS liablity seem like chump change. There is no plan to deal with either of these. The senate seems more interested in investigating sports figures taking steroids, or illegal filming opposing teams.
In the meantime, under the radar, Obama has introduced s.2433, the Global Initiative on World Poverty. It is schedule for a vote this week. This brilliant piece of socialist legislation pledges 0.007% of OUR GDP to be GIVEN TO THE UN over the next 13 years. This amounts to almost one TRILLION dollars!!!!!
You know, that’s the same UN which has always been so effective and fiscally responsible in the past.
Are you leftists for this??? If so why???
And don’t try to change the subject with spending on the Iraq war or anything else. Try to control you BDS and stay on topic.
65. phnx | February 16th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
*****crickets*****
That’s all you’ve got??? Can’t defend the indefensible???
66. flexible repair&hellip | March 24th, 2008 at 1:04 am
flexible repair
Consequently, many of the fundamental methods and procedures of modern colonoscopy were developed by Dr. He envisioned a loop of
Leave a Comment
Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed