Quote of the day

posted at 10:10 pm on December 14, 2007 by Allahpundit

“American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States’ main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists…

As president, my goal in the Arab and Muslim worlds will be to calibrate a course between maintaining stability and promoting democracy. It is self-defeating to attempt too much too soon: doing so could mean holding elections that the extremists would win. But it is also self-defeating to do nothing. We must first destroy existing terrorist groups and then attack the underlying conditions that breed them: the lack of basic sanitation, health care, education, jobs, a free press, fair courts — which all translates into a lack of opportunity and hope. The United States’ strategic interests as the world’s most powerful country coincide with its moral obligations as the richest. If we do not do the right thing to improve life in the Muslim world, the terrorists will step in and do the wrong thing…

Sun-tzu’s ancient wisdom is relevant today: “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” Yet we have not had diplomatic relations with Iran in almost 30 years; the U.S. government usually communicates with the Iranian government through the Swiss embassy in Tehran. When one stops talking to a parent or a friend, differences cannot be resolved and relationships cannot move forward. The same is true for countries. The reestablishment of diplomatic ties will not occur automatically or without the Iranians’ making concessions that serve to create a less hostile relationship…

Whereas there can be no rational dealings with al Qaeda, Iran is a nation-state seeking regional clout and playing the game of power politics we understand and can skillfully pursue. We cannot live with al Qaeda, but we might be able to live with a contained Iran.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 5:05 PM

Do you know that two of those actually link to something?

Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 5:21 PM

I had no idea.

I guess that Buy Danish Rudy la Madre ciega must have set two of them up already.

MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 5:36 PM

Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 5:25 PM

Here is a good place to start. I agree with this conclusion which says it does not apply to Supreme Court decisions if they were wrongly decided.

Where I disagree with you is your assessment of Rudy’s position on judges. It is a fact that he cannot predict with 100% certainty how any judge will rule on any given issue. He will choose judges who don’t legislate from the bench. What more can he do? He certainly can’t say that he would disrespect a judges decision if for some reason, despite being a strict constructionist, they still found Roe to be constitutional – something I find highly unlikely.

For instance, Sandra Day O’Connor thought it was okay to look at international law to make decisions, so she clearly does not fit the definition of the sort of judge Rudy would appoint.

Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 5:36 PM

I don’t respect either one. We have toyed with socialism since the Colonial days of Governor William Bradford. He figured out very quickly that it was an unmitigated disaster and switched to a capitalistic system. Anyone who thinks Socialism is a noble goal despite all the hideous results it has had throughout history does not earn my respect…

Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 5:15 PM

We couldn’t agree more.

MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 5:36 PM

They have nothing to do with Rudy.

Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 5:40 PM

They have nothing to do with Rudy.

Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 5:40 PM

I guess that Buy Danish Rudy la Madre ciega must have screwed up somehow. You would think that he could have got at least one right. Rudolfo will not be pleased.

MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 5:44 PM

From a direct reading of the Constitution it’s true that there’s no “right to an abortion”, but that doesn’t mean that the government necessarily has the power to prevent somebody from having one. The argument of Roe, while a little messy, rests on sound Constitutional principles regarding privacy and the limits of government power.

Contradictory. And not sound at all, just wrong for quite a while. The state governments have the right , so long as it doesn’t violate their own state constitutions.

In any case, the question as to whether Roe was decided correctly or not is just a distraction from the real principle here. Even those new heroes of the religious right, Roberts and Alito, have been on record stating that the decision deserves respect as settled precendent. They (rightly) defer any judgement on the merits of the law until confronted with a case challenging it. Remember, any judicial decision must be based on the conflict of existing law with the issues raised in a case, and unless that is done, the judges just become appointed legislators. Simple minded activists just want abortion overturned regardless of the details of any case brought before the court.

Big S on December 15, 2007 at 5:00 PM

Shouldn’t be so hard to find a case. Abortion is common. Attempts by states to limit/ban it and finding itself before the court is easy to envision.

Secular liberals have inadvertently reignited the states right’s debate thought dormant far longer than the “settled” federal abortion rights.

JiangxiDad on December 15, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Yes, simple minded activists do, but most people who understand the issue and are anti-abortion, simply want the issue of abortion put in the hands of the people of the States (like cases of degrees of murder, manslaughter, self defense, etc are defined) instead of law being made by the Supreme Court.

Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 5:22 PM

So having it in the hands of the people, individually is bad, but having it in the hands of the people, collectively, is good. This statement of yours is classic misdirection; the goal of anti-abortion activists is only to put the decision in the hands of the “people of the states” in order that they can take the decision away from individuals. Such conflicts are not clearly defined in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court came down on the side of the individual.

Big S on December 15, 2007 at 5:55 PM

MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 5:44 PM

Be gentlemanly, both of you. Disagree agreeably. I know that both of you can, especially you, the self-appointed “pot stirer”. When it’s very hard, send poems or quotes. They’re always appreciated.

Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 5:57 PM

So having it in the hands of the people, individually is bad, but having it in the hands of the people, collectively, is good.

Representative republic.

JiangxiDad on December 15, 2007 at 5:57 PM

Huckabee is to conservatism what Chuck Norris is to acting.

Thompson/Hunter 2008!

Teddy on December 15, 2007 at 5:58 PM

This statement of yours is classic misdirection; the goal of anti-abortion activists is only to put the decision in the hands of the “people of the states” in order that they can take the decision away from individuals. Such conflicts are not clearly defined in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court came down on the side of the individual.

Big S on December 15, 2007 at 5:55 PM

When there are two groups of individuals whose rights are in conflict, it is natural for that situation to be resolved at the state level. In this case the two groups are the unborn and their mothers. The state takes an interest in protecting the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. The SCOTUS should to the states in such issues, because there is no natural right to dispose of a person simply because they infringe on your privacy.

pedestrian on December 15, 2007 at 6:02 PM

I believe that Ronald Reagan would not pass muster with many people who don’t like social conservatives today, too. Considering this was his stated view on abortion and how it related to religious belief, I believe many people today would consider him a radical.

Just goes to show how much our society has changed in the past 25 years.

Michael in MI on December 15, 2007 at 5:32 PM

I can’t say that I “dislike social conservatives”. I do get very frustrated by how they prioritize issues, and how their expectations are unrealistic. I believe their judgments of people like Rudy and Romney are stubborn more than they are sensible, and they are too willing to call Rudy or Romney “liberals” when they aren’t.

As for what Reagan said so beautifully, I don’t think it’s radical at all and I don’t think you are correct when you say we would reject it now (although a Human Rights Amendment is not a realistic goal).

If Huckabee were elected tomorrow there is no guarantee that Roe would be overturned, but I do not trust him to be an effective advocate on other conservative issues which are under the purview and control of the Executive.

Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 6:07 PM

Representative republic.

JiangxiDad on December 15, 2007 at 5:57 PM

Founded on individual rights. You point is…?

Big S on December 15, 2007 at 6:07 PM

When there are two groups of individuals whose rights are in conflict, it is natural for that situation to be resolved at the state level. In this case the two groups are the unborn and their mothers. The state takes an interest in protecting the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. The SCOTUS should to the states in such issues, because there is no natural right to dispose of a person simply because they infringe on your privacy.

pedestrian on December 15, 2007 at 6:02 PM

Then why have a Supreme Court in the first place? Based on your logic, what role could the federal Supreme Court possibly play in the interpretation of laws?

Big S on December 15, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Can’t get too worked up over Hucky. He’s not going the
be the the MAN. It’s going to be Romney or Fred.

Texyank on December 15, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Then why have a Supreme Court in the first place? Based on your logic, what role could the federal Supreme Court possibly play in the interpretation of laws?

Big S on December 15, 2007 at 6:09 PM

They could adjudicate federal laws and then go home and spend time with their families.

pedestrian on December 15, 2007 at 6:12 PM

MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 5:44 PM

Be gentlemanly, both of you. Disagree agreeably. I know that both of you can, especially you, the self-appointed “pot stirer”. When it’s very hard, send poems or quotes. They’re always appreciated.

Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 5:57 PM

If you’re referring to me, I am not a gentleman, I am a lady. While you may enjoy them, I do not appreciate MB4′s poetry and quotes and find them tiresome and a tactic he uses when he is called out on the facts. But that’s just me!

He accused me of “stalking” him in the past but having discovered through experience that it is mostly a waste of time to debate him, I prefer to ignore him, but he isn’t happy with that response either.

Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 6:13 PM

When it’s very hard, send poems or quotes. They’re always appreciated (Now are you absolutely sure about that?).

Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 5:57 PM

I took my troubles down to Rudy Tottie Rue
You know that CAPO with the 9/11 shtick
He’s got a pad down on Thirty-Fourth and Vine
Sellin’ little bottles of CAPO Potion Number Nine

I told him that I was afraid of the Hillda Beast
It’s gotten even worse in these last few weeks
He kissed me on the cheek and he made a wiseguy sign
He said “What you need is CAPO Potion Number Nine”

He bent down and turned around and gave me a sly wink
He said “I’m gonna make it up right here in the sink”
It smelled like New Jersey, it looked like Mexican ink
I held my nose, I closed my eyes, I took a drink

I didn’t know if it was day or night
I started grabbin’ every gun in sight
But when I grabbed a ‘Bama boy’s gun down on Thirty-Fourth and Vine
He broke my little bottle of CAPO Potion Number Nine

—— guitar solo ——

I held my nose, I closed my eyes, I took a drink

I didn’t know if it was day or night
I started kissin’ every illegal alien in sight
But when I kissed La Raza Gonzales down on Thirty-Fourth and
Vine
He broke my own little bottle of CAPO Potion Number Nine
CAPO Potion Number Nine
CAPO Potion Number Nine
CAPO Potion Number Nine

MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 6:16 PM

Founded on individual rights. You point is…?

Our nation wasn’t founded primarily to confer individual rights on people. It was founded to attempt to create a system of governance that would be good for the individual and the whole. Some rights are individual, some aren’t. If you want them all to be, we’d have a free-for-all.

JiangxiDad on December 15, 2007 at 6:19 PM

They could adjudicate federal laws and then go home and spend time with their families.

pedestrian on December 15, 2007 at 6:12 PM

So your quarrel is really with Marbury v. Madison. Good luck overturning that one!

Big S on December 15, 2007 at 6:20 PM

and find them tiresome and a tactic he uses when he is called out on the facts.

Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 6:13 PM

Don’t forget the other “tactic” I use, just calling any sources that I don’t agree with “left-wing sources” rather than refute them.

Oh, wait a moment, that’s not what I do, that’s what you do.

MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 6:22 PM

Can’t get too worked up over Hucky. He’s not going the be the the MAN. It’s going to be Romney or Fred.

I think your assessment correct. I don’t think Huck is long for the top. Barring a Fred resurgence, though Rudy-Huck is a distinct possibility.

Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 5:57 PM

With all due respect, ma’am, I think you may be missing the point. There is a difference between argument (in good faith) and being argumentative. One can serve the community, one serves only self. When comments tend to the abuse of one’s nom de plume, which does occasion befall mine by various commentors, I would suggest that illustrates which category such comments fall in. It always devalues whatever merit is in the original argument in my experience. Though I will certain allow that I may be wrong in that – it maybe dependent on the recipient.

Spirit of 1776 on December 15, 2007 at 6:23 PM

So your quarrel is really with Marbury v. Madison. Good luck overturning that one!

Declared an act of the US Congress unconstitutional, not the state congress.

Why do you have a problem with federalism? Or only when it applies to abortion?

JiangxiDad on December 15, 2007 at 6:23 PM

Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 5:57 PM

Though I should say I wish you luck in your endeavor.

Spirit of 1776 on December 15, 2007 at 6:25 PM

JiangxiDad on December 15, 2007 at 6:19 PM

That’s correct, BUT there is no constitutional mention of reproductive rights. Therefore government, including the supreme court, must define the boundaries between individual and colletive rights based on other, non-specific provisions of the constitution. That the supreme court came down on the side of individual rights does not make the decision a bad one from a legal standpoint.

Big S on December 15, 2007 at 6:26 PM

Spirit of 1776 on December 15, 2007 at 6:23 PM

Always a sour puss in every crowd.

MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 6:29 PM

That’s correct, BUT there is no constitutional mention of reproductive rights. Therefore government, including the supreme court, must define the boundaries between individual and colletive rights based on other, non-specific provisions of the constitution.

That is not the mandate of the Supreme Court or other branch of the federal government, at least in conservative minds. It is usurpation of states’ rights.

This is an old argument.

JiangxiDad on December 15, 2007 at 6:30 PM

If you’re referring to me, I am not a gentleman, I am a lady. While you may enjoy them, I do not appreciate MB4’s poetry and quotes and find them tiresome and a tactic he uses when he is called out on the facts. But that’s just me!

Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 6:13 PM

Sorry Buy Danish, if at one point you said and I didn’t register that you’re a lady. It makes no difference to me and, independent of anything, I have and will continue to enjoy and appreciate your comments.

It seems that some on HA are very vested/invested in one candidate or another and it can cause some acrimony. Some are still so in love with Mr. McCain that they can’t help themselves. Others love Romney, Fred, Rudy, or a few even Huckabee.

I could have had catfights with csdeven, and did have a few mild ones, but still like him a lot. I wish he’d come out from behind the self-imposed hiding.

MB can’t stand Rudy. I don’t feel like that at all but it’s no reason to hate MB. He’s different than many here and quite entertaining. And, if his poetry +, in which you find ulterior motives, annoys, it can be ignored, just like all his comments. I like the variety, just not the personal attacks.

It’s Saturday and I’m getting ready to hug a few hardcore Servicemen, of the most special kind, and will tell you about it later tonight. Respectfully, from one lady to another,

Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Always a sour puss in every crowd.

Lol. Now that’s not at all what I would call an accurate label for me, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

Spirit of 1776 on December 15, 2007 at 6:31 PM

hmm. Made sense to me. The autocracy in these countries keep their populace living in absolute poverty and then they employ Islam to project the populace’s frustration at this outside of the country

But since Huck said it..

Reaps on December 15, 2007 at 6:32 PM

Huckabee is to conservatism what Chuck Norris is to acting.

Thompson/Hunter 2008!

Teddy on December 15, 2007 at 5:58 PM

ROTFLAMO!

bspoogeferd on December 15, 2007 at 6:33 PM

That is not the mandate of the Supreme Court or other branch of the federal government, at least in conservative minds. It is usurpation of states’ rights.

This is an old argument.

JiangxiDad on December 15, 2007 at 6:30 PM

You assume stares’ rights are paramount. They are not. Try again.

Big S on December 15, 2007 at 6:38 PM

Huckabee is to conservatism what Chuck Norris is to acting.

Teddy on December 15, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Huckabee is to conservatism what Al Gore is to energy conservation.

Huckabee is to conservatism what Rosy O’Donnell is to beauty.

Huckabee is to conservatism what Bill Clinton is to honesty.

MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 6:38 PM

Gawd. I just read that Anna Quindlen piece that MB4 linked to, and which he seems to think I can’t refute. I shall humor him.

Time to parse a liberal. The first paragraph is a huge hint that her arguments are baseless and use false, Leftist premises:

I’m an ardent environmentalist, but I can deal if companies with long records of polluting go unregulated. I want to wipe out racial and gender bigotry but am OK with it if organizations and corporations go unpunished for discrimination. I believe the country is being irresponsibly overdeveloped but don’t much care if zoning laws are lax and laissez-faire..

Quindlen seems to think there is nothing in between accepting unacceptable situations and big government solutions. If you are for clean air and water the only solution is more regulation! If you oppose bigotry, force corporations to hire people because of their race or gender! If you favor thoughtful development, to heck with local laws, the Federal government must act!

This is exactly the sort of nonsense that MB4 links to when he wants to throw Rudy overboard. It shows a certain lack of intellectual depth, IMHO.

Not convinced? Here’s more from Anna banana, a paragraph MB4 chose to quote:

One Rudy insists that he is still in favor of legal abortion and gay rights, just as he was when he was mayor of New York. But virtual Rudy has found a catchphrase to suggest that those and other positions are fungible: he would appoint “strict constructionists” to the bench, justices like Scalia and Thomas not jurisprudentially inclined toward what the original Rudy—if such a thing can be said to still exist—believes. Like some form of partisan demonic possession, one Rudy will take positions and the other will appoint judges who will negate them. It’s like vetoing yourself.

It’s too difficult to imagine that someone could be “pro-choice” and still want to appoint a judge who follows the constitution! A liberal wants a judge to do their bidding, constitution be damned, and apparently MB4 goes along with this sort of thinking, at least when convenient to his campaign against Rudy.

Finally here is an outright lie which MB4 is only to willing to accept:

Of course Rudy has been trying out the two-Rudys approach since September 11, 2001, when a mayor who had divided the city along racial and class lines…

No, Anna, it is liberals like you who preceded Rudy and who hate Rudy to this day who divide us along racial and class lines.

Enough said about Anna and MB4.

Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 6:42 PM

Must be the HA Christmas party today.

Limerick on December 15, 2007 at 6:42 PM

With all due respect, ma’am…

Spirit of 1776 on December 15, 2007 at 6:23 PM

Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 5:57 PM

Though I should say I wish you luck in your endeavor.

Spirit of 1776 on December 15, 2007 at 6:25 PM

I will love the sinner, not the sin.

Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 6:43 PM

Mike in MI, here’s an example of when the SC did not follow stare decisis: Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), which overturned Plessy vs Ferguson (1896)–a states’ rights ruling.

baldilocks on December 15, 2007 at 6:46 PM

Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 6:43 PM

Your’s is a generous spirit. All the best.

Spirit of 1776 on December 15, 2007 at 6:46 PM

Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Have a great time! I don’t care that you mistook me for a gentleman, I just wasn’t sure if that comment was meant for me or not.

MB4 likes Romney and Fred so he is not invested in only one candidate, but his positions on Rudy are so out of whack they may require an exorcist’s help.

I am not overly invested in any one candidate, although I prefer Rudy and Romney, and do not want McCain or Huckabee (and Paul who does not count) to be the candidate. Indeed, I have been as fair as I can be about Huckabee but not a day goes by where he does not disappoint – and worse.

Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 6:52 PM

Buy Danish, I like Fred, and will vote for Romney, McCain and Giuliani. Huckabee is a dud and the events of late make me very sad. Though, I will stay home before I vote for a leftie.

And, that’s my Spirit of 1776 :)

Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 6:58 PM

Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 6:52 PM

Romney is my top pick with Fred as a reliable second and McCain a distant, distant third. Mike is the least viable pro-life candidate and his other credentials are sorely, sorely lacking.

Rudolpho has far too many skeletons in his closet and his idea that religion needs to be more inclusive of sin (as opposed to sinners) is a non-starter.

BKennedy on December 15, 2007 at 6:58 PM

Huckabee is to conservatism what Al Gore is to energy conservation.

Huckabee is to conservatism what Rosy O’Donnell is to beauty.

Huckabee is to conservatism what Bill Clinton is to honesty.

MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 6:38 PM

How can you not like this? How can you argue against this?

And, JiangxiDad, thanks for reminding us that we’re not a democracy. I can always count on your good reasoning :)

Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 7:04 PM

Rudolpho has far too many skeletons in his closet and his idea that religion needs to be more inclusive of sin (as opposed to sinners) is a non-starter.

BKennedy on December 15, 2007 at 6:58 PM

You and MB4 can discuss that. As I have said many times, as a long-suffering New Yorker who really does know what a liberal is, Rudy was a great Mayor and judging from his performance, which featured conservative ideas, he would make a fine President.

Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 7:06 PM

And, that’s my Spirit of 1776 :)

Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 6:58 PM

To be sure, that was in response to your 6:46 comment. All the best, always,

Entelechy on December 15, 2007 at 7:07 PM

You assume stares’ rights are paramount. They are not. Try again.

Big S on December 15, 2007 at 6:38 PM

They are in some cases, and aren’t in others. That’s the point. You don’t want them to be in the case of abortion, but you undoubtedly do in some other cases.

JiangxiDad on December 15, 2007 at 7:15 PM

You and MB4 can discuss that. As I have said many times, as a long-suffering New Yorker who really does know what a liberal is, Rudy was a great Mayor and judging from his performance, which featured conservative ideas, he would make a fine President.

Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 7:06 PM

I don’t have any trouble with Rudy’s competence nor his rational faculty, it’s his moral judgement I find lacking. Perhaps if he picks a pro-life VP to balance him and his court picks out I shall consider voting for him. Otherwise I would be hard pressed to choose between a fratboy/Marxist jackboot fembot and the cross-dressing thrice-married lapsed Catholic.

BKennedy on December 15, 2007 at 7:23 PM

BKennedy on December 15, 2007 at 7:23 PM

I’m on the way out the door, and really don’t want to get into a debate about how much of a sinner Rudy is, but suffice it to say that the cross-dressing argument is really silly, and Reagan was twice-married, although not a Catholic.

Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 7:31 PM

It’s too difficult to imagine that someone could be “pro-choice” and still want to appoint a judge who follows the constitution!

Thank you.

You have just helped to make her, and my, point. Good job!

One Rudy seems to think that pro-choice, including partial birth abortion, is constitutional, unless you think that he would want something unconstitutional to be done, and the other Rudy seems to be pro-life by the justices he claims he would appoint, unless you think that he would want to appoint someone who would do what he thinks unconstitutional.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Giuliani.

Which is real and which is the impostor?

I think I know.

But then I am not Rudy’s mother.

MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 7:37 PM

suffice it to say that the cross-dressing argument is really silly

It is not silly at all as it is a metaphor for him and his positions, like “I voted for it before I voted against it” was for J F’ing and that tank ride was for Dukakis.

MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 7:51 PM

MB4 likes Romney and Fred so he is not invested in only one candidate, but his positions on Rudy are so out of whack they may require an exorcist’s help.

Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 6:52 PM

I think that it is Rudolfo who may need the exorcist. He is the one who behaves like Sybil and in front of the whole nation!

MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 7:55 PM

Thank you.

You have just helped to make her, and my, point. Good job!

MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 7:37 PM

No, I most certainly did not! Anna Quindlen’s point is that it is impossible to be “pro-choice” and be in favor of “strict constructionist judges”. Apparently Ms. Quindlen believes that if one is pro-choice (as she is) then abortion rights must be protected “by any means necessary” and judges should legislate from the bench.

I have no idea what your point is.

Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 11:46 PM

I have no idea what your point is.

Buy Danish on December 15, 2007 at 11:46 PM

Why am I not surprised.

There is probably nothing he has ever done or ever could do that you could not explain away to yourself.

La madre del amor es verdaderamente ciego para su hijo.

MB4 on December 16, 2007 at 12:18 AM

MB4,

F

Buy Danish on December 16, 2007 at 1:00 AM

MB4,

LOL. That was not an obscene note to you! I hit the “submit comment” button by mistake.

What I meant to say was – For someone who admires Mark Twain as much as you do, you are certainly weak at recognizing sarcasm.

My point was that you are making no sense.

Buy Danish on December 16, 2007 at 1:02 AM

I swear before God, hotair (and my choice of phrase is no accident): I will vote for Hillary before I vote for Mike Huckabee.

Please tell me this farce of a campaign run for him is going to be ending soon.

Vyce on December 16, 2007 at 1:41 AM

Mi amigo,

El amor de la madre…para su hijo.

Also, please get better at sarcasm, or else Mark Twain will come and git you.

Entelechy on December 16, 2007 at 1:55 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4