<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for chsw</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/0ea005e78139ed5faec8097dad54dea3/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 08:31:46 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Blankley Not Firing Blanks</title><link>http://captainsquarters.disqus.com/blankley_not_firing_blanks/#comment-41763</link><description>Permission to speak freely, Captain?  Thank you.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Brokered conventions are not simply the dreams of drooling journalists.  Brokered conventions in the past gave the country candidates behind which the party had a consensus.  The party leaders picked someone who reflected a broad swath of the party.  The person was usually a proven leader with experience at several levels of government.  The VP candidates chosen in brokered conventions tended to be either old experienced hands or younger, vigorous men who could take over in case of necessity.  Brokered conventions, therefore,  gave the country almost every POTUS from JQ Adams to Truman.  That is not a bad record, notwithstanding duds like Pierce, Buchanan and Harding.  So let both parties' candidates go at it with verbal pugilsticks.  And if they knock each other out, then let the states' party chairmen and governors pick the person whom they think has the best character and experience.  I think that the country will be better off for it.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;chsw</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">chsw</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:03:53 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: CapQ Caption Contest!</title><link>http://captainsquarters.disqus.com/capq_caption_contest/#comment-55490</link><description>Nice question.  Let's meet in Fort Marcy Park to discuss it.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;chsw</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">chsw</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:48:06 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: CapQ Caption Contest!</title><link>http://captainsquarters.disqus.com/capq_caption_contest/#comment-55496</link><description>Second caption -&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I'm done with Huma and the way is open for you, girl.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;chsw</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">chsw</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:49:54 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Live Coverage Of New Hampshire Primaries</title><link>http://captainsquarters.disqus.com/live_coverage_of_new_hampshire_primaries/#comment-67066</link><description>Would have posted earlier but I just got home.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Having worked in the past for Dem machines in both MD and Chicago, I was immediately suspicious when I began to hear reports about polling stations running out of ballots.  Perhaps the ballots had been already filled in.  Or, perhaps some people are taking advantage of NH's permissive motor-voter law which has minimal requirements.  Perhaps the FBI's voter fraud unit should send some snoops to NH.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;chsw</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">chsw</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:59:18 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Superdelegates: Because The Establishment Is Smarter Than The Voters</title><link>http://captainsquarters.disqus.com/superdelegates_because_the_establishment_is_smarter_than_the_voters/#comment-183929</link><description>What is unsaid in Gov. Hunt's column was that the superdelegate and proportional representation system is a direct result of the disastrous Carter presidency.  JC Himself beat Rep. Mo Udall narrowly in large states and lost in many small ones.  As a result, Udall had almost as many primary votes as Carter, but only half the delegates.  Therefore, the Democratic party elders came up with this new construct.  Perhaps if the superdelegate system had been in place in 1976, the country might have been spared the worst presidency of the 20th century.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;chsw (I confess, I volunteered for Carter in 1976)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">chsw</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:49:05 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: This Week in Bacon</title><link>http://crispyontheoutside.disqus.com/this_week_in_bacon_76/#comment-2664580</link><description>"Why would you want to manufacture an alarm clock that wakes people up with the smell of cooking vegans?!"&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Because they taste so good when they are done crispy.  Meat just falls off the bone.  And they taste like chicken.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;chsw</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">chsw</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 08:31:46 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Paging Through Congress</title><link>http://cafehayek.disqus.com/paging_through_congress/#comment-13617927</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Your choice of subject title has taken on a new relevance these days.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">chsw</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:59:40 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Uncle Sam Clearly Does Not Live on a Budget</title><link>http://cafehayek.disqus.com/uncle_sam_clearly_does_not_live_on_a_budget/#comment-13626892</link><description>&lt;p&gt;That is an increase of about 4% per year, inflation adjusted.  Almost all of it is in defense, social security and medicare.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;If you remember Clinton&amp;#39;s enormous cuts in defense spending, then you know that manpower, ships, planes, tanks, etc. still have not recovered to the levels America had before Gulf War 1.  Hence, the real problem is on the social spending side of the budget.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;p&gt;chsw&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">chsw</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:28:34 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>