Disqus - Latest Comments for Bennett

Re: Don't Add Rice To The Republican Presidential Recipe

Bennett — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:50:38 -0000

You've expressed similar thoughts before. In fact, I don't think I've ever read a comment from you that wasn't decrying the absence of what you call "thoughtful" posters.

So if you want that kind of comment here, maybe you should start. Post something erudite and don't just kvetch about the quality of everyone else's comments. Perhaps you can elevate the discourse and the rest of us will fall in line behind you.

Re: Where Is The Love?

Bennett — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:55:44 -0000

How P.C. of you. Let's all pretend men don't enjoy and appreciate pretty women. Let's act as if how women (and men for that matter) look has absolutely no effect on anything. Because if we admitted the truth, that would be sexist. While pretending is merely hypocritical.

So no, I don't think I need to be careful. It's not sexist to acknowledge that John McCain may have enjoyed looking at a pretty face. It doesn't mean he slept with her, doesn't mean he gave her clients special favors. It means he's a man, and men like looking at pretty women. And that's all this story told me, as I stated above. To the extent it has credibility at all, it's for that proposition. Which I find perfectly ordinary and not worthy of special mention.

Re: Obama, Taking It For Granted?

Bennett — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:59:02 -0000

I doubt Obama is going to lose anything by not appearing at this conference. He'd just be preaching to the choir. And maybe there's a rationale. He's not the Black candidate. He's the candidate who happens to be Black. So he doesn't owe this particular group any more obeisance than any other organization and shouldn't alter his schedule to fit it in. At least there's no particular reason for him to do that.

This being said, I've watched the SOBU conferences in the past, on CSPAN, and they are generally informative and fairly well done. Usually an interesting mix of participants. And Tavis Smiley does a good job.

Re: Where Is The Love?

Bennett — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:42:43 -0000

If Vicki Iseman looked like Janet Reno this story would never have made it to print. But then she probably wouldn't have made it onto the plane either.

What I got out of this story is that John McCain has a thing for pretty blondes. I knew that already (and all the men who don't, raise your hands now). But having a thing FOR pretty blondes and having a thing WITH pretty blondes, those are two different stories. And the Times just didn't have the goods on the second part.

So they look stupid and McCain looks...like any other man.

Re: The Xerox Candidate

Bennett — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:45:29 -0000

Classic lefty response. You don't want to hear about Nazis because the reference is in the context of someone you support. Except now you're trying to justify it on the basis that it somehow is an offense to the memories of those who died in German concentration camps.

I think Ann Coulter identified this lib trick a while ago, didn't she? Lefties always find a victim to hide behind. When it's convenient.

Re: The Xerox Candidate

Bennett — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:08:59 -0000

As I said, an expediency exception.

I threw in the part about unauthorized weapons because I'd been told that soldiers can't go out and buy sidearms to take with them when they deploy. Clearly not the situation in combat.

Great post. Very informative.

Re: The Xerox Candidate

Bennett — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:15:17 -0000

"...because the MSM focuses on the stupid rather than the relevant, isn't necessary and doesn't qualify as real critique on the issues...."

Which is explained by you commenting on the very thing you complain shouldn't be written about.

It's an open comments blog. We can write what we want, pretty much. As you did.

Re: The Xerox Candidate

Bennett — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:22:47 -0000

Uh, no. It's because of the 8 years of hearing about Bushitler that the cartoon is now acceptable commentary. Bushitler and a whole lot of cartoons mocking and ridiculing Bush.

And it's a cartoon. It makes a point. One you don't like but hardly warranting a Muslim Rage Boy routine.

Re: The Xerox Candidate

Bennett — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:53:35 -0000

Or at least until we run out of weapons captured from the Taliban to fight with. Then we'll need to pack it in.

Re: The Xerox Candidate

Bennett — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:50:58 -0000

I don't know if something isn't right about Obama but something certainly isn't right about a lot of his followers.

Remember the mass hysteria in Britain after Princess Diana died in the auto accident? People were so overwrought, so intent on expressing this very intimate, personal connection with someone most of them had never met. But had seen a lot from afar and had apparently projected some kind of mystical, magical quality onto her. This is kind of like that.

It's sad, and yes scary. I think people's lives must be so empty and they are so dissatisfied with what they get from the people who actually are in their lives (friends, family, etc) that they have elevated this guy (a politician for pete's sake!) into some kind of mythic being, he will touch them and they will be made whole. Not everyone who supports him but enough for it to be, as you say, creepy.

Re: The Xerox Candidate

Bennett — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:42:20 -0000

Since that isn't what he said, your last sentence, then no, your conclusion isn't reasonable.

He answered a question about troop presence and said it in the conjunctive. If that, then this.

And that is a perfectly reasonable way to express one's thought, unlike your purportedly factual assertions about the current circumstances in Iraq.

Re: The Xerox Candidate

Bennett — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:50:48 -0000

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Re: The Xerox Candidate

Bennett — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:46:01 -0000

Well he can stop off and meet with the Iraqis and explain it all to them on his way to tea with Ahmadnejad and Assad and whatever loon is heading up Hamas. Because he'll meet with those guys.

Re: The Xerox Candidate

Bennett — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:31:23 -0000

I don't think there CAN be anything to back it up. I'm not expert on this stuff but I think that used a weapon that wasn't issued to you is verboten (for legal and other reasons) although maybe there's some expediency exception. And I think the preferred weapon of our enemy (a line from Heartbreak Ridge) is the AK 47, which I think probably uses different ammo? So it wouldn't be much good unless you had a supply of bullets for it.

Really it's the sort of thing that lefties say. When they aren't demanding that we pull out of wherever, they're insisting that our troops are (a) uneducated and unemployable so that's why they join up or (b) they are innocent children who have no idea what they are getting into and are manipulated into joining the service by evil chickenhawk types or (c) they are undersupplied and underesourced and are out there trying to win the war with slingshots and old Roman catapults.

Re: The Xerox Candidate

Bennett — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:18:15 -0000

Best line of the night was by Barack, the military man, on the plight of our men and women in Afghanistan:

"They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier getting Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current Commander in Chief."

Hysterical. It's like he gets his news about war stuff from watching movies or something. Well, there's no constituency that Barack can't promise something for, so there it is. He'll make sure our people in Afghanistan get shiny new rifles. No more having to pick AK 47s up off the ground.

Re: First We Smear You, Then Any Response Is War

Bennett — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 21:04:09 -0000

The hullabolloo is coming from everybody else, not the candidate himself. He should appear statesmanlike and reasonable, just as he did this morning. Let others do the heavy lifting with the outrage.

Re: First We Smear You, Then Any Response Is War

Bennett — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:49:06 -0000

Like O.J. huh? The "absolutely 100% not guilty" perfect picture of innocence.

Or Bill Clinton? red faced and bug-eyed, shaking his finger at the camera denying sexual relations with that woman...

What did McCain have to be animated about? The article didn't accuse him of anything.

Re: First We Smear You, Then Any Response Is War

Bennett — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:38:16 -0000

I watched the news conference this morning and McCain was civil and sensible. He didn't prevaricate, didn't try to parse, didn't go all incredible hulk and shake his finger at the camera and say "that woman" as in "I never had sexual relations with THAT woman..."

The ones who act all outraged and indignant. They're the ones you have to watch out for.

Re: McCain: No Romance, No Influence, No Meetings

Bennett — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:50:39 -0000

I didn't actually accuse you of beating your wife. I accused you of exhibiting disproportionate rage and said that if you acted like that at home, I hoped your wife had self-defense skills.

I seem to have offended you deeply and for that I apologize. Because it was a few days ago now and it's still eating at you. Let it go, mea culpa.

Re: McCain: No Romance, No Influence, No Meetings

Bennett — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:46:46 -0000

And I didn't call you a child molester. I said you reminded me of the kind of strange, scary guy that mumbles and yells to himself a lot. And I don't know if you are gay...I suspect you are not. But I confess, I generally assume men who are spongy liberals aren't usually very masculine, in the ordinary sense of that word...like you wouldn't know how to change your own oil, that kind of thing.

Here's a good article on what I mean, the kind of guy you aren't.

http://www.aspentimes.com/a...

But as long as you are happy, Tom, with who you are. That's what counts.

Re: McCain: No Romance, No Influence, No Meetings

Bennett — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:40:40 -0000

"He really doesn't have any skeletons in his closest.."

You haven't spent any time at Pat Dollard's website, hmmmm? He's been reporting on an Obama story, which although seemingly incredible has as much to back it up as the Times' story on McCain.

Re: McCain: No Romance, No Influence, No Meetings

Bennett — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:52:44 -0000

I'm female.

Re: McCain: No Romance, No Influence, No Meetings

Bennett — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:09:09 -0000

BS you like though because you follow me around on this blog fairly regularly. You’re not my type though Tom, I like my men a little more…virile…and a whole lot less…angry.

And my point still stands. If you (and the new Messiah) aren’t just in it for the power and the glory you can get for yourself, then prove it. Tell me how Barack will be good for me as President. And that’s when you lost your cool the last time. And I’m sure you will again if I push you hard enough. But I’ve had my fun for the day.

This has nothing to do with GOPers supposedly having to attest to McCain’s integrity or we’re conceding he did what unnamed sources accused him of doing. We have to prove he did nothing wrong or we’re convicting him by silence. That would be proving a negative.

Re: McCain: No Romance, No Influence, No Meetings

Bennett — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:23:21 -0000

I never asked you to prove me wrong. I asked you to prove what you were saying was right. Which you still haven't done. You still can't show how Barack is good for someone like me.

Maybe you think I need a vulcan mind meld with Miss Michelle. She'll clear up my fuzzy thinking, eh? Then I will see the glory, the majesty that is Barack.

Re: Today's DBD Cartoon

Bennett — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:19:25 -0000

No one's using scare tactics because scare tactics don't work. We are making fun. Ridicule is what works.

Remember, we are Americans. We are afraid of nothing.

Except you when you the nurse forgets your morning dose of psychotropic medication.