Ennhhh... I don't know. If you're running for president, you can't exactly NOT talk about this. If you don't volunteer your thoughts on it, some reporter is going to ask you, and then what do you say? "Oh, no, I couldn't possibly tip my hand as to how I'd handle a situation like this, and it would be wrong to say how this affects the world-view I'll bring to being president." I mean, it's got to be that or "Yeah, I'd have really farked this one up. Tell you who would have knocked it out of the park, though--Huckabee, or Edwards. Those guys are awesome at this kind of thing. But still, vote for me anyway."

Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled that the media seems to have noticed that politicians do sleazy and opportunistic things in the name of politics. I'm just not sure this is a situation where it applies. Not everything that happens in the world is about the US, but everything US presidential candidates say is about the election.

In related news, current events still shape campaign commentary.

Submitter is a retard.

wait, both sides want to talk about politics? No way!

Afternoon_Delight: This is your candidate, libtards.

Good luck...

Actually she's a candidate for the Democratic party. I think liberals are wishing for someone a lot better. Democrats are. Much like Republicans are practically pulling themselves apart over who they think they can stomach. Conservatives are scratching their heads wondering what the hell happened to their party.

Afternoon_Delight: FTFA: "I know from my lifetime of experience you have to be prepared for whatever might happen, and that's particularly true today," Clinton said in an Associated Press interview while campaigning in Iowa.


This is your candidate, libtards.

Good luck...

What exactly IS the difference between a ho-ho and a ding-dong?

Afternoon_Delight: Afternoon_Delight: This is your candidate, libtards. Good luck...

rppp01a: Actually she's a candidate for the Democratic party. I think liberals are wishing for someone a lot better.


It doesn't matter what you wish for. The Clinton co-candidacy is going to be your nominee again and you're going to vote for it... again.

This time it's different, though. Now Hillary is its face/voice and this time you don't have Ross Perot on your side.


Tsk, tsk...

Do you ever get tired of sounding like a complete ass? Just curious.

McCain is really the only person who can talk about it and no, I'm not a McCain supporter. He at least had actually talked to Bhutto before.

Afternoon_Delight
You are such a smarmy turd, remember, you are the enemy of freedom, liberty, and the U.S. Constitution, and if you are as outspoken in public as you are on the internet, my hope is someone is targeting you.

Actually, Hillary may try to play this off as "exploiting" the Bhutto incident, but in reality she will be asked some very tough questions about how she plans on dealing with the War on Terror and indeed what steps need to be taken to prevent domestic attacks, because if she doesn't formulate a cohesive plan, I guarantee you she will not be allowed to become President. Because, frankly if she wins this country would never be more ripe for another attack.

McCain knows what is necessary to run this country, but I believe that Romney is the obvious choice to continue the legacy of this administration.

god I hate you guys

Which one of the Republican candidates are you supporting, Afternoon_Delight? Hmmm? Just tell us... which of those old, clapped-out jackasses has your support, sport?

Afternoon_Delight: sonnyboy11: Do you ever get tired of sounding like a complete ass?


Not to liberals... no.

Well, at least you admit it.

Let me help you out on something- it's not just to 'liberals' that you sound like an ass. But keep it up. You are a liberal's wet dream around here; someone who makes the Republican party sound bad without anyone providing an opposing viewpoint.

skookum: McCain knows what is necessary to run this country, but I believe that Romney is the obvious choice to continue the legacy of this administration.

A few months ago you were saying, "When President Giuliani takes office..."

0/10. Just SFTU. You can't even keep your trolls straight.

Hea Hillary-- Hows it feel to be an asshat??
Hillary-- "I know from my lifetime of experience you have to be prepared for whatever might happen, and that's particularly true today," Clinton said in an Associated Press interview while campaigning in Iowa.

Dr. Farkenstein: 0/10. Just STFU. You can't even keep your trolls straight.

Meanwhile, I can't even keep my curses straight. -1/10 for me.

People still respond to Afternoon_Delight?

No, actually if any of you liberals took a break once in awhile from loving the sound of your own posts so much you'd be aware that Giuliani is proving a mild disappointment, but could become a frontrunner again if he demonstrates the necessary muster to enact the needed mechanisms to actively fight the War on Terror. Simply repeating "9/11" doesn't help any. Still, he might re-invent himself to appeal to a more mainstream America.

Currently, I support them all and I'll support the eventual nominee 100%.

C'mon, this should be easy for you. Pick one that's closest to your actual views, tell us why, and I'll do so as well. Deal?

Dude! Party of Personal Responsibility and all that! Take a leadership role in the debate and tell us who Afternoon_Delight backs... none of this wishy-washy liberal-sounding "I support them all" weasel-word bullshiat!

The dumb pictures just don't cut it. Be a man and take a stand.

Dr. Farkenstein: Currently, I support them all and I'll support the eventual nominee 100%.

C'mon, this should be easy for you. Pick one that's closest to your actual views, tell us why, and I'll do so as well. Deal?

They all have an R by their names, so they fit his views perfectly.

skookum: War on Terror

I suddenly find myself even more tired of this phrase than usual. I propose we change it to the "War on Scaredness". I further propose we give everyone a cuddly kitten to combat this scaredness.

Frankly, picking any of the Republican candidates out of a hat would serve better than the inexperienced, socialist-tinged rather half-baked ideologies being expressed by the Democrat camp. Once again, they will not be taken seriously and we may not even have two parties by 2016, this is where it's headed.

Afternoon_Delight
Currently, I support them all and I'll support the eventual nominee 100%.

Weak. Sauce.

Wow, I just found a way to shut A-D up. Just ask him to take a stand on which Republican in the race most closely represents his views. Of course he won't respond: he has no views of his own, so he can't figure out which of the asshats he would most want to fellate once they're in office.

Nice work, A-D, ya douchebag!

The American Right: Tastes Like Chicken. Looks Yellow, Too.

skookum: ...they will not be taken seriously and we may not even have two parties by 2016, this is where it's headed.

You have no idea how right you are.


/literally
//you have no idea

So A_D has no views, his loyalty is to the Party only. No surprise here.

jx100

The W.O.T. should be renamed, "Frighten GOPer, American hating Pussy".

Excuse me, typing too fast... "Frighten GOPer, America hating pussy".
bush fans and GOPers are basically treason supporters and the real enemy in America.

So Ron paul and the rest of the Democrats running for President have a "hands-off," "non-interventionist" foreign policy. This is a great opportunity for all of them to say "Hands off Pakistan" and sit back and watch it play out. So what if a nuclear state falls into civil war--what about socialized health care here at home?

When Mr. shiat meets Mr. Fan over there, and nukes are deployed, perhaps then the American electorate will realize we are part of a global economy and will switch their party affiliation to Republican.

/longshot

Afternoon_Delight
...and you are still a smarmy farggot. who cares? button your lip in public.

Hmmm... that's a good question actually, since I identify strongly with key features of each candidate's campaign. Like I said, I support them all. It's the truth.

Of the current field, I suppose Fred Thompson most closely matches my take on most things. He's pretty damned consistent on every conservative issue I care about, such as limited government, national defense, the border, private property rights, taxes, race-based policies/political correctness, welfare, government schools, government medicine, etc.

That answers your question, I guess, but I think I agree with Skookum about Mitt Romney. I think he's the most electable, overall and his conservative credentials are respectable enough. He has an excellent track record as an executive in business, in running the Olympics and as Governor. The guy's got no skeletons and he can handle Hillary for certain.


It's a miracle! A coherent, reasoned response from Afternoon_Delight! Seriously, that was good. You should try it more often, it's a nice change of pace. I hope others will likewise encourage you to continue in this vein.

Myself, I'm still a bit muddled on who I prefer. Richardson and Kucinich are the most interesting to me, but they're both completely unrealistic as far as having any chance at the nomination. I like what Edwards says, but I've got misgivings about him that I can't entirely put my finger on; I'm just not so confident about him actually being the president. Obama's the "feel good" candidate, but I'm not sure if he really has enough substance to actually make things happen. If he won the nomination, though, I wouldn't have a problem at all.

Hillary's just too damned overtly political; if she'd stop trying so hard to be all things to all people (the constant taking a "position" on trivial matters she doesn't seem to actually have a clue about, and which make her look foolish), I'd be a lot more comfortable with her. I'm pretty sure she's going to get the nomination; I'll vote for her, and I think she'll ultimately win. But between her own shortcomings and what's sure to be pure poison dogging her through her term, I don't know how effective she'll ultimately be.

Again, A_D, good post. I hope I don't sound condescending (going overboard with the "good doggy" business), because I really do appreciate that reply you made.

Thanks very much for your reply, A-D. Now I'll live up to my part of the bargain.

For me it's between Richardson and Obama. A ticket either way would suit me. Richardson has the experience that Obama lacks; Obama has the charisma Richardson lacks. Both would make good policy decisions IMO, and out of all current possibilities (both R and D), those two seem like the most likely, sane combination to lead America with any semblance of reason and order.

Is_What_It_Is:

So Ron paul and the rest of the Democrats running for President have a "hands-off," "non-interventionist" foreign policy. This is a great opportunity for all of them to say "Hands off Pakistan" and sit back and watch it play out. So what if a nuclear state falls into civil war--what about socialized health care here at home?

When Mr. shiat meets Mr. Fan over there, and nukes are deployed, perhaps then the American electorate will realize we are part of a global economy and will switch their party affiliation to Republican.

/longshot


So exactly how do you propose we be "hands on" with Pakistan? And how does it fit in with the global economy? The global economy concept seems, for better or worse, to be a pretty much done deal at this point.

Dr. Farkenstein:

For me it's between Richardson and Obama. A ticket either way would suit me. Richardson has the experience that Obama lacks; Obama has the charisma Richardson lacks. Both would make good policy decisions IMO, and out of all current possibilities (both R and D), those two seem like the most likely, sane combination to lead America with any semblance of reason and order.


I wouldn't mind that at all. I'd like to think it would make for a less contentious term in office as compared to HC and whoever she tags for VP.

DrBenway: It's a miracle! A coherent, reasoned response from Afternoon_Delight! Seriously, that was good. You should try it more often, it's a nice change of pace. I hope others will likewise encourage you to continue in this vein.

He's certainly grown from his previous logins such as HellBentForLeather and Might_Dog!

Recall all Repuglikkkans The best way for us to remember Bhutto is to elect our first female candidate and show the terrorists that we aren't going to be intimidated by them.

Does constantly talking about the dire threat terrorists pose to the US count as intimidation? If so, Clinton may not be the best democrat for the job.

skookum: McCain knows what is necessary to run this country, but I believe that Romney is the obvious choice to continue the legacy of this administration.

McCain and Romney, by continuing the interventionist policies that caused 9/11, will guarantee another terrorist attack. Politicians have been playing Russian roulette with our lives for a long time, and the chickens, as they say, are coming home to roost.

/Ron Paul '08

FTA: "Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who have made experience a cornerstone of their campaigns, said the murder was proof of a need for a president who is ready to take command."

WTF? 'Take command' of what ? Are they running for president of Pakistan? If Pakistan wants to wage a nuclear civil war, I say, "go for it." I couldn't care less.

Sweet, skookum updated his comedy gold profile!

Recall all Repuglikkkans: Is_What_It_Is: So Ron paul and the rest of the Democrats running for President have a "hands-off," "non-interventionist" foreign policy. This is a great opportunity for all of them to say "Hands off Pakistan" and sit back and watch it play out. So what if a nuclear state falls into civil war--what about socialized health care here at home?

Where is this nonsense coming from? Obama claims that he would invade Pakistan if necessary and Edwards has called the War on Terror a bumper sticker slogan. The only candidate who has consistently been both pro-War on terror and anti-war (by her words if not her actions) is Hillary who I think would be best. The best way for us to remember Bhutto is to elect our first female candidate and show the terrorists that we aren't going to be intimidated by them.

Wait...let me get this straight...

We should elect Hillary Clinton into office so we can honor the memory of the Pakistani opposition leader simply because she is female, and said opposition leader was female?

Hillary is pro-war on terror and anti-war at the same time???

You have got to be farking kidding me.

Your troll-fu is at about -6

/OBAMA '08

Hillary quote : "I knew her as a leader."

can I get a facepalm? anyone? Bueller?

Is_What_It_Is:

When Mr. shiat meets Mr. Fan over there, and nukes are deployed, perhaps then the American electorate will realize we are part of a global economy and will switch their party affiliation to Republican.

Please tell me what "nukes are deployed" means to you because as someone that understands Pakistan doesn't really have "deployable" nukes (whatever the hell that stupid-speak means) I love to hear this one?

What, do you think these "nukes" fit in a suitcase and can be carried around or something?

Dodd/Feingold
Serious balls and a history of making sound decisions.

FTFA: I know Musharraf, I can pick up the phone and call him

Hmm, what to make of this...

None of them would be.

Except Huckabee, who probably doesn't know who she was.

nermatode Hillary quote : "I knew her as a leader."

can I get a facepalm? anyone? Bueller?




I'll be your huckleberry

I see I missed the fun that Afternoon_Delight had this morning.

I guess Cox and Forkum haven't come up with a cartoon for the Bhutto assassination yet.

Afternoon_Delight:
This time it's different, though. Now Hillary is its face/voice and this time you don't have Ross Perot on your side.


Tsk, tsk...

Correct, sir. This time it IS different. However, where you get it wrong is that this time the nominee will be B. Hussein Obama (just went ahead and pre-fix'd that for you) and "we'll" have Ron Paul to play spoiler on "our" side.

Afternoon_Delight: I guess, but I think I agree with Skookum about Mitt Romney.


get over it contards yer candidate is gonna be hickabee! BWAHAHAHAHA

/no hat like contards hate
//free hat