KD – He instantly recognized an uniquely American Valkyrie!
A Warrior Queen who gazed unblinking across the snowy wastes to Russia, the Evil Empire that seeks to rise again, and said NEVER!
She is unique in the eyes of American men and women — both a Moral Avatar and a Commodity!
As Rush so manfully put it, HOT DAMN!
Oh Sarah! If and when the day comes when you alone must lead us, I will not blink! I know you will carry the Vision of W the Innocent forward. To Victory!
I think you have been jerking off to too many “warrior chick” movies, KD!
And you are indeed a pretentious, pedantic jackass.
========================
D. Grant Chee—-:
With some voters, 5+ years of POW experience mean absolutely zero.
Insofar as being captured by authorities and thrown behind bars and suffering, suffering! means very little about gaining Presidential skills for a POW. Same for a crack dealer nabbed and who spent 5 years within a crappy jail sometimes getting beaten, with a few minor stabbings thrown in.
Outside the basic “suffering behind bars” biz, McCain can say it was a time that showed his bravery and character. That counts a bit…but in no way is it in itself anywhere near to encompassing Presidential skills. His time as a sucessful CO of a major Naval airwing is more germaine to being President than how much dysentary he had in 1968.
The public should never conflate Victimhood and suffering! with being a credential. Or victimhood and suffering! somehow being criteria in itself to be considered a hero – something the public has been warped into doing for convicts returning home from prison to the hood, seeing kids with serious diseases as heroes, thinking a politicain with a handicap or affliction must be a better choice than a healthy candidate.
Only if they did something with their victimhood we admire, should be in turn admire them, and honestly say that just because we admire them does not mean that victimhood made them magically more qualified for office or job position than a non-victim who may have better abilities.
========================
proud elitist:
Whats your point?
Yes, lobbyist X,Y, Z in either campaign represented as their job, for pay – bad, bad company or country A, B, or C.
Meanwhile in both campaign, lawyers X,Y, Z did the job they were paid for at some point and represented murderer A, cleaned up contractual paperwork for Bank B which had odious dealings over in another department with a Drug King, and speciously sued respondent C for big bucks on behalf of client who hired them to do so to help pay the bills.
Explain to me why lawyers and lobbyists are morally required to represent only morally upstanding clients as part of their jobs?
While we are at it, do you also want to explain why political consultants and speechwriters and campaign managers now for Obama X or McCain Y should be condemned because they represented vile, odious candidates A, B and C for pay, in the past?
