buying office 2007 microsoft
download solidworks edrawings
cost of office standard 2010 cheap visio
buy microsoft office 2010 product key online
price of adobe photoshop elements 6 microsoft visio professional 2013
buy microsoft visio online
buy intuit quicken 2010
viagra kaufen billig
achat cialis 5mg http://www.taftcollege.edu/academic/math...
best buy windows 7 starter
best price photoshop elements 7 mac
What does being qualified to serve as president mean? You hear it a lot about the current Clinton iteration. Lots of people who earnestly don’t want Hillary Clinton to be president will tell you there’s no doubt she’s qualified, but [insert objection here]. Her supporters acknowledge no deficiencies other than, perhaps, an almost embarrassing overabundance of competence. It’s because of her previous White House experience, her Senate experience and her Ministry of War Diplomacy experience.
There’s no denying Clinton has experience, but how, exactly, does it qualify her to be president? Her first significant experience in the (so far only) Clinton administration was the monumental health insurance reform fiasco. Her first significant vote in the Senate was the one green-lighting the invasion of Iraq, a massively stupid, destructive, unjustifiable decision that she refused to repudiate for more than a decade.
Continue reading Hillary Clinton’s disqualifying experience
Lots of Obama supporters on Facebook during the 2012 campaign period were touting the end of the war in Afghanistan as one of the President’s larger achievements. President Obama, they said, “ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
This was absurd not just because the war in Afghanistan was not what one could actually call over in 2012 (neither of them were, but that’s another story), but because the President’s promise to end the war in Afghanistan was not a promise to end the war, while his exit from Iraq was the product of a failed negotiation to extend our presence. (11-dimensional chess, I’m sure: Obama pretended to want to stay in order to placate war lovers, but actually wanted the negotiation to fail so he could realize his true desire to be shed of the affair.)
Continue reading Good news: Barack Obama will not be the answer to “Who Lost Afghanistan?”
Libya is on fire (literally). This is because President Obama and his colleagues in France and the UK blew it up with their 2011 assault on the country.
I say President Obama blew it up, rather than the US blew it up, because the US joined in the festivities entirely on his say-so. The President said that the US role was not something that required either consent or oversight from Congress because American lives were not at risk. By this he meant that the US could attack Gaddafi’s forces from the air and sea with impunity forever (it turned out to be seven months, officially). Only, absent congressional approval, it wasn’t the US attacking Libya but the President.
Continue reading Libya: another “good” war gone bad
Yes, Ralph Nader is at it again. Almost 14 years after his run cost Al Gore a victory in Florida, hence nationally, the Lebanon Loon has cost Democrats another election in the Sunshine State. And it isn’t even November!
Oh wait, my bad: it’s the Democrats shooting themselves in the face again. Ed Jany, a Republican recently re-minted as a Democrat and the party’s handpicked candidate in Florida’s 13th Congressional District, has dropped out of the race and left the Republican incumbent unopposed. Jany, who has not been a registered Democrat long enough to run as a Democrat under Florida election law, had entered the race as an independent candidate backed by both the state and national Democratic parties. Barring death or a terminal scandal, David Jolly, the Republican victor in a special election to replace deceased Republican representative Bill Young a few months ago, now has an additional 30 months as a Congressman in which to consolidate his position in the district.
Continue reading Damn you, Ralph Nader!
Just my periodic reminder that the only possible way mystery meat presidential candidate Rand Paul could get the Democratic votes he would require to win a presidential election, assuming he somehow survived the GOP primaries, is for Democrats to cede in his favor multiple issues that would be attractive to the Democratic constituencies.
I used to think this was impossible, but so many Democrats seem to be scared of him that I begin to think it isn’t. Just this morning, a prominent Democratic polemicist called Paul’s foreign policy positions “incoherent,” and said that “incoherent foreign policy is frightening.” I suppose this is true, but is it any more frightening than some of our recent, allegedly coherent and undeniably violent, foreign policies? And will Democratic voters perceive it to be?
Continue reading Rand Paul is no threat to Democrats unless they make him one
Referring, obviously, to congressional Democrats who wish to further reduce food stamp benefits and to cast a Nixon spell on the NSA, rendering all its predations lawful. The latter would be Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-NSA), who is expressing her outrage over the eavesdropping on allies by writing legislation that fully legitimates spying on citizens, and the former a host of other Democrats whose starting point in the negotiations about the SNAP program (food stamps) is a $4 billion cut on top of the $5 billion lost as the stimulus ends.
Continue reading Lickspittles, Poltroons and Slubberdegullions
Then-Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama disappointed some of his liberal supporters when he voted in 2008 to immunize our country’s giant telecommunications firms from any consequences of cooperating with the Bush administration’s illegal warrantless wiretapping scheme. Now, he’s nominating a champion of that scheme to head the FBI.
James Comey, who served as . . . → Read More: James Comey, Obama’s candidate to head the FBI, approved illegal warrantless wiretapping and torture. Forward!
I’ve now read two opinion pieces, one by Charlie Pierce at Esquire last week and another by Jamelle Bouie at The American Prospect today, saying that the failure of various gun control measures proves that presidential leadership doesn’t work. They’re writing to defend President Obama from charges that he doesn’t use his position effectively to lobby . . . → Read More: This is why Democrats can’t have nice things