“Should all commenters note their affiliations in their comments, or does this stipulation only apply to those who note the stupidity of a film reference in a Roger Simon post?” — bargal20

What’s the matter, dearie? Can’t share? Sounds like a personal problem.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

When a political blogger favorably compares his preferred presidential candidate (a former POW) to a fictional character who is a POW, insane and a collaborator with the enemy, isn’t it worthy of ridicule? I mean, Simon’s reference to Bridge was sort of highlighted by him via the title of the post. You’d think he’d have, like, watched the film.

Roger Simon’s work in the film industry obviously didn’t equip him with skills suited to interpreting films. One might say his Hollywood experiences haven’t left him particularly qualified for the position.

Too bad Simon has now retracted a subsequent post, in which he hilariously offered an unfavorable comparison of Senator Chris Dodd to the titular character in Upton Sinclair’s Dodsworth That bit of idiocy showed Simon’s novel-writing experiences have also given him no qualifications to make literary references.

Now, do you need to know if I ever voted for Chris Dodd?

P.P.S. Your voting affiliation/or non-affiliation, is a matter of the public record, dearie. That is, unless you’re unregistered and just like trolling these political discussions because you have nothing better to do than throw an occasional grenade into them for ’s—s and grins’, as we would say in the Army.

“Who the f**k are you….you obnoxious twit…” — bargal20

Three thinks here.

One, your charming language goes well with your choice of nom des blogs.

Two, you answered your own question.

Three, go back to your favorite bar, gal. You’re better off there than here.

RE: I Demand?

“…you to demand details of my political affiliations or lack therof…” — bargal20

I didn’t demand. I simple asked. You got a problem with that? Or do you have a SERIOUS problem with the use of the English language? Or perhaps your a teensy bit over-sensitive about something; going ballistic over a simple questions.

Personally? I suspect all three of you.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You know you're getting close to the 'target' because they start throwing more flak at you. -- US Air Force axiom]

I don’t agree with such views, but there certainly were aviators who thought those shot down had an easier war (most weren’t tortured by the communists, just bored out of their minds) than those who remained unscathed to fly mission after mission after mission over North Vietnam.

Again, go read OVER THE BEACH.

Who the f**k are you to demand details of my political affiliations or lack therof, you obnoxious twit? Are you the official gatekeeper or something?

Unlike you, Roger Simon doesn’t even have the chutzpah to defend his obviously stupid interpretation of Bridge. You’ll notice he’s commented in this thread, but never on the ridicule we’re rightly laying at his clown shoes.

“If I really need to explain to you how Alex Guinness’s character in Bridge over the River Kwai is not the sort of man any sane person would want as president, then you probably do want a lying, castrating, fundamentalist, talking orangutan in a senior cabinet position.” — bargal20

I don’t see where Simon is saying ‘Nicholson for President’.

But I am seeing a lot of people making that faulty leap in logic. Such as you and The Other Steve. And it is disingenuous of you both.

Hope that helps….but I have my doubts.

By the way, what is your political affiliation, as recorded with your County Clerk/Recorder?

RE: Back ON-TOPIC

I’m no fan of McCain, either. But having known General Clark, as he was a battalion commander in 2d Brigade 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) while I was assigned to the same, I know for a fact that Clark is a gold-plated idiot. And therefore, Clark has no place gainsaying McCain on ‘leadership’.

Hope that helps….but I have serious doubts it will with you and Stevo.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S.