Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Where did the 't' come from. 😆
Originally posted by PVS
thats the second time in this thread i was accused of personal insults. now quote the insult so that i may be publicly scrutinised.
i'll be waiting...forever
Originally posted by PVS
lol poop in u face
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
K? Do I get a Prize? I'm not being that serious right now, I'm not going to try and relay anything to 10 Liberals, Numbers matter.Anycraps, to Kharma, Fox has Concervative Programs, and Liberal Programs, as well as sides from both. They're fairer
In that case, bub-bye, Bubba.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Balanced? With articles such as:The Fairy Tale Democrats - September 25th, 2006
Bill Clinton, Bin Laden, and Hysterical Revisions - September 25th, 2006
Iraq's Role in Terrorism - September 23rd, 2006
The UN's Hollow Words and Bolton's Meaningful Warning - September 22nd, 2006
The Democratic Party and the Jews - September 21st, 2006
The American thinker exposes itself as the trash that it is.
You should be embarrassed to post a link to such a partisan site and claim to post it in order to achieve some sense of balance.
Propaganda like The American Thinker and the fools at FOX have no place in any discussion where intelligence or common sense is required.
Did I say the site was balanced? I could have sworn I said I was trying to balance the thread itself. And I don't really see where you have a leg to stand on using crooksandliars as your source, that's just as far left as any of the right wing sites are to the right. Don't criticize bias other sources when your own source's bias is so blatant.
You might try reading the article instead of strawmanning the source.
So if you want to leave propaganda out of the discussion we'll leave out crooksandliars, moveon.org and the like, along with most of the commentary from cnn and the "mainstream" media.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. In fact it may be idiocy to think that they are. It's probably just a blind refusal to see the other side of the story though.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I liked how Clinton didn't take any shit and immediately put Wallace in his place whenever he pulled that accusation crap on him.I wasn't surprised Chris Wallace did that, after all, it is FOX News.
Go Willie!
You know it's funny how the right wingers want to place Clinton in this damned if he did and damned if he didn't role.
So, he launches an attack against the Tali Ban, I'll be it mostly by cruise missile although he also says he contracted CIA agents to kill Bin Laden, no real reason not to believe him and I see no real motivation for him to lie at this pt. besides I'd believe him over Bush any day, and everyone screams out 'Wag the Dog'. Oh this Bin laden guy he's no real threat it's just to divert away from the true story..'the President getting blown in the oval office' or as the right would like to phrase it 'committing perjury.'
That was the reaction at the time and now the reaction is they don't feel he did enough, why didn't he do more? It's just another pathetic attempt at sharing the blame and deflecting it from the current administration.
The funny thing is how stupid of an argument and position they've decided to take on this. I think they would have at least somewhat of a basis for argument if they were to twist it and say that 911 was Clinton's fault because of the fact that he was so hell bent on getting Bin Laden in essence provoking him into attacking the US on the magnitude in which the Tali Ban did but No, now they say he didn't do enough..lol..they're not even sure how to spin this crap anymore at this pt.
I think if we were to really hold anyone responsible for 911 and all the crap that's goin on it's the media propaganda machine that regards things like The Pres. getting blown and the Vice Pres. shooting someone or gays getting married as more important news than terrorism, the war in Iraq and the lives of hurricane victims. It really does disgust me, I could go on but this really isn't the thread for it.
Btw, did anyone notice how he couldn't even look Willie in the eye when he was asking him those questions. What a nice little lap dog Wallace is. He did his master's bidding...good boy.
Originally posted by RZA
Yeah I agree. ✅You know it's funny how the right wingers want to place Clinton in this damned if he did and damned if he didn't role.
So, he launches an attack against the Tali Ban, I'll be it mostly by cruise missile although he also says he contracted CIA agents to kill Bin Laden, no real reason not to believe him and I see no real motivation for him to lie at this pt. besides I'd believe him over Bush any day, and everyone screams out 'Wag the Dog'. Oh this Bin laden guy he's no real threat it's just to divert away from the true story..'the President getting blown in the oval office' or as the right would like to phrase it 'committing perjury.'
That was the reaction at the time and now the reaction is they don't feel he did enough, why didn't he do more? It's just another pathetic attempt at sharing the blame and deflecting it from the current administration.
The funny thing is how stupid of an argument and position they've decided to take on this. I think they would have at least somewhat of a basis for argument if they were to twist it and say that 911 was Clinton's fault because of the fact that he was so hell bent on getting Bin Laden in essence provoking him into attacking the US on the magnitude in which the Tali Ban did but No, now they say he didn't do enough..lol..they're not even sure how to spin this crap anymore at this pt.
I think if we were to really hold anyone responsible for 911 and all the crap that's goin on it's the media propaganda machine that regards things like The Pres. getting blown and the Vice Pres. shooting someone or gays getting married as more important news than terrorism, the war in Iraq and the lives of hurricane victims. It really does disgust me, I could go on but this really isn't the thread for it.
Btw, did anyone notice how he couldn't even look Willie in the eye when he was asking him those questions. What a nice little lap dog Wallace is. He did his master's bidding...good boy.
❌
1.)Presidents do NOT have affairs, EVER, disgrace galore for our country.
2.)The "Screwups" made by this Administration? Al Quada has their tail between their Legs now, they can't do crap, and we have 2 growing Democracys in the region, Iraq wasn't that great an idea, but it can end up very well. If Clinton had done what Bush did, I would be all for him. Presidents need to know when to use their Military, Clinton didn't which is why I don't like him(and a few other things, but that's beside the point)
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
❌1.)Presidents do NOT have affairs, EVER, disgrace galore for our country.
Please, spare me the morality lecture. I'm not sure what childlike fantasy you currently live in but the fact is men in positions of power tend to do things like that all the time. You'll find this out as you get older. He wasn't the first nor the only one to do it, he just got caught. Not condoning it, just saying that's reality. Of course, that was more of a disgrace than anything Bush has done to the country so far and on a global scale mind you. (btw incase you can't tell I'm being sarcastic here).
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
2.)The "Screwups" made by this Administration? Al Quada has their tail between their Legs now, they can't do crap, and we have 2 growing Democracys in the region, Iraq wasn't that great an idea, but it can end up very well.
Whatever you need to tell yourself or convince yourself of in order to sleep at night, by all means please go right ahead.
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
If Clinton had done what Bush did, I would be all for him. Presidents need to know when to use their Military, Clinton didn't which is why I don't like him(and a few other things, but that's beside the point)
Well, if you had watched the interview according to him he did try and do more but wasn't allowed to, which I already stated in my previous post as well.
Anyway, that's all you'll get from me on this.
Originally posted by RZA
Please, spare me the morality lecture. I'm not sure what childlike fantasy you currently live in but the fact is men in positions of power tend to do things like that all the time. You'll find this out as you get older. He wasn't the first nor the only one to do it, he just got caught. Not condoning it, just saying that's reality. Of course, that was more of a disgrace than anything Bush has done to the country so far and on a global scale mind you. (btw incase you can't tell I'm being sarcastic here).Whatever you need to tell yourself or convince yourself of in order to sleep at night, by all means please go right ahead.
Well, if you had watched the interview according to him he did try and do more but wasn't allowed to, which I already stated in my previous post as well.
Anyway, that's all you'll get from me on this.
Presidents may have done it before, back in the day, I don't like that either, the only reason Bush is seen as doing anything embarressing because everyone thinks him a "War-Mongering Moronic *******"(I have actually heard people say that). People are just too deep inside their shell in this country to realise what he is doing has to be done, I don't support it all, but if you back out, everything WILL have been a waste
Again, I stand by the same thing, stop talking like Deano
He wasn't ALLOWED to? Remember how Bush wasn't "Allowed" to go to war? He did anyway, and thank God for it, Al Quada isn't someone you let be, again, when it is time to use our Army, we should use it, Peace Talks are useless these days, as is the Geneva Convention(it has since the start, another issue, for another day) when dealing with Nutjobs and Terrorists. Presidents lead this country, no one tells them what to do, a sad thing the UN wants the world to believe.
Originally posted by docb77
Actually, the republican congress at the time was supportive of the actions Clinton took (the missile strikes, not the lewinsky thing).
And? I'm not Republican.....
The Missile Strikes wern't enough, no matter Liberal or Concervative, if you don't go after these people, you arn't trying
Originally posted by PVS
3-the fact that that prick wallace was interrupting him and smirking at him. this guy was president of the united states and he's being talked over like some common shmuck on the oreilly factor. as much as i detest bush, when he's out of office i expect anyone interviewing him to show respect and let him finish a single answer to a question without having to raise his voice
That's one thing that I really noticed and disliked about the interview. For 8 months that man was the most powerful person in the World, and responsible for protecting the lives of every American including Wallace. And then that nobody who rode his daddy's coattails has the nerve to talk down to him as though he was scolding a child. I don't blame Clinton at ALL for getting in that fool's face.
I think Keith Olbermann said it best during his Special Comment--which you can watch and read the transcript on Crooks and Liars.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/25/olbermanns-special-comment-are-yours-the-actions-of-a-true-american/#more-10525
"After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts — that he was President on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton’s."
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's one thing that I really noticed and disliked about the interview. For 8 months that man was the most powerful person in the World, and responsible for protecting the lives of every American including Wallace. And then that nobody who rode his daddy's coattails has the nerve to talk down to him as though he was scolding a child. I don't blame Clinton at ALL for getting in that fool's face.
Agreed...Wallace lost all journalistic credibility he had by enabling such a smear campaign to enter that interview.
I choose to give both of them the benefit of the doubt - Wallace sincerely thought it was a legitimate question, and Clinton was already primed to go off at anything similar to that after the abc thing and all. It was a miscommunication. Not the "crazed Clinton" that the right points at, and not the "smirking wallace" that the left points at. Both were well intentioned.
Originally posted by docb77
I choose to give both of them the benefit of the doubt - Wallace sincerely thought it was a legitimate question, and Clinton was already primed to go off at anything similar to that after the abc thing and all. It was a miscommunication. Not the "crazed Clinton" that the right points at, and not the "smirking wallace" that the left points at. Both were well intentioned.
The thing that gets me is the fact that almost every media outlet is talking about Clinton's meltdown rather then the information he spoke about....He fessed up. He said he failed on tv for all to hear; if that's not some form of humility I don't know what is.
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
The thing that gets me is the fact that almost every media outlet is talking about Clinton's meltdown rather then the information he spoke about....He fessed up. He said he failed on tv for all to hear; if that's not some form of humility I don't know what is.
Your right, both sides are trying to spin it into something bad for the other side. No one is talking about the validity of Clinton's comments or their implications.
It's things like this that make me wonder what happened to the middle ground.
-edit-
of course he didn't really admit fault. He said he failed, but also said it wasn't his fault.