|
Merc248
|
 |
« on: September 25, 2006, 08:32:27 am » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dusty
Guest
|
|
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2006, 03:56:17 pm » |
|
LOL@RAPE
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zeradul
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2006, 05:15:47 pm » |
|
He did, but it's just Fox News, so.........
And just remember, even the Democrats are all about going to war. Remember this in the future. If you think staying neutral in the world is a good idea, like the founding fathers of this nation did, it won't be the Democrats that get us there. If you're voting Democrat, you're voting for war.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." - old legal aphorism
|
|
|
|
joel
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2006, 05:51:29 pm » |
|
not all members of the democratic party support war just as not all members of the republican party support war.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kai
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2006, 06:23:27 pm » |
|
LOL@RAPE
omg who sent in a lightweight against a heavyweight? That guy sounded like a worm compared to President Clinton. He should have let him just talk instead of trying to argue with a former president who's known for his prowess with words. I feel ashamed that Fox News let that happen. They should have sent in O'Reilly or Hannity. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dusty
Guest
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 25, 2006, 07:09:16 pm » |
|
LOL@RAPE
omg who sent in a lightweight against a heavyweight? That guy sounded like a worm compared to President Clinton. He should have let him just talk instead of trying to argue with a former president who's known for his prowess with words. I feel ashamed that Fox News let that happen. They should have sent in O'Reilly or Hannity. KO |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ruckus
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2006, 08:11:03 pm » |
|
DONT FUCK WITH SLICK WILLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
joel
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 25, 2006, 08:57:24 pm » |
|
omg who sent in a lightweight against a heavyweight? That guy sounded like a worm compared to President Clinton. He should have let him just talk instead of trying to argue with a former president who's known for his prowess with words. I feel ashamed that Fox News let that happen. They should have sent in O'Reilly or Hannity.
I definitely agree with you. That would have made for a more interesting and incise interview. This seemed more like when Jon Stewart was on Crossfire; he was completely prepared for the pre-emted attack. It was pretty refreshing though to have a politician tear the media a new one. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ruckus
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2006, 12:43:51 am » |
|
I think its just plain cool to hear a president make complete coherent sentences. Been along time since that has happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DragonMage
|
|
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2006, 02:43:34 am » |
|
I love how they make it a huge deal on their network in order to get as much exposure as possible. However, when the video is played outside of a zone where they can put their negative spin on it and people have a forum by which they can discuss it, they immediately censor it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zeradul
|
|
« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2006, 02:43:58 am » |
|
not all members of the democratic party support war just as not all members of the republican party support war.
Very True. Those who vote against war do exist, but are the extreme minority. On a little bit of a tangent, the only person to vote against the Patriot Act was Feingold from Wisconsin. So that means ALL of your Senators supported it! Congress is supposed to be the Check upon the President, but they've been pandering every since the introduction of the threat of alienation of anyone who wasn't "Patriotic enough" and fully supporting the war. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." - old legal aphorism
|
|
|
|
wargasm
|
|
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2006, 11:16:05 pm » |
|
I'm going to preface this by saying I've never had any problems with Clinton other than his trying to divert attention away from the Lewinsky scandal in questionable ways. It's sad that I even have to state my position since certain factions of fucktards will immediately try to label me as a Bush supporter, neo-con, republican, right-winger, conservative, religious right, whatever-the-peanut-gallery-consensus-label-du-jour-may-be. It's like watching a group of primitive villagers come to a completely illogical conclusion of an event and face it with an equally illogical demonization of the source.
With that said, Clinton lost his shit in this interview and looked pathetic doing it. He looked like a small man desperately trying to justify his failures by attempting to redirect the conversation to the current administration. He was all over the place, pointing his finger in as many directions as he could think of. He lacked all of the previous charisma and strength he's shown in the past. One thing Clinton's always had a problem doing is graciously taking responsibility for his poorer actions, although he's never had trouble taking credit for the good ones.
Did he "own" anyone other than himself in this interview? Sadly, no. He constantly talked over Wallace (hardly "owning"someone) and when Wallace tried to redirect Clinton back to the simple question at hand Clinton then went directly on the offensive towards Wallace. Go back and watch the interview again.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily the viewing public (i.e. chuckleheads) gets sucked in by the hype but it no longer surprises me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zeradul
|
|
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2006, 04:24:40 am » |
|
He only speaks over Wallace when Wallace begins to interrupt him. And note that most interruptions are at key points being made by Clinton. Are you really defending some weasel on FNC War?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." - old legal aphorism
|
|
|
|
wargasm
|
|
« Reply #14 on: September 29, 2006, 03:24:58 pm » |
|
Wallace only interrupts him to bring him back to the original question when Clinton starts ranting in the other direction. Are you really defending some weasel on FNC War? are you calling wallace a weasel because he works for FNC or because of something he's actually done to warrant the label? fuck if I know because I don't watch TV news. I'm certainly not going to call the man a weasel because he asks hard questions his interviewees have problems answering. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ruckus
|
|
« Reply #15 on: September 29, 2006, 05:09:00 pm » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kai
|
|
« Reply #16 on: September 29, 2006, 05:31:04 pm » |
|
If the Democrats controlled the senate then why didn't they do something about it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zeradul
|
|
« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2006, 06:11:12 pm » |
|
are you calling wallace a weasel because he works for FNC or because of something he's actually done to warrant the label? fuck if I know because I don't watch TV news. I'm certainly not going to call the man a weasel because he asks hard questions his interviewees have problems answering.
I call him a weasel because he committed to spend half the time on the environment topic. But two minutes in he sneaks in his agenda based question that Clinton had not been told he would be asked about. Clinton was angered by this deceit, and rightfully so. I don't care if Wallace was going to 'get back to' the environment issue. If you commit to interview someone on topic A for half of the interview, and then try to bring out what you believe is a skeleton in his closet 2 minutes in, you are a weasel. And I don't much care for Clinton, but I did like that he stood up for himself in that moment. An honest interviewer could have brought it up fairly, but only after spending half the time on what he agreed to discuss. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table." - old legal aphorism
|
|
|
|
kai
|
|
« Reply #18 on: October 01, 2006, 11:05:41 pm » |
|
After Former President Clinton kept on telling Wallace to "tell the truth," Wallace should have responded, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
joel
|
|
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2006, 02:10:34 am » |
|
oAHAHAHAHAHAHA SO FRESH AND ORIGINAL
LOL BUSH IS DUM
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ruckus
|
|
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2006, 02:19:25 am » |
|
hmmm lie about a blowjob or lie to goto war.
both are lies to the american people, its just one is alot worse than the other ... any guesses to the worst lie ?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dusty
Guest
|
|
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2006, 02:49:10 am » |
|
bj; bc that shit is hot.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
wargasm
|
|
« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2006, 06:47:16 am » |
|
hmmm lie about a blowjob or lie to goto war.
hmmm lie about a blowjob and then go to war to cover up said blowjob or lie to goto war.fixed. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
wargasm
|
|
« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2006, 07:18:41 am » |
|
btw, if you scramble the letters in the names of Clinton's three military actions during the Lewinsky scandal you get:
Operation Desert Fox - Foxed rest.
Operation Infinite Reach - Naif ethnic ire.
Operation Allied Force - A colder life.
HOW'S THAT FOR A FVCKING CONSPIRACY?!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ruckus
|
|
« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2006, 11:53:55 am » |
|
HOW'S THAT FOR A FVCKING CONSPIRACY?!
you wear it well , and they are called anagrams |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Blade
|
|
« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2006, 01:09:10 pm » |
|
Never wear a tinfoil hat in a lightning storm.
I singed my hair off.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Blade"If we can put a man on the moon, we can put a man with AIDS on the moon. And if we can put a man with AIDS on the moon, we can put everybody with AIDS on the moon."
|
|
|
|
wargasm
|
|
« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2006, 04:45:49 pm » |
|
now why did we know that ruck was going to ignore my other post?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ruckus
|
|
« Reply #27 on: October 02, 2006, 05:39:06 pm » |
|
I think its just about time for another terrorist attack !!!
I mean cmon, its election year, all these 911 hijacking videos have mysteriously been found... I can feel it in the chilly autumn air.
and all out of duct tape and plastic wrap and batteries and canned food, wtf else did they say to scare us to death ?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
BloodShot
|
|
« Reply #28 on: October 03, 2006, 07:41:25 pm » |
|
war: Don't put yourself on a pedastal, we're all human. If you were accused of something that is exactly the opposite, knowing full well the Neo-Cons on Fox news only ask these questions of responsibility to the democrats, what would you do?
Give me a break. The guy was a President. THE President of the free world. Holding so much responisibility, who the fuck wouldn't get a little pissed off by misinformation?
----
Let me ask people this. Where is Bin Laden now? What the fuck happened to him? No one even gives a shit anymore. Bin Laden isn't even ON THE AGENDA, and he supposedly is supposed to be responsible for 9/11. Instead, all 9/11 served to do was open up a campaign of fear in which the current Republican adminstration has utilized AGAIN AND AGAIN to forward it's own, completely seperate agenda. Do you think Iraq would have happened without 9/11? DO YOU?
Now, Democrats aren't Angels either. No politician is. BUT this is a former President of the USA who really has nothing to lose now, coming forward and saying THIS is how it happened, but no one gives a shit. All Fox news wants to do is lay the mantle of blame AGAIN on the Clinton adminstration, making the general American public AGAIN feel that Bush is doing something, that he is a man of action. And Americans time and time again prove that they equate action, equate progress, with footage of soldiers firing guns on TV. Thats what Bush is feeding the american public, and that is the continued means in which he is able to garner support from the masses. Fear is the ultimate tool, ladies and gentlemen. You scare the shit out of someone and you can make them do anything if you promise you can make it go away.
If you FAIL to see what is happening to your people, then you truly are completely blind. You can't even fucking protest anymore without being called a terrorist. How's them for apples?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
wargasm
|
|
« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2006, 11:45:36 pm » |
|
If you were accused of something that is exactly the opposite, knowing full well the Neo-Cons on Fox news only ask these questions of responsibility to the democrats, what would you do?
something that is exactly the opposite of what? the truth? well that would be easy then wouldn't it. simply address the lie, or dismiss it, without losing your shit and move on. we both know that isn't what happened here so drop the partisan bullshittery and rhetoric already. The guy was a President. keyword: was. what's his excuse for losing his shit now that there's no responsibility? who the fuck wouldn't get a little pissed off by misinformation?
someone with self-control and a firm belief in what they know to be the truth. Fear is the ultimate tool, ladies and gentlemen. You scare the shit out of someone and you can make them do anything if you promise you can make it go away.
If you FAIL to see what is happening to your people, then you truly are completely blind. the irony is that you and your ilk fail to see how much you have bought into the great fear machine and perpetuate its existence. p.s. nothing amuses me more than when people who haven't lived their lives in the US become such experts on how everything goes down here. especially people who have hair-trigger tempers that flare any time their country receives so much as mock criticism. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
