Bill Clinton pwns Fox News

**PNWbrit** · 09-25-2006, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

Just wanted to hang on to this one for you buddy.

always contributing aren't you?

I'm not your buddy.

**Tri-Ungulate** · 09-25-2006, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

it could be that I actually have a life outside of the TGR forums.

I doubt it, based on the way you're always waxing pedantic on any number of threads. And you couldn't resist that laaast little dribble after slinking off to "go to bed".

**rideit** · 09-25-2006, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by AstroPax

Look, ASSHOLE, if you are going to quote me, PLEASE don't modify the quote!

Wait, strike the "please" part....re-phrase: DON'T MODIFY THE QUOTE, period!

Are you really THAT desperate?

-Astro

I think it was quite obvious by my quotation marks that I had 'modified' your quote...for positive purpose. I would imagine everyone else here understands that I did that quite transparently.
I am not calling you an asshole, BTW, just engaging in political repartee. Please don't blur the line, we live quite close, and would never push the invectives in person. I respect your opinion, so please respond to my comebacks in kind.

And your photos do rock...but that has no bearing on your views in regards to the pathetic captain of our leaky ship that is america.

**Natedogg** · 09-25-2006, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by creaker

I guess those thousands of bodies stacked in big holes all over the country were the result of a nation of naturally curious hobbiest chemists.

Wait, maybe you misunderstood. WMD - weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION. We're not talking about genocide of a few thousand spread across the country here; we're talking weapons that that have long range, widespread destructive capabilities. ICBMs. Multiple nuclear warheads. Infectious diseases capabale of killing thousands of 'infidels' that can be deployed in a country tens of thousands of miles from the origin. You're damn right I'm not talking about poisoning the well of a few villages. Reality is a a beautiful thing...

Originally Posted by f2f

Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't. in reality you don't know what you are talking about.

AND HOW!!! Word my brutha.

**EZB** · 09-25-2006, 11:03 PM

Choose offense or defense

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

Offense means different things in different wars. As I recall we deployed the pershing II and were moving forward with SDI.

strategic DEFENSE initiative, thanks.

**f2f** · 09-25-2006, 11:09 PM

nate, my earlier post was a well-known intarweb cliche often used to emphasyse zero-sum threads. a bunch of words with nil signal/noise ratio that only insult one side (or both, depending on how you read it) without bringing anything new to the conversation except a vague aura of vailed relation to the subject, vis-a-vis the "I work for" part

"I work for Salomon" in the Pow Skis thread would be a very good example of proper usage!

**Natedogg** · 09-25-2006, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by f2f

nate, my earlier post was a well-known intarweb cliche

Unfortunately in this case (as it is in many others, including the debate about global warming of which I actually DO know something about) your cliche was spot on--intended or unintended. Furthermore unfortunately, these people VOTE. Which is scary.

**rideit** · 09-25-2006, 11:14 PM

I 'work' for this thread, so I am an authority in saying it will have no bearing at all on world politics. It is a bitch of an employer, all for naught.

**gh444** · 09-25-2006, 11:18 PM

f2f-
good point. i thought i might get something intellectually stimulating from this thread, thats why i posted. i was clearly wrong. goodnight

-aaron

**f2f** · 09-25-2006, 11:20 PM

i can't vote in this country, but i am of the strong opinion that a three-party system would do good here. after all, a simple general solution for the three-body problem in physics does not exist

**Ski Monkey** · 09-25-2006, 11:47 PM

Wow, that was a smack down. I downloaded the torrent from http://btjunkie.org/.

**Ripzalot** · 09-26-2006, 12:17 AM

Originally Posted by Tri-Ungulate

Funny how Ripzalot disappeared after his "fact check" was shown to be a loose collection of right wing fluff. mr_gyptian is gone after parroting the party line falls flat. Tuckerman? "Stop the haten" heh... And MeatPuppet? Indigestion after his "lunch break" must be keeping him away.

dude, i'm on european time. i left work at 16.30 and i don't rush home to continue arguing with idiots on TGR. "loose collection of right wing fluff" - sorry that you (and the rest of the TGR libtards) don't have the intellectual honesty to examine the words and see if they line up with reality. instead, you guys just get all high and mighty (roo's smarmy comments come to mind) with the ad hominems and summarily dismiss what is being said. such intellectual honesty.

it will be really interesting the next time clinton gets in front of an interviewer or a public forum and gets nailed on the specifics of his rant. now that's gonna be a smackdown!

**Tri-Ungulate** · 09-26-2006, 12:23 AM

Still waiting there Ripz...

Or is it that you can't improve on the right-wing blogosphere?

**Rasputin** · 09-26-2006, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by edg

So where's the war with Saudi? Training camps : Check. Paying suicide bombers : Check. Funding terrorism : Check. A role in 9/11 : Check.

edg

Social buddies, and in business, with the Bush family via the Carlisle Group: Check

What I find amusingly absurd, is that even most of those who know about the Bush/Saud relationship, don't expect that the developements in Iraq are exactly what the planners of it intended.

Yes, it's inconceivable that powerful families would use their positions of power in government to destabilize a region simply to gain power and wealth. It's just crazy talk, to think that there are powerful families who don't care how many people die on either side to accomplish an unprecedented domination of access to the world's primary fuel source which is increasing in price vastly as a result of said destabilization.

Oh, getting back to the thread topic, by the time I tried to watch the youtube footage, Fox had it pulled.

**gramps** · 09-26-2006, 02:20 AM

The entire interview is available on Google Video. I enjoyed watching it from the beginning, it really shows how Wallace obviously ambushed Clinton. Not even four minutes into the interview, after 2 non-questions - no pretense at all about wanting to talk about the Global Initiative.

I remember watching that anti-Fox News documentary "Outfoxed" (also available on google video). They talked about how a unique Fox tactic was to use the phrase "some people say" in order to interject an opinion or ask a question that is biased or inaccurate - no source given, and the reporter distances himself from the statement. That e-mail thing was a cute way of doing the exact same thing. No wonder Clinton was pissed, ambushed with an inflammatory question the reporter doesn't even have the balls to claim as his own - typical Fox News bullshit.

**Rasputin** · 09-26-2006, 02:38 AM

Originally Posted by AstroPax

For reals?

You know, don't you, that "President Lincoln appropriated powers no previous President had wielded. He used his war powers to proclaim a blockade, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, spent money without congressional authorization, and imprisoned 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial. All his actions, although vehemently denounced by the Copperheads, were subsequently upheld by Congress and the Courts."

So, do you think Lincoln was a Fascist?

-Astro

Actually, he was a Republican.

**Ripzalot** · 09-26-2006, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by Tri-Ungulate

Still waiting there Ripz...

Or is it that you can't improve on the right-wing blogosphere?

waiting for what? another post that you will ignore the content and then call me a parrot for posting it from some *gasp* right wing source?

there is no personal opinion here. clinton either said credible things or he didn't (or a mix of the two). it is more than apparent from reading commentary that thoroughly refutes his words that he is spinning a lot of bullshit. what more do you want?

**bad_roo** · 09-26-2006, 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by Ripzalot

clinton either said credible things or he didn't (or a mix of the two). it is more than apparent from reading commentary that thoroughly refutes his words that he is spinning a lot of bullshit. what more do you want?

What he attempted to do was refer his interlocutor to the one constant, the one view that could be deemed as the closest thing to an unbiased, expert opinion. That was the central tenet of his argument and one that can't really be impugned.

That smarmy enough?

**Core Shot** · 09-26-2006, 04:41 AM

He wagged his finger.

And he forgot to pull up his socks.

There. I have posted in this very unimportant thread.

**bad_roo** · 09-26-2006, 04:42 AM

Have faith. The message is finally getting through.

Approval ratings: Bill Clinton

Approval ratings: George W. Bush

**edg** · 09-26-2006, 05:02 AM

That's because all democrats are bible-hating gays.

edg

**train07** · 09-26-2006, 05:06 AM

I love this place

**Tuckerman** · 09-26-2006, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by Tri-Ungulate

Tuckerman? "Stop the haten" heh...

I'm still reading I did not want to interrupt the Clinton love fest.

**MeatPuppet** · 09-26-2006, 08:07 AM

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

I resort to the tactics because you come across like the above matter of fact statement: "It was enough to take him out".

Matter of fact statments are all I can muster at this point. I have laid out the rational for the war in past threads, more than once, and it had very little to do with WMD or anything Bush preached about leading up to the invasion. I'm not going to copy and paste those paragraphs every time this topic comes up.

I don't think there is any substance to your post. All there is is a statement that we're safer when reports that at least have some credibility say the opposite. As did Madrid and London.

The price has been poorly calculated.

I gave you reasons why the enemy we are faceing now is less of a threat than the one it is replaceing. This is specifically related to Iraq and Afghanistan Those are my own thoughts, and not simply the parroting of somebody else. That is different from simply making the statment that we are safer. You failed to address those reasons.

The reports you mention are(correct me if I am wrong) general statments about our overall safety since 9/11. In response to that, I would point you to Negroponte's own words on Monday.

"We are certainly more vigilant. We are better prepared," Negroponte said. "We are safer."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060926/...NlYwN5bmNhdA--