Good Article About Clinton

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i think it was a legit question as well! clinton could very easily have sat there and stated all those times they almost got bin laden, could have outlined all the things they did, or attempted to do. instead he got defensive as hell...he even tried to say wallace was part of some bigger 'conspiracy' type thing against clinton. what a nut he seemd to be. and yeah, i agree with oracle. exact same serious look and finger wag. i did not have....blah blah. he's a pathological liar.

Mr. Clinton is not anywhere close to the W in terms of honesty. Not even close! One man lies about a blowjob. Another man lies us into war.

The blowjob guy is definitely the liar.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

i think it was a legit question as well! clinton could very easily have sat there and stated all those times they almost got bin laden, could have outlined all the things they did, or attempted to do. instead he got defensive as hell...he even tried to say wallace was part of some bigger 'conspiracy' type thing against clinton. what a nut he seemd to be. and yeah, i agree with oracle. exact same serious look and finger wag. i did not have....blah blah. he's a pathological liar.

Exactly right! I don't understand how some of these other posters don't see this. I guess they just see what they want to see.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

I want to be informed....that is why I vote for legislators! If you think that the fear card is being played.....it's usually the Dems who're crying " the sky is falling...vote for me!"

Timm,
It might amaze you but I'm not a Dem.
So stop playing the "label card".
Just type out all the information you have, you know...what you really think is important...what you've spent so much of your time getting "informed" about.
I'll read it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Mr. Clinton is not anywhere close to the W in terms of honesty. Not even close! One man lies about a blowjob. Another man lies us into war.

The blowjob guy is definitely the liar.

You obviously don't know what the definition of a lie is. If the Bush Administration went to war based on faulty intelligence, that doesn't mean they lied. If you listened to interviews with democrats in government just before the war, they were saying the same thing that Bush was saying. They were saying stuff like, "We know Saddam has WMDs." Everyone thought that Saddam had WMDs. That doesn't mean they all lied. It means they had bad information.

As I said in my post the other day, the US still had the right to invade Iraq because Saddam was not honoring the conditions of the cease-fire from the original Persian Gulf War.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Exactly right! I don't understand how some of these other posters don't see this. I guess they just see what they want to see.

Obviously none of you have ever been associated with anyone of celebrity so i will inform you of how interviews work.

When two parties agree to an interview, topics are discussed and time on said topics is agreed upon beforehand. President Clinton's purpose for the interview was primarily to discuss Climate Change and time was to be devoted to that topic or else he would not have agreed.

When that idiot started in on PRESIDENT Clinton, it was obvious that FOX wasnt going to live up their end of the bargain. That IS a hatchet job.

Unfortunately, most dont know this so it comes across that Mr. Clinton was just getting aggressive with Wallace.

Now, do i think that Clinton knew beforehand that Wallace would take this approach? Of course he did. Even his strongest detractors would agree that Mr. Clinton is a brilliant man. He knew that he was going to come down on Wallace before he came on the set. Regardless, Wallace was in the wrong for going away from the agreed upon topic. Now...does that make sense?

Clinton took that moron apart just like he did the late Peter Jennings a few years back. heck, just like he did Bob Dole and George the 1st. You guys do remember what he did to your boy George in those debates dont you? If your memory is lapsing, go google it.

Yes, Mr. Clinton was a two term president by a landslide. He was rated top ten presidents by a group of historians in terms of domestic and foreign policy. He didnt need any hanging chads or any of that stuff.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Danzig,
Take a deep breath.
Instead of attacking me or my views, put yours out.
Put up some facts as to how successful our three wars are going.
Post the links to all the right wing sites you want.
Keep believing.

lol
i love it....i don't need to take a deep breath. it always kills me when someone else wants to make it seem as tho the people they are debating are somehow too 'excited' to talk to.
i'm not attacking you, or YOUR views, i'm attacking that ridiculous site you put up. you put that article up the other day from them, i told you facts that day. is that incorrect? now i say AGAIN that we've been in the gulf for years, and now you post the above--which has nothing to do with what i posted. i did not in any way imply that our three (three??) wars are going hunky dory, i was only replying to some supposed link between election time, a carrier group, and our supposed plan to invade iran---we're invading iran based on the simple fact that the eisenhower group is moving to the gulf?? lol why haven't we attacked with those already there? elections signs are already littering the streets, why wait?!

also, if you ask repent, he'll tell you i'm a liberal. you criticize timm for 'labeling' you, yet you do the same thing!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Mr. Clinton is not anywhere close to the W in terms of honesty. Not even close! One man lies about a blowjob. Another man lies us into war.

The blowjob guy is definitely the liar.

again, i was talking about clinton. what he has to do with bush i don't know. so bush is a liar too...but the interview we were discussing was about clinton the liar, not bush the liar, or any other pols that are liars.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You obviously don't know what the definition of a lie is. If the Bush Administration went to war based on faulty intelligence, that doesn't mean they lied. If you listened to interviews with democrats in government just before the war, they were saying the same thing that Bush was saying. They were saying stuff like, "We know Saddam has WMDs." Everyone thought that Saddam had WMDs. That doesn't mean they all lied. It means they had bad information.

As I said in my post the other day, the US still had the right to invade Iraq because Saddam was not honoring the conditions of the cease-fire from the original Persian Gulf War.

Ummm...read the CIA reports Rupert. Even after the CIA made it clear to Bush and company that Iraq had no ties to Al Quada, the president and the vice president still made that one of the reasons to go to war. Shall i pull the story or will you take my word for it?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Timm,
It might amaze you but I'm not a Dem.
So stop playing the "label card".
Just type out all the information you have, you know...what you really think is important...what you've spent so much of your time getting "informed" about.
I'll read it.

DTS: I don't have the skills,nor do I have the inclination to post all the info I've seen. I'll do you one better though...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Grant it to me that I have the intelligence to make a decision! OK...so you're not registered Dem..I've hardly labeled you. It's not like you don't leave clues to how you think and feel,right?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

lol
i love it....i don't need to take a deep breath. it always kills me when someone else wants to make it seem as tho the people they are debating are somehow too 'excited' to talk to.
i'm not attacking you, or YOUR views, i'm attacking that ridiculous site you put up. you put that article up the other day from them, i told you facts that day. is that incorrect? now i say AGAIN that we've been in the gulf for years, and now you post the above--which has nothing to do with what i posted. i did not in any way imply that our three (three??) wars are going hunky dory, i was only replying to some supposed link between election time, a carrier group, and our supposed plan to invade iran---we're invading iran based on the simple fact that the eisenhower group is moving to the gulf?? lol why haven't we attacked with those already there? elections signs are already littering the streets, why wait?!

also, if you ask repent, he'll tell you i'm a liberal. you criticize timm for 'labeling' you, yet you do the same thing!

Danzig,
Go back to that thread. It's time dated.
I thanked you for the information you provided.
If you need to hear it again....THANKS!

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

lol
i love it....i don't need to take a deep breath. it always kills me when someone else wants to make it seem as tho the people they are debating are somehow too 'excited' to talk to.
i'm not attacking you, or YOUR views, i'm attacking that ridiculous site you put up. you put that article up the other day from them, i told you facts that day. is that incorrect? now i say AGAIN that we've been in the gulf for years, and now you post the above--which has nothing to do with what i posted. i did not in any way imply that our three (three??) wars are going hunky dory, i was only replying to some supposed link between election time, a carrier group, and our supposed plan to invade iran---we're invading iran based on the simple fact that the eisenhower group is moving to the gulf?? lol why haven't we attacked with those already there? elections signs are already littering the streets, why wait?!

also, if you ask repent, he'll tell you i'm a liberal. you criticize timm for 'labeling' you, yet you do the same thing!

I agree...we arent attacking Iran. However, we are "flexing a little muscle" and we have done that throughout our history with troop movements and ship deployments.

Its negoiating time with Iran and i dont think that there is anything wrong in showing them the stick if they want the carrot.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Obviously none of you have ever been associated with anyone of celebrity so i will inform you of how interviews work.

When two parties agree to an interview, topics are discussed and time on said topics is agreed upon beforehand. President Clinton's purpose for the interview was primarily to discuss Climate Change and time was to be devoted to that topic or else he would not have agreed.

When that idiot started in on PRESIDENT Clinton, it was obvious that FOX wasnt going to live up their end of the bargain. That IS a hatchet job.

Unfortunately, most dont know this so it comes across that Mr. Clinton was just getting aggressive with Wallace.

Now, do i think that Clinton knew beforehand that Wallace would take this approach? Of course he did. Even his strongest detractors would agree that Mr. Clinton is a brilliant man. He knew that he was going to come down on Wallace before he came on the set. Regardless, Wallace was in the wrong for going away from the agreed upon topic. Now...does that make sense?

Clinton took that moron apart just like he did the late Peter Jennings a few years back. heck, just like he did Bob Dole and George the 1st. You guys do remember what he did to your boy George in those debates dont you? If your memory is lapsing, go google it.

Yes, Mr. Clinton was a two term president by a landslide. He was rated top ten presidents by a group of historians in terms of domestic and foreign policy. He didnt need any hanging chads or any of that stuff.

regarding going off topic:

Mr. Clinton agreed to his first one-on-one interview ever on "FOX News Sunday." The ground rules were simple: 15 minutes for our sit-down, split evenly between the Global Initiative and anything else we wanted to ask. But as you'll see now in the full, unedited interview, that's not how it turned out.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

DTS: I don't have the skills,nor do I have the inclination to post all the info I've seen. I'll do you one better though...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Grant it to me that I have the intelligence to make a decision! OK...so you're not registered Dem..I've hardly labeled you. It's not like you don't leave clues to how you think and feel,right?

Timm,
I'll give you the benifit of the doubt also.
Yes, I agree you have "intelligence".
Yes, you can form your own decisions.
IMHO..informed decisions weigh both sides.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

regarding going off topic:

Mr. Clinton agreed to his first one-on-one interview ever on "FOX News Sunday." The ground rules were simple: 15 minutes for our sit-down, split evenly between the Global Initiative and anything else we wanted to ask. But as you'll see now in the full, unedited interview, that's not how it turned out.

Yes, thats great. The Bin laden question came FOUR minutes into the interview. Is that half? I didnt think so.

[Danzig]

maybe they were going to do one of his questions, and then one of theirs...a back and forth so to speak.
heck, he knew what he was getting into...all he had to do was remain calm and answer, not go off on a rant. it WAS a legit question. he could have answered in a way that made what he did look right. instead he now looks emotional and foolish.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Timm,
I'll give you the benifit of the doubt also.
Yes, I agree you have "intelligence".
Yes, you can form your own decisions.
IMHO..informed decisions weigh both sides.

DTS: I know this will strain some enquiring minds,but I do take into acct both sides before I answer a question.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

DTS: I know this will strain some enquiring minds,but I do take into acct both sides before I answer a question.

There ya go!
Believe it or not, so do I!

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

There ya go!
Believe it or not, so do I!

Now,THAT'S straining MY mind,lol!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Obviously none of you have ever been associated with anyone of celebrity so i will inform you of how interviews work.

When two parties agree to an interview, topics are discussed and time on said topics is agreed upon beforehand. President Clinton's purpose for the interview was primarily to discuss Climate Change and time was to be devoted to that topic or else he would not have agreed.

When that idiot started in on PRESIDENT Clinton, it was obvious that FOX wasnt going to live up their end of the bargain. That IS a hatchet job.

Unfortunately, most dont know this so it comes across that Mr. Clinton was just getting aggressive with Wallace.

Now, do i think that Clinton knew beforehand that Wallace would take this approach? Of course he did. Even his strongest detractors would agree that Mr. Clinton is a brilliant man. He knew that he was going to come down on Wallace before he came on the set. Regardless, Wallace was in the wrong for going away from the agreed upon topic. Now...does that make sense?

Clinton took that moron apart just like he did the late Peter Jennings a few years back. heck, just like he did Bob Dole and George the 1st. You guys do remember what he did to your boy George in those debates dont you? If your memory is lapsing, go google it.

Yes, Mr. Clinton was a two term president by a landslide. He was rated top ten presidents by a group of historians in terms of domestic and foreign policy. He didnt need any hanging chads or any of that stuff.

You live in a dream world if you think that Clinton "took Wallace apart". The only thing Clinton did was make a fool of himself.

There was nothing for Clinton "take a apart". There was no debate going on. Wallace asked him a simple question. You can't take a guy apart who asky you a simple question. That is why Clinton made such a fool of himself.

Forget about what partisans think. I'm sure that very liberal democrats think that Clinton did great in the interview. I'm sure that conservative republicans think that Clinton made a fool of himself. The important thing is what non-partisan people think. If you think that non-partisan people think Clinton handled himself well in that interview, you are sadly mistaken.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Now,THAT'S straining MY mind,lol!

LOL!!!
Not my intention to give you a "brain cramp".
Should I call 911?