Community archive

Ask something

96 replies

by maxwell edison

...."I've never criticized President Bush."

Okay, Bill. Whatever you say.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/apr/03041602.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/04/30/clinton_criticizes_bush_energy_plans/

http://prisonplanet.com/Pages/Sept05/220905Clintons_Bushes.htm

http://www.nysscpa.org/home/2003/0103/4week/article48.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,178269,00.html

And then you go on to do just that (again):

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060923/2006-09-23T034256Z_01_N22174760_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-CLINTON-DC.html

by Member 25348569

that, in the context of the interview, Clinton was saying "I've never criticized President Bush [i]over his failure to capture Osama Bin Laden./[i]" - until then.

Of course he's criticised him over just about everything else but why wouldn't he?

Neil

by maxwell edison

First of all, you may be right about his context being limited to catching bin Laden. But would you like to "wager" that I could find similar proof that he's criticized President Bush for that as well -- in the very least, in a round-about way? (No, I have nothing in my hip pocket!)

Why wouldn't he criticize President Bush, you ask?

Only until recently, former presidents rarely (or actually never) publicly criticized sitting presidents for anything -- and most especially, they were never critical over foreign policy matters. War is different, you might suggest? Well, Presidents Nixon or Ford (or any others) never criticized either Johnson or Kennedy for getting us into Vietnam. No former president was critical of Truman's Korea, or Reagan's Grenada or Bush 41's Gulf War I, or Clinton's eastern Europe (when he said troops would be there only one year!), or Carter's debacle in the Iranian desert in 1979, or..... Sure, they've all offered opinion on various issues, but they've always seemed to remain above the fray, if you know what I mean. It's almost as though they know what it's like to be in the hot seat, so to speak, so they simply exercise respectful restraint.

I can only think of two former presidents who've publicly criticized a sitting (or another former) president over just about anything, and that would be former Presidents Clinton and Carter. And it's interesting to note that in the case of President Clinton, problems in the middle east and with terrorism were indeed largely ignored throughout his two terms, and in many ways they were actually allowed to escalate (in my opinion), all starting with his decision to deny support to troops in Somalia, which was the event that led bin Laden to conclude America was a "paper tiger" and didn't have the fortitude for battle, especially a prolonged one, after which an unprecedented terrorist spree was launched against any number of American locations and interests. And it could be argued that such a stage was set by President Carter's embarrassing failure in the Iran hostage crisis, and his dismal failure in "negotiating" with terrorists.

Outgoing presidents and presidential administrations undoubtedly brief incoming ones on any number of issues, especially foreign policy matters. And one might certainly surmise that, based on years of prior statements, President Clinton briefed President Bush on any number of things, including the presence of WMDs in Iraq! There are a lot of things we'll never know about what went on behind closed doors in such cases, but it's quite obvious to me that there are a lot of people, including the two aforementioned former presidents, covering their ass on a lot of things. One such stage was set in 1979, and it's finally coming around to bite President Bush in the ass, and here we see President Carter covering his. President Clinton's doing the same thing.

Another interesting thing to note is this. There is one president who is not criticizing any other president for anything, and that's the current one. (You might say that "his people" are, but actually they're not. Only pundits are.) And I'd make another wager. After President Bush is out of office, unlike Carter and Clinton, he too will remain above the fray.

Presidential history is an interest of mine, and I've always been impressed with the way former presidents conducted themselves -- regardless of party. Clinton and Carter, however, have not only shown absolutely no class, but (in my opinion) they are both damaging America's reputation in an effort to save their own.

by delbertpgh

Well, for sure, Clinton digressed into some pretty direct slaps at Bush's reaction to Bin Laden, while he was chewing out the reporter. The interviewer's questions really were a setup, though why Clinton should expect anything different out of Fox is beyond me.

Lifesite is an antiabortion site... nothing wrong with that, but if you're gonna take somebody's word, you have to believe they have a respect for honesty, even when the facts may not serve their ends. You may not like this term, but I would call their particular style "extremist". I just can't trust them. "Clinton policy was to force abortion on unwilling nations..." Oh, get real. Clinton is reported as criticizing a policy position.

The Boston Globe did report Clinton's criticism of "the Bush administration's" energy policies.

I don't know what the hell to think of Prison Planet. The author is some kind of angry crank who regards news as anything that can be repeated with a sneer. Checking out other links on his site, I conclude he believes that the world is full of high-powered conspiracies that want to take his freedom or money, and that conspiracy is everything. To quote, "And now of course we have Clinton Teaming up with the Bushes again with Katrina as the backdrop. Once again this is an example of the two hands scratching one back." You missed the point of this, when you thought it was about Clinton criticizing Bush... it's really about the criticism being a smokescreen for the Bush family/Clinton family secret alliance. As my Mexican friend says, I sheet you not, Max.

The CPA site does show Clinton ribbing the administration's tax and health care reform strategems.

The foxnews.com story shows Clinton contradicting an assertion of fact by the administration. Saying "that's wrong" is not a criticism of a person, unless that person is the Pope or something, and God says he can't be wrong.

All three video links were to the same interview, by the way. And the Reuters news link was reporting this interview as a story.

So, to sum up:

A couple of these links were from wack jobs who deserve to be ignored by thinking people. If you want to read antiabortion stuff, there are plenty of good sites making good arguments out there; you should ignore people who regard information as just a means of moving pawns. That is, they think that if you're reading their stuff, you're a pawn.

Clinton sure did get fired up during the Fox interview. Although his primary target was Fox and the way he was being questioned as opposed to the way Fox would question the other side, he did say a lot about the other side.

Most of the stuff from the other three news stories seems hedged, or generalities, or specifics. Seems like Bill was speaking his mind, but not in such a way as to directly take the administration on. Oblique criticism, I guess.

I'd say he is not as reserved an ex-President as Eisenhower or Johnson or Nixon, for sure. Most Presidents have not seen such a dramatic turnaround between their policies and their successor's, though. Actually, Carter did, when Reagan came in, but Carter kept his mouth shut during the Reagan and GHW-Bush terms. It's only when the current guy showed up, and screwed the country so bad, that Jimmy said the hell with deference and opened his mouth.

by maxwell edison

It's the people who are not impartial but put forth the facade of impartiality that you should be worried about. I'm an issue driven person, and that makes me partial to my preference on issues. In my opinion, that's the way it should be. Anyone who claims they're not partial are either liars or haven't given issues much thought.

By the way, your message showed that you're not "impartial" either, so I have to wonder what the point of that comment was? Care to share? Care to admit that you're not impartial either?

by oz_media

If it steams like....
It smells like...
It feels like...
It tastes like...
Then it MUST be.....

Your spew corrected. NExt time take your own advice and try and keep the context correct. How each political side in the US skews contet xis ridiculous, how do you not see reality through it?

FIRST LINK: Clinton criticized BUSH FOREIGN POLICY, not George Bush. At what point does one political side criticizing another's policy become criticism of a person?
I think your views on world affairs are completely skewed, typically blind and absolutely retarded. This does not then mean I think YOU are completely skewed, blind and retarded.

SECOND LINK:"Former President Clinton lashed out at the Bush administration's energy policies yesterday, criticizing them as ''dumb economics"..."
Again, policy, political decisions, not Bush himself, this is what opposing sides do, just as you and Bush constantly dismiss anything the right has to say about such policies.
THIRD LINK:"offered harsh public criticism of the Bush administration's disaster-relief effort on Sunday, saying, "You can't have an emergency plan that works if it only affects middle-class people up."..." This is getting old now and turning into pure hypocrisy, remember 'what's good for othe goose is good for the gander'?

FOURTH LINK:"Former President Bill Clinton criticized President Bush's proposed tax cuts on Thursday"Proposed tax cutsm now there's a definite direct personal slam on a president.
Nobody should be able to complain about tax policies, especially an opposing party. Hope this didn't personally inflict any painon poor old Mr. bush who has never opposed an opponents political views. For the first time in many months an application where the first ammendment does apply and is not seen as personal criticism butis heard and acepted as a worthy viewpoint. American Bill of Rights, you cling to it like a security blanket and warp or twist it to suit your own means.
FIFTH LINK: the Bush administration is "flat wrong" in claiming that reducing greenhouse-gas to fight global warming would damage the U.S. economy.
BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

Now for YOUR hypocrisy. I couldn't begin to count the number of times you have removed GWB as anindividual by stating HE didn't say that or that HIE ADMINISTRATION SAID IT NOT BUSH. Well in your case, you have CLEARLY identified the difference between Administartion and Bush as an individual leader. Yet now, when someone criticizes the ADMINISTRATION and their policies, you deem that worthy as criticism of president Bush?

Get your head straight Max, you've gone too far on this one. I have never heard nor read a more hypocritical pack of BS in all my time here.

So in YOUR defense lets look at "the context" , your favorite claim to being wrong, that was taken incorrectly by you and several other (hilariously hokey) sources you provided to support your pro-Bush rally.
Clinton was being asked about Iraq, Afghanistan, what he would have done differently etc. During this conversation, he stopped (so as not to be taken wrong) and explained that he never criticized Bush. OBVIOUSLY to anyone with any ounce of sense, he was referring to how BUSH was handling the war. Not about stupid policies the Bush administration set forth.

Slam it all you like, call me what you want, it is SO clear that you have taken copy out of context, as have other sources you cited, and completely rearranged meaning to suit your own agenda. This is IDENTICAL to when Kerry was accused of flip flopping, you take bites and rearrange them to suit your means.

It's done in many threads here, people just don't GET IT. It's like many people are only half able to comprehend what is said and in what context.
Anyway, if Bush had said that about Clinton, you'd all be defnding it, evenif he stood up and kicked the interviewer in the face, you'd claim it was justified and right.

by delbertpgh

While technically true that criticizing Bush policies is not criticizing Bush the man, that is way too loose a standard. What is a Presidency, except a lot of policies? If I say "The Bush administration is misguided on taxes, Neanderthal about imprisonment and torture, and clueless about Iraq, but the President is a great guy," is it not true that I have "criticized Bush"?

Max laments (he says) the absence of courtliness and chivalry that retired Presidents used to show their successors. I'm pretty sure, though, that if Reagan spoke up in '97 and said "there was a time when Presidents didn't abuse interns and cover up by lying on TV," Max would probably found it excusable.

by Member 25348569

that's my reponse to the first clip. The interviewer came over as a greasy, weasely little git who - rather nicely - got his head rammed up his own arse.

Not "rage" at all. Just someone who told it as he saw it and did it with the necessary insertiveness to put Wallace straight.

Good fun!

Neil :D

p.s. The others will have to wait until this evening as I've no sound in the office.

by maxwell edison

If wagging that finger is a clue to his honesty, can you think of another clip of the wagging finger?

"I did not have sexual realtions with that woman....."

by Member 25348569

that you - the US - probably take your politicians more seriously than we. I don't think that your wrong, though. Politicians in the UK are now universally mistrusted - possibly more so than they deserve - that people are looking round for other ways to demonstrate their disapproval with policy. This ranges from demonstrations that screw up the city in which I live up to suicide bombers on tube trains.

Neil

by oz_media

This guy is a reporter, interviewing a former president on issue he has carefully chosen his topics, has carefully chosen wording specifically to raise controversy and ask the sam eold rhetorical BS that's been thrown at him for years.

See if that was Canada, our PM would have just smacked him in the head and been done with it, not that he would be on FOX news to begin with though.

the funny part is that teh right wing likes to pretend Fox is not a right wing network, but it is owned by SBG and is one of their top outlets, SBG is without doubt one of the most right wing supportive groups around. In reality they all see Fox as a hero, so when Fox gets it's head straightened out they get all hissy about it.

Turn teh tables and such action from GWB would be adamantly defnded without question.

I'm not even defending Clinton, just the reality of what happened.

Seriously, living so close to the USA is like being beside the looney bin sometimes. The things they come up with, or is it what they DON'T come up with?

by Member 25348569

your conventions. The interview looked fairly tame to me considering some of the stuff that happens over here during political interviews. As for what goes on at Prime Minister's Question Time.

I'm used to UK politics where the "why wouldn't he" is more than valid. I consider myself put straight - you must appreciate that US Presidential History (and Conventions) is not a study of mine. I'll try and get it right in the future...

Neil :)

Not for any particular relevance but just for fun, watch this interview of a UK Home Secretary by Jeremy Paxman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BklT7Qy07Is

by jdclyde

I looked at this a few different ways after watching several of the different clips and followed the links to the blogs and such.

Both "sides" walked away saying "wow, did you see him?"

Was it a "loaded question"? Duh.
Was it a "fair question"? Duh. [i](that is a "yes" in both cases incase your a little slow)[/i]

Clinton should have fully expected that question after the CBS movie, and I would BET he DID expect it and had his little rant all practiced out.

I didn't see as much negative about this as many from different political "sides" did.

Did Wallace come off as a weasle? Actually, yes he did.

Did Clinton seem to over react to this very valid question, and then validate his reaction because he didn't think Republicans have been asked the same questions? Definately.

It wasn't about Bush, it was about Him and what he did or didn't do while HE was in office. He should have been able to explain this without accusing Wallace of the "hatchet job" and as much deflecting as he did.

I saw the interview (if there is a winner and loser) as they both lost.

by protiusx

There sat William Jefferson Clinton who was impeached for lying under oath wagging his sanctimonious finger at a reporter who has in the past asked the same hard questions to conservatives and accusing him of being less than honest. Oh the humanity!

by jdclyde

We will have none of your facts or logic in a political discussion.

"I did not have sexual relations with THAT WOMAN"....

by clockmendergb9

He is right to say this.
From what I have read and heard she did the doing and he just laid back and thought of America.
Now to me that seems like she was consumming the "cocktail" and he was just the filling a need.
I suppose he could be blamed for feeding an addicts addiction but not having S R W T W.
I like his style.

by jdclyde

In this interview, President William Jefferson Clinton clearly stated that he had ok'ed the CIA to kill Osama bin Laden.

For the 911 commission, he testified that he did not take Osama bin Laden when he was offered up because he did not have legal grounds.

Can't arrest Osama bin Laden, but you can have him killed? Am I the only one that sees a possible problem with this?

by absolutely

But, when did those two events occur?

"In this interview, President William Jefferson Clinton clearly stated that he had ok'ed the CIA to kill Osama bin Laden.

For the 911 commission, he testified that he did not take Osama bin Laden when he was offered up because he did not have legal grounds."

Didn't these events happen, chronologically, in order opposite the order that you presented them to us? I would even venture to guess that Clinton "did not take Osama bin Laden when he was offered up because he did not have legal grounds" before the USS Cole was bombed, but that he "ok'ed the CIA to kill Osama bin Laden" after the Cole attack. Correct?

"Can't arrest Osama bin Laden, but you can have him killed? Am I the only one that sees a possible problem with this?"

Can't arrest a man without proof of a crime (before Cole), but can have him killed for an action (1) for which he claims (meaning, willingly admits) responsibility, (2) which amounts to an act of war according to international law (after Cole). I hope you [b]are[/b] the only one that sees a possible problem with this!

by av .

Bill Clinton is a practiced liar. He is laying groundwork for Hilary's run for President in 2008 (or should I say Billary). In his mind, it certainly can't hurt bashing Bush on the war, Osama, etc., right before the November elections. He's doing that for the party.

I think its a PR stunt and an obvious one at that.

by jdclyde

that we learned that "Character does not matter", huh?

After all, he would never lie to the nation, right?

He would never get angry, set his jaw, and claim something that wasn't true, would he?

Like I stress to my boys, never lie to me. Once you do, I can't trust you about anything because how am I to know the next time you lie and when you are telling the truth?

If he would lie about "just sex", does anyone not believe he would lie about anything?

by av .

Shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Thats how I feel about the Clintons. Both of them are power-hungry liars. I can't believe anyone buys their lies. Its just a shell game to them.

One of the biggest lies is when they packed their bags and moved to NY state so Hilary could run for senate and claim to be a New Yorker. To this day, I can't believe New York bought into the act after all that transpired with the Clinton presidency. If she had a more experienced, well known opponent, it might not have happened.

by onbliss

I have'nt yet watched this interview. But yesterday I caught some parts of it in Fox News.

Fox News had Bill Kristol, and it was little amusing him to say Clinton was intimidating. I thought Bill and Fox News were on the back foot (so to speak) regarding this episode. It was amusing because it is my opinion that the current administration has been using intimidation equally well.

Politics as usual.

by jdclyde

President Clinton clearly was giving all the body language to physically intimidate.

I would have backed up. Not that I would be afraid of Bill, but of the 10 SS agents that would hand me my a$$.

by onbliss

...was not about if BC was intimidating or not. My point was that it looked like pot calling the kettle black, when Kristol analysed. It appeared Kristol was more like complaining.

ps: we are just one game behind you guys to clinch the division title.

by oz_media

Whilereporters andinterviewers around teh worldgo to teh front lines for stories, this whiny little piss ant is scared of Big "Billy Jack" Cinton? Was he about to climb the ropes and slam down on top of him like the Killer in the Bugs BUnny cartoons? What a pu$$y!

I'm sorry but at what point in his career, as a cutting edge journalist on the most questionable news team, did he realize that he MAY have some confrontational tones and body language thrown at him while interviewing and needling people about thei raccomplishments. Puhlease!!! This guys as much of a loser as the rest of you who all claim the left is whining and spinning tales while in actuality all you do is whine and spin tales about the left?

The US Flying Circus, too bad Monty Pythons beat you to it huh?

by jdclyde

New York and California are about the only places she could pull that stunt and get away with it.

She really is admired by many people.
Women admire her because she is sucessful and powerful.
Men admire her because she lets her husband have affairs.

by av .

JD, I can see where some women might admire her success, but men admire her because she lets her husband have affairs???? Wow. I hope that doesn't represent most men.

AV

by jdclyde

that was what we conservatives like to refer to as a "joke". :p We sometimes smile when we read one, and sometimes actually laugh, or LOL. :D

You may have heard of this term at some point or another? ;\

Bilary is a cold, evil beotch, that would say or do anything to get her way.

by oz_media

If its alright to have affairs then I may even consider remarrying, for tax purposes of course.

by jdclyde

something important, like hockey, I would take offense to your childish outburst and make you stand in the corner until you learn to not speak until you have raised your hand and have been acknowledged and given the floor.

:0 :p :D :x

But because it is just that basethingie, I will let it slide......

by jdclyde

I assume you are refering to that basethingie sport...... :p

It is cool to go from dead last to were we are now, but I still can't bring myself to watch a game.

[b]GO[/b] [i](it's the tigers, right? ok, thanks)[/i][b] TIGERS![/b] :D

by tig2

This pc is in VIKINGS country. I'm not sure I am even allowed to have the "P" word on my screen! :D

by jdclyde

me to have to come over there, now do you? :0

Go back and quietly sit in the peanut gallery and no one (you) will get hurt! :p

by delbertpgh

If you love your country and you know up from down, you can't help being dismayed by the delusional incompetent yokel we have in charge of our common destiny now. He shortchanged the right war (Afghanistan) in favor of the wrong war (you can guess), puts our security at increasing risk with every new move he makes, and sells off our ideals and the honor of the Presidency like they were used furniture. He's a strategic and moral disaster, and may go down as the worst President ever. Probably that's why he draws criticism from his peers. They feel their country going over the edge.

by jdclyde

that you can give a sound reason for everything you have posted as well as provide supporting documents, so people won't think your just some raging liberal nut, right?

by delbertpgh

Giving good supporting information may or may not be worth the trouble. Half the people who post politics on these blogs mistake opinion for information, and just about never do any critical evaluation of their source. So, I'll stick to opinion for now.

If you want to get the smell of my opinions, to judge for yourself whether it's just wacko liberalism, go figure:

We've got ourselves in a fix. We've brought another country to the edge of collapse in the most strategic corner of the world. Losing access to the biggest pool of oil is worth a big war; I'd say we may be on the road to that already. And I'd say that it's easily worth reinstating the draft, and spending the lives of a hundred thousand kids, to win that war. Liberal idiot? No, that's realism.

I don't see an easy way out of this, because the way Curious George has it set up, our foreign policy is indistinguishable from a war against Islam. It may not look like that to you, but if you fill your ears with sand and stick a Koran in your back pocket, you might get different ideas; you might even go shopping for an explosive vest. This guy (GWB) has taken a pretty clear case for self-defense and made it into a "martyrdom" magnet. 'Scuse me for seeing both sides of an issue. I must just be a liberal goose to do that.

Another big thing we're fighting is medievalism. That's the opposite of modernism, in case you're not up on your historical terms. The medieval ideal is to set God in charge of everything, and have armies of priests and holy vigilantes beating the rest of society into line and figuring out just what is right and wrong for everybody. Modernists say that you get to make up your own mind. Modernism gave us democracy and capitalism, the two most successful ideas to sweep the earth, and the medievals hate it all. The hard-edge Islamists want to turn back the clock, about 13 centuries worth. They'll keep the jet planes and x-ray machines, but for them, the rest of human progress is a big godless waste.

That, my friend, is something worth fighting for, and worth tens of thousands of dead soldiers. It's worth remembering that this is a land of ideals, and across the world, people have looked at us as the place where dreams happen. I don't know if you remember the movie "Mister Smith Goes to Washington", but a lot of foreigners have seen this simplistic show and fallen in love with the ideals of it. We're making a new movie now: "Mr. George Bravely Goes Where Liberals Fear to Tread, Opens Torture Camps, Suspends the Right to Trial, and Sends Dirty Raghead Muslims to Jail Forever".

There you go. Tell me it ain't true.

by darinhamer

Because your post perfectly describes him. I can't believe how people have forgotten how he sold our nuclear missle technology to the Chinese and rented out rooms in the White House. But clearly you do, so thanks for reminding us.

by delbertpgh

Clinton never was my favorite boy, but I'll let him go. I'm certainly not over Bush. GWB will go down as the greatest leadership disaster since Buchanan stepped aside and opened the gateway to the civil war. Your kids, and maybe your grandkids, will be paying off the debts and getting drafted to fight back the mistakes of this deluded incompetent.

by delbertpgh

I'm more partial to Democrats, though there are plenty of them whose ideas put me off. There are Republicans I like and would trust to run the country... McCain, Lugar.

I think that there are such things as facts and that facts should help you pick your politics and representatives. Not the other way around. I think that highly opinionated people, who have a respect for fact, can make very politically biased arguments that are still worth listening to, because honoring the idea of truth counts with them.

What I hate is a news source that thinks the only facts I need to know are the ones that fit the story I'm supposed to swallow. That's indoctrination, not information.

It's also possible to keep coming up with facts and logic to support a position, and just never stop. Party chairmen, labor leaders, business spokesmen, and campaign managers are especially good at this. It's a complete waste of time to listen to them. No matter what facts you knock down, what logic you successfully refute, they just keep coming up with more until time runs out. It's the same as no information.

So yeah, you got to evaluate your sources. What bugs me about the Republicans since GWB is that most of them are just as happy with straight fiction as with truth, if it serves a purpose; and that anybody who objects is a liberal-duped terrorist-aiding America-hating pussy. It's like critical thought became a sin.

by khigh

Of course, the fact that I?m more partial to Republicans means I thought the Democrats, since the Clinton Administration, were the self-serving ones...

by oz_media

And you're right, as I have said so many times it's not funny.

The man represents the actions and policies set forth by the Administration. I am sure that if credited with something down teh line, he woul dhappily say that was HIS accomplishment during HIS term.

But, every time this is brought up as a completely screwed up policy or contradiction that proves him a liar, Max, or someone else with mothballs for ears and bottle caps for eyes, starts on about how it is not his problem, and that HE doesn't say that and just because the administration does it, that doesn't mean GWB does too. It's (to put it nicely)selective criticism. In reality it's pure hypocrisy, but 'they' just don't see it as 'they' have never learned to look inward before lashing out.

If Bush is simply a puppet, remove the curtain and lets attack the puppetmaster instead. Nope no curtain, no magic wand, no strings, GWB ran for and was elected to be the leader of the free world. If the leader of the free world does not even control what his own staff do, then you guys are in for one hell of a scary ride.

It doesn't matter how much proof is put forward though, 'they' only see what 'they' want to see, that's why 'they' are in this mess to begin with.

by oz_media

Can you imagine the uproar if Thatcher had, forgive my language, "Wagged her finger" at a reporter? My god the whole country would have crumbled and chastized her for it.

Sorry, forgot the sarcasm alerts there. Our PM slapped a guy in the face who was in hiw way, he was applauded by most and it was completely inderstood why he did it. Clinton has a menacing stature and those horribly cold baby blue eyes that his crocodile smile can't seem to put any warmth in to. Definitely a threatening and scary individual to run into in a dark alley, or a well lit, secured television studio I suppose. LOL

Pansys.

by av .

Ya know JD, sometimes you conservative types start thinkin' in the wrong direction about us womenfolk. That there term is right up there with the barefoot and pregnant one, methinks. :^0

God help us all if Bilary gets back in the White House!

AV

by av .

Geez OZ. I hope you mean that it goes both ways. I mean, us ladies may want to have a little extracurricular activity too. It does sort of sweeten the pot a bit. :D

Frill the taxes. Married or single, you never win with the taxman.

AV

by oz_media

I can be whomever you want me to be. YOu want a sweetheart with a heart of gold and a kind word for everyone he sees,...well I am not going to go that far but I can pull it off when needed.

YOu want a rough tough oily guys that takes no flak and smells like hard work (somewomen actually do like that, usually the most petite and prissy) I can do that too.

You need a sensitive, caring guy, dresses well and listens intently while offering the most caring support. I'm that guy too.

You want a successful businessman with interesting friends and contacts that can make life easy for you? I'm your man.

Long and short, as a good salesman, I can get laid no matter what's on the menu for the day.

Sounds sexist and piggish? I can be that too.

Keep in mind though, women play the same head games, contact with the opposite sex is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get. ;) Anyone can play, it's just that some are better at it than others.

by jdclyde

I think you chicks are great! :D
[i]
( and you can wear slippers, because the kitchen floor is cold sometimes... :0 )
[/i]

:x

by av .

You actually had me going there for awhile, but your friend Max ruined it for you. I was all ready to choose one of your categories. You gotta stop hangin out with him.

by oz_media

Well done Max. It falls under the two-bit, uncreative "American humour" standard but was a poke all the same, no matter how predictable.

What's even funnier though is that you actually claim to know what I am like? You really take thi sinternet BS seriously don't you? DO you have little drawings of all the people you know online? Perhaps plasticine figures or something?

Sad, Max. Now back into your basement, shut the lights out and hang out with your real friends.

by oz_media

There's always some little puke trying to hang out with you and pretend he's cool. If Max had spent more time searching the web for a wittier retort (as he often does) it would have been better. Instead it was merely low budget, after school humour, straight from Max that time, unfortunately.

What's even more amusing is that Max takes his virtual world so seriously he actually thinks he knows people's real personalities now. [i] (And the has proven himself to be someone who has the absolute worst read on people here, has no social interaction skills to be found and actually hangs political words like being preached gospel ((the lost man needs help)). [/i] He was also the person who posted about "Clinton rage", when each and every instance provided to support his complete misunderstanding was simply not even relevant to the context he was applying it to. Simply running the wrong way and giggling like he's the only one that will find his way home, I almost feel pity for him, but somehow I don't.

But hey, if he actually believe that 6'6" Bubba, a former Marine from Illinois, is a 4'6", 18year old Swedish gymnast, then I'll let Max live with his creative delusions, whatever floats his boat I guess.

He comes across as completely clueless to the reality that surrounds him each day (at least to those in tune with reality)...so clued out and unaware that it's scary, really.

People like him are often considered clever, around thier peers, and they end up in positions of power. Look at the retard (I'm being nice)in the White House now? An AVERAGE student, a joke of a 'career' in the military, believes anything he's told (worse yet is that mny people just like Max actually believe HIM) and reports it directly to Americans without second thought. Regardless of valid questions and concerns raised by intelligence around the world, 'Bush knows best'.
And now look at the state you are in now ? Not once but TWICE, America had enough dumbasses to elect him to be leader of the free world, even AFTER his obvious and blatant twisting of facts, manipulation of the truth and hiding of reality.

I often equate Max to that American Eagle on the Muppet Show. No sense of humour (he has offered a witty remark or two but I am sure courtesy of a search engine), has not a clue what the real world is doing around him, thinks HE and America are always right and that billions of opposing opinions around the world are wrong, without even considering teh facts proposed (well I guess that fits Bush too). But he also fits as Statler and Waldorf (the two old codgers that would spew BS from the balcony)Max and Bush spewing more crap and spinning more shipworthy yarns from the balcony! LOL :) .

Okay Max, now if your quick enough, you will pick up on the golden rule I broke here, one that I get on you about all the time.

I am going to a meeting for a few hours and expect to see something other than "More BS from Oz", without anything to support your BS claims again. If you have nothing to say, that's fine, just dont be so boring and predictable
by copy and pasting one of your mundane and unthoughful, textbook replies as usual.

Do some internet digging this time and try for something clever at least. You are slipping in your old age. What is it now? 56 going on 90?

by oz_media

Posting such controversial reports and simply saying "look here", "speak amongst yourselves" etc. it's just a cop out.

IF you offered your true opinion, you may lose in the pols, right Max? If you offered your true opinion, as you have done before on the current administration, the truth that comes out later will prove you to be a fool again, right Maxwell?
(yes I kno wthat hasn't happened...in your mind, you simply don't believe it and deny it when it does anyway)

So how about stepping upto the plate and being a man for a change, or even a somewhet assertive woman, little girl? Anything but the invasive yet uncomitting person you are now.

how about yoru opinion for once? or are you scared you will be laughed at or proven wrong as usual?

And regarding 'reports'. If I post something form a reliable, globally respected news source, you will state it is lefty BS because it didn't come from one of your favorite GWB blog sites you drag up from the dirt all the time. You on the other hand, accept Britains Daily Mirror as a source of information? Shall we start posting teh truth found in the Enquirer too?

If you had any idea how much of a BS checkstand rag the Mirror is, you wouldn't be posting it as if to suggest it was a worthy source. Sure it's probably better than the Washington Post, but only marginally.
Get real, have an opinion, or STFU, you are not worth the keystrokes.

Or did you take on a new position as a right wing search engine full of spam?

What an idiot, what a fool.
P.S. Speaking of 'Bill Clinton Rage" have ou finished with yours yet? He hasn't been president in years. It's amazing how you cling to things like that, merely to avoid addressing the major f-ups by your existing retard.

You even go back into the early 19th century to try and point a finger at another country' sshortcomings, as if it eases or explains the stupidity of your own politicians in teh 21st century.

You are really looking more and more desperate, sad and completely clueless with your posts lately, finally run out of BS to post in favour of Bush? Ask Bush for help, he's got plenty left I'm sure.

by maxwell edison

I didn't comment on the story because I was interested in seeing if others picked up on the same things I did.

And the only reason I even shared the story is because Bill Clinton is being a news-maker. I didn't go looking for it, but rather it was just there.

Grow up, Oz.

by sburk2

Look at the data, look at the definition. He is a sociopath. I can't figure out if he is truly evil or not.

Scott

by jfowler

Carter shows "no class" and is "damaging America's reputation"??? How do you figure that? Jimmy Carter is generally considered to be the best Ex-President of the lot. While "W", OTOH, has done more damage to both America's image abroad and the Presidency than anyone who came before.
Sorry Max, but you obviously don't live here, and I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more.

by maxwell edison

You may think some things are "obvious" (like I don't live here), but it doesn't make it so. You, however, have obviously bought into the best ex-president hype, all of which is, at best, a matter of opinion.

Jimmy Carter embarrassed the USA when he was president, and his middle-east policies were a dismal failure. His debacle in the desert is forever recorded as one Time Magazine cover that is vivid in my mind.

And he's doing it again -- trashing us (the U.S.) -- while campaigning for his son trying to get him into the Senate. Jimmy Carter is an embarrassment and a foolish, self-serving old man.

I've followed Jimmy Carter's career since the mid 1970s, read his books, heard his speeches, met him in person, and followed him in retirement. I've probably forgotten more about Jimmy Carter than you've ever known. Voting for him in 1976 was the worst vote I ever cast. (I didn't repeat the mistake in 1980.)

by delbertpgh

But I'm afraid he was bad enough as President, thank you. He's certainly a lot better as an ex-President.

by johnnysacks

We can't handle a leader who actually tells us the truth about the difficult situations we are facing. Carter may have been naive but his principles were right up front for all to see.

Like Carter's replacement, cowboy movie star hero president rocket rockin Ron Reagan. "Yippee, we're all rich!" Of course Ron was great, he might have just as well had the mint print 800 million $20 dollar bills and just drop them from planes for us all. Too bad Arnold the terminator can't run, he'd be a shoe in.

King Ron the Addle-Brained took an 845 billion national debt that it took 204 years to accumulate and ran it up to over 2.4 trillion dollars in 8 short years. Good thing I'll be dead while my grandchildren struggle to pay it off, screw them anyways, we're partyin'. Time to pop a Halcyon or two, go shopping, charge up a trip with the kids to Disney on the credit card, and tell them the story about how Santa Clause or Jesus will save the greatest country the world has ever had the pleasure of supporting.

by santulli

A typical liberal response. All criticism, spin and no solutions. Boy isn?t hind sight great. When you come to earth next time try reading our American history instead of spouting empty headed shortsighted non facts. Then take a good look at the Democrats record going back to Roosevelt and tell me you can't find any fault. Roosevelt was told by the three Japanese diplomats that they would attack Pearl Harbor THREE DAYS before they did. They came to Washington to meet with him. Roosevelt knew this and decided to make the diplomats wait until after the attack so he could get into the war. HE NEVER TALKED TO THEM. Your glorious left wing liberal press has tried to suppress this fact for years but now that we have an alternative press it?s coming out. Get real.

by jdclyde

[i]"If you think the troops should stay in iraq and should invade more countries than let the rich american bush supporters and republicants sacrifice their children to go to war..especialy the kids of those foxnews and other republicant news anchors..who attack the democrants view on the president and the war in iraq...lets see if they feel the same way about president bush when their child comes home with one leg..or no legs.."[/i]

In case you were not aware of it, it is still a fully volunteer military. the only people that have talked about WANTING a draft are the demoncrats.

The questions for President Clinton are valid, as it is what led up to the attack. The attackers where here already on his watch. He refused to accept Bin Laden because he didn't have "a legal right", but he had a legal right to issue a death warrent to have the CIA kill him? We also hear from HIS staff that when he DID have the chance to take Bin Laden out, he decided to do nothing.

HIS actions abroad are what led to the attack, and his administration sabatoging everything they could on their way out of office instead of working with the new administration was very helpful as well.

And now we learn that the famed detailed plan was never given to anyone in the Bush Administration.

Quit being such a dumbass and making excuses. Sure, what happened in Iraq of him not using as much force as he should have done was all Bush's fault and he will have to deal with that.

by oz_media

how did you POSSIBLY get an insinuation about a draft from the comment you quoted?

I think the point is, Republicans AREN'T sending their kids to war. Therefore Democrats feel a draft is the only fair solution to get the warmakers children to go to war also, not just the poor bastards trying to pay the rent and eat three meals a day. Republicans want to demolish welfare but they must hang on to the US Military Welfare System.

Oh well whatever, culling the herd is always good I guess, perhaps it will leave some room for those with constructive thoughts to surface in the US for a change.

by oz_media

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."- A. Einstein

and we thought his theory of relativity was an intelligent observation!

by shooter45

Are we living in a parallel universe here? President Clinton, in spite of the most disgusting, unconscionable attempt to destroy him by the gang of uber-vermin in power now, was able to steer our country to an unprecedented 8 years of economic, political, and international success. Under the current President we are witnessing the most heartbreaking, systematic destruction of the values and institutions that civilized people world wide have historically looked at with awe and wonderment. In two more years, when the destruction is complete, we won't be asking, "did this or that President criticize," we'll be asking "why didn't freedom loving people every rise up and stop this mad man."

by clockmendergb9

People buy it for the good sports coverage and a topless girl every day
Ok Fox is to scared to give us the topless girl..
Nobody buys it for news content.
It is a right wing rag with content that appeals to the working classes
Just like fox and its content.
Of course come election time they both show their real colors(US)colours(UK).

Joke
Why do you think the U was dropped from colour.
answer .
Because they only think of ME Me Me.

what do you think

by oz_media

[i]As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein[/i]-GWB

Yet he is more than willing to stake tens of thousands of American lives while calling his bluff?

[i]That seems to point up a significant difference between Europeans and Americans. A European says: "I can't understand this, what's wrong with me?" An American says: "I can't understand this, what's wrong with him?" [/i]

[i]The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something to them we are missing. [/i]

[i]Natives who beat drums to drive off evil spirits are objects of scorn to smart Americans who blow horns to break up traffic jams. [/i]

[i]Very little is known about the War of 1812 because the Americans lost it. [/i]

[i]Americans detest all lies except lies spoken in public or printed lies. [/i]

[i]It's hard to decide if TV makes morons out of everyone or if it mirrors Americans who really are morons to begin with[/i]

[i]Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves. - Albert Einstein"[/i]

by oz_media

What a riot! First of all you accuse the poster of hindsight, and then you go and use hindsight to support your own veiws, well done, how republican of you!

If you actually had a grip on 'reality' (not teh republican head-in-the-sand reality) but REAL reality of what is going on, the story the rest of the world follows; you would know that it wasn't hindsight at all. IN fact even whiel GWB was makign his allegations, millions around teh world were askign him to follow allied intersts and let inspectors finish and confirm allegations. He didn't he removed inspectors and went ot war, which even goes against his OWN plans of using force to complete inspections.

Hindsight was not possible, he was asked to investigate the 'known' untrustworthy source, he was asked to complete inspections as there were lots of unanswered questions and great doubt cast over allegations.

But he didn't, he's a fool, and so are all his followers and blind believers who refused to address the questions raised and then called everyone names for not supporting your decision to enter a war prematurely, he's a deceiver, he is in it for his own benefit, not yours. You were duped, you have not a leg to stand on anymore, the world knows you were wrong, KNEW you were wrong but you claimed you were right and would be saving your lives.

You sir, are a complete joke, a laughing stock for turning your back on the truth so you could follow your beliefs in the liar at the helm.

THAT'S not hindsight, that is simply the reality you ignored in order to follow mein furor to war. What a tool!

The scary part is that even now, after all the undeniable proof and reality that has proven the 'nonsupporters' to have been right all along, you will STILL insist you were right and justified in your actions. THAT'S the insanity!

Republicans should have been thrown from The White House in the beginning when they decided to go back on their own word and invade anyway.

by yobtaf

I'm aware of the controversy but this is not the place for political
discussion. This is Tech Republic. The subject is IT relate issues.
Please take your political views to the proper blog or discussion
group.

Thank you

by delbertpgh

Technically and analytically speaking, George Bush is the 43rd in a series, but he's first in the worst.

That's why you can read about it in Tech Republic. This is where you can talk with other Nerds Who Care.

by mrcjd3

Another die heart republican, ranting and raving about all the past democrat presidents. It's so sad, (in my opinion) that this person like so many other republicans, will beleive any and everthing their party tells them, and if you don't agree with them or their party, you are a liberal, or a democrat. He/she will label me too for being an independent voter.Like I said, sad.

by santulli

Clinton?s pathetic performance with Chris Wallace this weekend was a wonderfully revealing moment. While the purpose of his humiliated fury was to try to destroy the eyes of the world, for those of us with eyes that survived the attack, it simply cemented the perception of him as a world class pathological narcissist. For those of you who don?t have the benefit of a Ph.D. in psychoanalysis, allow your old Gagdad to break it all down for you. I knew that piece of paper would come in handy some day.
The adult narcissist has a specific difficulty auto-regulating shame, the ?keystone? affect of their disorder. It is unconscious and therefore unrecognized, or only dimly so. Narcissists are quite brittle, the reason being that they attempt to bypass their shame by erecting a facade of grandiosity. But when the grandiosity is poked or prodded, the narcissist will bristle. He might well accuse you of having a ?little smirk? on your face or being part of a right-wing conspiracy after making some innocent comment that threatens their grandiosity, as Chris Wallace discovered on Sunday.
There are two main classes of narcissism, an egotistical, Clintonian type, and a dissociative type. See if this does not ring a bell: the egotistical (also described as the ?oblivious?) type is self-absorbed, arrogant, unabashedly self-aggrandizing, attention demanding, and seemingly shameless.

But underneath the smooth and competent facade, these individuals show a preponderance of shame over guilt, the latter of which is much more healthy. For example, in response to Wallace?s question about Clinton's well known failures to take terrorism seriously, a non-narcissist would simply have said, ?hey, my bad. I was like everybody else. Before 9-11, I didn?t take al Qaeda seriously, and I?m really sorry about that now. Let's just be thankful my successor is nothing like me.?

But for a narcissist, this kind of guilt instantly descends into shame, which cannot be tolerated. The EJECT SHAME NOW button has been pushed--therefore, the finger in the face and the shrill accusations of unfairness and right wing conspiracies. We saw the same desperate pattern a few weeks ago with the 9-11 movie. We will continue to see it as long as Clinton takes breath, or until he finally realizes that he doesn't have a pale and pudgy legacy to stand on.

As another aside, does this not demonstrate the systematic bias of the left wing MSMistry of Truth? Bush and Rumsfeld and Rice have to deal with these kinds of questions from the press constantly, but when liberals interview Clinton, it?s like a warm bath. He relies upon the liberal media to mirror his grandiosity, and they do a fine job of it. He simply does not know how to deal with tough questioning, both because he?s never had to and because he falls apart unless he has a ready lie at his disposal to ward off both the questioner, and more importantly, his shame.

by shooter45

Take it easy Santulli, help is on it's way. That nice Jamaican man in the crisp white t-shirt (you know, the one with the whistle and clipboard?) is coming from the pharmacy with your new dosage. Those Superfund sites in Jersey sure have wreaked their havoc, haven't they? In the meantime try clicking your heels three times and repeating "delusions are delicious" until he gets to you.

p.s. By the way, do they let you out to vote?

by delbertpgh

That's where you'll find me, screaming in the wilderness, hoping that some people in the smartest of professions will get a clue about politics.

by jdclyde

Is it "fair" that people see the military as a way to improve their lives?

Do families really "send their kids" off to join the service? Get real.

Because this may seem like the the best option for some to advance their lives, we should force all people to do this?

And here I always thought it was the Democrats that were for personal Freedom, and keeping the government from telling them how to live their lives?

Just like free speech is only for the left to express, but if you express a counter point, your a biggot or whatever.

The idea that we should MAKE anyone server when we don't have to, is stupid.

The idea that it is somehow "unfair" that you seem to think people from well-to-do families never serve is also stupid. You are just more likely to see them enrolled in officers school and then do their time. See? that college education can pay off.

US Military Welfare System? Any system where people are working hard for what they get is not welfare. Popping out baby after baby just so you can get a check is "fair"?

Why does the military vote primarily go Republican if it is only the poor democrats that ever go in? You seem to forget it is the Democrats that HATE the military and many in that party think we shouldn't even HAVE one. (they are the ones that need the meds)

And don't forget the most recent example of this on what President Clinton did to the military during his time in office.

by oz_media

It is not uncommon for people to join the military for a paycheck, this has been so since day one. Why did people sign up to be paratroopers? BECAUSE IT PAID DOUBLE infantry pay. Money is teh motivator for many.

Yes there are some who feel that going to war is a duty and something they need to do to become a real man, generally intoned by parents and former military presonel living in the home. Thus this influence constitutes a family sending their kids to war. Yes many people do so out of family pressure to step up to he plate and do the right things.

"Because this may seem like the the best option for some to advance their lives, we should force all people to do this?" We are discussing Iraq here, remember. and yet you feel this may be "the the best option for some to advance their lives" What is to be learned other than it was a mistake from the beginning?

"Just like free speech is only for the left to express, but if you express a counter point, your a biggot or whatever"
But when a "lefty" complains about free speech, the right wing calls him a whiner? So which is it? The left can't complain but the right can, because they are more credible?

"The idea that we should MAKE anyone serve when we don't have to, is stupid."
YOU don't have to because people are stepping up to the plate, the problem is, those people feel that the people who created this war are NOT allowing THEIR kids to step up to the plate.

"The idea that it is somehow "unfair" that you seem to think people from well-to-do families never serve is also stupid. "

Now be careful,[i] "that you seem to think"[/i] I never said anything of the sort. Far from it actually.

My post was merely to explain what another poster was trying to say, but was taken wrong...again, so it didn't make any difference at all. Sometimes people jst refuse to see what was actually said.

"US Military Welfare System? Any system where people are working hard for what they get is not welfare. Popping out baby after baby just so you can get a check is "fair"? "

Even people IN the military agree they did it just for the money or free education. After an initial tour they are often done like dinner, or dead.
In know you like to consider it a job or even a career though, at every level of service. Yeah yeah I know, they are all valiant men and women,. they stand up and proudly fight, blah, blah, blah, IT'S STILL A FREE LUNCH.

"Any system where people are working hard for what they get is not welfare. Popping out baby after baby just so you can get a check is "fair"?"

Nice to understand that you've never needed such support, otherwise you may actually know what you were saying. Since when was collecting welfare or havign children WEASY, or not working hard? I have known EXTREMELY hard working men and women, far more so than any IT knob thats for sure.
segue_They may still end up collecting welfare as some US company lowballs the Canadian one to get products out the door, not at fair margin but just to move boxes, that's the part American business doesn't get. You can earn a comfortable living and run a respectable business without moving so many boxes.
But that doesn't fit the land of greed and consumption. - segue done-

And this comment proves your complete incapacity for understanding human nature: [i]"Why does the military vote primarily go Republican if it is only the poor democrats that ever go in?"[/i]

Democrats are 'people' people. tell them you are saving teh lad and that you are helpign foreigners and they will go to war "FOR THE PEOPLE". Why are THEY the ones who complain about war? (I can't believe you actually asked that).

THEY are the ones GOING to war, I think I'd raise a hand and ask a few questions too if i knew I would be the one going to war.

Now you even imply Republicans are more educated than democrats, you idiot! Well tro do families? I never said anything about well to do families or higher education, YOU implied that as a reason only democrats were goig to war.

'Poor democrats' meant the downtrodden democrats, not teh Republicans with people in the house to see they get into officers schools. Remember, while you suggest that, GWB was a soldier too, not a very clever one though, not a highly educated officer by any means. Wasn't he flying antiquated aircraft at an APO?

Again though, whil eyou claim this is my thoughts and feeling they are merely observations and, as noted, I never intoned they were my thoughts or feelings at all. I spoke in a very third party manner.

by delbertpgh

Novak's essay is based on a retired CIA guy's book and statements. Scheuer does not seem to be a political partisan.

One of the many weak spots in Clinton's leadership was his military instinct. He wasn't respected by the military, and wasn't comfortable using the military as a tool of policy. He seems also to have been very reluctant to be the cause of any deaths. When you run a country in our position in the world, you can't be cute about the hard power bit of leadership. His foreign policy was a partial failure.

Of course, GWB doesn't worry about using hard power, or killing foreigners, or about the cost in American lives to get those foreigners killed. He can feel sympathy for the widows, but it doesn't slow him down. And that might be to his credit, except that he hasn't gotten a single strategic objective right.

by oz_media

Robert Novak? Credible?

[i]"A gossip columnist for the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post, a tabloid not typically thought of as defenders of the Clintons, noted under the headline "Hillary Basher Is Error Prone" that Klein's book contains suggestions that Clinton had "lesbian relationships" with two college friends -- even though, according to the Post, Klein "never spoke to either woman." Both women denounced Klein's book; one, "whose name is misspelled in Klein's book" told the Post, "No one deserves this kind of crap." Her lawyer added, "These allegations are totally false and unsubstantiated. ... Klein has apparently done no investigating. This is scurrilous, despicable and politically motivated."
[/i]

Definitely a questionable book when it comes to facts and reality.

[i]NOVAK: It looks to me like a well-attributed book; it doesn't look like gossip to me. ... I think the problem with Senator Clinton is, unlike her husband, she's not very likable.[/i]
.....
[i]Neither King nor Valenti challenged Novak about the book's content or his claim that Sen. Clinton is "not very likable." In fact, a recent Gallup poll found that 55 percent of Americans view Sen. Clinton favorably, and that a majority would consider voting for her; only 39 percent view her unfavorably -- making her considerably more popular than, for example, the president of the United States.

Nor did King note that Novak isn't exactly a credible reviewer of right-wing attack books.[/i]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Robert Novak, you didn't like Clinton's losing his cool? This guy just up and left in the middle of a debate.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508040004

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Robert Novak?

As always finding sources to support your warped political views. Anyone can find sources to support their views, to bad you can't find facts to support them though. It's always just 'he said/she said'.

by av .

Honestly, I don't know what gets into Max sometimes.

But still, which one of those guys is the real you?

by absolutely

"...why didn't you do more to put Al Qaida & bin Laden out of business when you were President there's a, a new book out, you may, I'm, I suspect you've already read called [i]The Looming Tower[/i]..."

Blah, blah, blah.

The schmuck claims that "most" of the emails received requested that he ask this question. Well, back when Clinton [b]was[/b] President, any time he [b]did something[/b] about Al Qaida & bin Laden, the same "news" channels criticized him for doing [b]too much![/b] Not only that, they accused him of firing missiles [b]for the purpose of distracting from his impeachment hearings[/b], which were over the most important b1owjob in all of history.

The Monica Lewinsky scandal was not a Conservative conspiracy as the fool Hillary guessed, it was a media conspiracy, to create scandal & distract from policy, which at that time was not sensational enough to keep you, the public, tuned in and watching their advertisers. Now, the GWB policy is ridiculous enough to keep many, many of us glued to our sets, buying newspapers, and visiting the Internet regularly to see what damage his clowns will do next.

by oz_media

Everyone says I am too laid back, I take everything in stride and nothing bothers me.

In reality I am quite high strung but manage ot see things fr what they are and that's what keeps an even keel. I don't freak out over things that don't matter, I don't worry about anything.

When it comes to business, I am warm and kind, but also have a somewhat ruthless edge so I get the job done without issues or being taken advantage of. I am known as patient and kind in teh office, but you don't want ot get on my bad side, it is unforgiving.

As far as Bush and US politics, I really couldn't give a toss, what really bothers me though is that so many Americans actually see Bush as an answer or solution, they see him as valiant and honourable, whil ehe keeps their best interest and teh interests of 'America' in mind. America, when said by a politican, means government of America, not the people of America as many seem to feel. All the rest of the world sees is the low down, liar, cheat of a scumbag that he really is. Not some great man that you would want hugging your kids, he's merely a frickin politician for Gods sake! but given the title, Leader of teh Free World, I guess he does get blown up into something he is not and someone he cannot be.

That's why I have so much fun with guys like Max, they take thier politics so personally and so seriously, actually hanging on thier every word. In reality its all crap, most countries citizens understand that but too many in the US think that politicians are trying to provide the truth to the people, that they are acting with 'the people's best interests in mind etc. When you proce that US news coveres only the smallest part of many stiories, then it is instantly deduced that other people's news is spinning the truth, because America and the president didn't say as much.

It's REALLY pathetic, REALLY annoying and EALLY ignorant, I just don't see how so many people share such delusional feelings, and that's why I get so irritated reading the purely self-righteous crap that these guys throw around here.

I suppose this is because of the whole "united" feelign in the US, you actually feel as if you are a team, with your politicians and that they actually care what you think or feel abotu them and world issues. Truth is, it couldn't be farther from teh truth, yet some people will always hope and believe I suppose.-

by av .

You really are a nice guy unless someone pushes you over the edge. I definitely can't picture you as an "oily guy" or "sexist and piggish." You seem too refined for that.

You know how much I hate Bush and his entire administration and count the minutes until its over. I still can't believe how many Americans voted for him in 2004 despite his failed policies. Either people are really stupid or the electronic voting machines were tampered with. We'll never know the truth (no paper trail). Kerry wasn't a strong enough candidate either to challenge him.

We don't have leaders in America that serve the people and haven't for a long time. Our government is in a shambles. There is no integrity and the people we elect represent corporate interests and high-powered lobbyists, not the people.

I am surprised that Max can actually support Bush and his policies with a straight face. I can't think of anything that Bush has done to improve this country, unless you're among the wealthy.

I think most people now don't trust politicians. They've been burned. Most Americans now are fed up with our incompetent government and lack of integrity of our leaders. No one likes the war and all the lies and deception. We are in an abyss with no end in sight. People will be out for blood in the next election and rightfully so.

We need a change for sure.

by oz_media

I am actually all of the above, again a salesman/chameleon (sp?)

I have two backgrounds/influences, blue and white. I'm a mechanic, (almost certified)machinist, welder, and jack of all trades (master of few). I used to ride a hog, wore leather and had near waist length heair. Managed and toured with metal bands (not so deeply involved now though). At the same time, I always had some form of suit and tie career going (as my side gig). Now the career is my main gig and 'the dark side' takes up less of my life.

Can't say what'll happen tomorrow though, that's life and I'm just along to enjoy the ride. :)

As for YOU needing change, 'the world' needs that change too. Blair needs out too (perhaps fire him off for an extended vacation in Washington, you can keep him), yet the Labour party will still probably stay in power with a new face. They already know that anyone taking over the labour party needs to distance himself as far from US interests as possible, in order to retain British independance and public favour. Brits are pretty pissed at Blair's bending over for Bush. Bush is kind of like that kid that nobody's parents wanted thier kids hanging out with. :D

by av .

Thats a good thing I think. The more things you do in life, the wiser you become. Maybe in your golden years when you don't need a career anymore, you can get back on that hog and tour with the band. A little less hair, but hell, the Rolling Stones are doing it. :D

Thats ok. You can keep Blair. We have Bush. I think their legacy may not be exactly what they had in mind.

Thank God for change! :^0

*edited for those darn emoticons!

This discussion is closed to new replies.