General discussion

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Gosh, Max, what impartial reporting

by DelbertPGH In reply to In the video, Bill Clinto ...

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 **** 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 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 **** with deference and opened his mouth.

Collapse -

I'm not impartial. I admit it.

by maxwell edison In reply to Gosh, Max, what impartial ...

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?

Collapse -

Everybody has favorites

by DelbertPGH In reply to I'm not impartial. I admi ...

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 *****. It's like critical thought became a sin.

Collapse -

Excellent post

by khigh In reply to Everybody has favorites

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...

Collapse -

If it steam like...

by Oz_Media In reply to In the video, Bill Clinto ...

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.

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.

Collapse -


by DelbertPGH In reply to If it steam like...

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.

Collapse -

Of course

by Oz_Media In reply to true/false

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 **** 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.

Collapse -

Way to go, Bill!

by neilb@uk In reply to Bill Clinton Rage

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!


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

Collapse -

Is body language speaking?

by maxwell edison In reply to Way to go, Bill!

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....."

Collapse -

I think

by neilb@uk In reply to Is body language speaking ...

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.


Related Discussions

Related Forums