Clinton Puts the Smack Down on Fox

[JeffR]

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I don’t get you americans.

I have no special sympathy for Clinton.

Most of your politicians and parties aren’t comparable to German ones, we have a slight different concept of liberals and republicans.

The interview was nice. Clinton’s wits and semantics were sharp as ever. He who claims otherwise must suffer from some form of lingual retardation. Of course he prepared himself in some way, so did the interviewer. Both are pros and know what to expect. Still, Clinton displayed a positive agressive stance throughout the interview. If someone claims he acted like a pussy, I feel confused. How can someone’s perception be so warped, especially as a TMan who appreciates an “Alpha Male” behaviour when he sees it?

What I also don’t understand is that so many guys still rip on the sex issue. (Which is totally unimportant for the interview, btw)
Why? Is it some kind of inferiority complex, because the current president is such a joke? Back then, we couldn’t understand how a country so progressive and modern would make such a fuss, even try an impeachment.
Read the sex forum, where practically anyone posts occasionally. Most TMen speak in a total different tone over there- strange. As wreckless already said: men and women cheat on each other and it’s not the end of the world. Again, especially when some guys can’t stress enough what an unhitable hag Hillary is.
Yet when you have so high standard for morale, it’s still OK with me - but why do you insist in protecting Bush at all costs?
His incompetence is breathtaking. Why is it so hard to say, “My, as a republican, it’s good to have not some lib on the presidential chair, but that Bush is a first class jackass”.

Again, I’m not a sympathizer of Clinton, but to say he didn’t do a great job back then just amazes us here in “old” Europe.

Before G.W.Bush, Europe loved America almost blindly. To hear an antiamerican statement was never a common thing.
With Bush and his gang, this changed so fast and radically it really saddens me.
[/quote]

When you misread the situation so badly claiming it was only about sex, it’s no surprise you are “amazed.”

If Clinton=good and Bush=bad to the majority of the europeans, then you can go ahead and have your sweaty little demonstrations.

It means nothing.

JeffR

[JeffR]

Doogie,

I appreciate calling the bluff of the dems.

Please realize, however, that they will read 1/100,000 of what you just posted.

Whether it is 100% truth, matters not.

Rush said it. Therefore, it must be ignored.

It is a defense mechanism that allows the dems to declare things like, “it’s all about a blowjob” and “clinton isn’t a pansy.”

My advice after you’ve rammed the quotes down their throat, is to use their favorite tactic against them: the soundbite.

When they regurgitate a soundbite, hit them with a better one.

It’s a nonsensical rollar coaster, but it’s fun watching them squirm.

JeffR

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]vroom wrote:

Man, are you fucking mentally deficient or what? I’d accuse you of playing dumb, but I don’t think you are playing…[/quote]

Well, no, Vroom - the phrase ‘sidewide’ is meaningless to me. Never heard of it.

[quote]Of course I see the moral and ethical implications… and you trying to suggest I don’t is just more of the same bullshit.

The question that I raised was about succumbing to temptation…

So, let me ask you, is Bush a pussy for folding to the temptation of alcohol (and possibly drugs) over and over again? That’s certainly a weakness. He shoudl be a pussy too for succumbing to temptation, at least according to your qualification.[/quote]

So let’s see - you equate philandering to addiction?

That is ok - Clinton tried to do the same. When on NPR supporting his book, he tried to equate his philandering to FDR’s polio and Lincoln’s depression - and he sounded as idiotic as you do making the comparison.

Do I think they are the same? Nope. Not even close. Let me clarify - I don’t necessarily think you are a pussy for giving into any old weakness - I think you are a pussy for giving in to infidelity. I don’t think all ‘weaknesses’ are the same, so I don’t measure them that way. Infidelity has a place all its own, especially if it is serial, because then it becomes a naked abuse of power.

Now, Clinton may be a pussy, but it’s not because he messed around with Monica. Millions of men, from all countries and backgrounds, have fallen apart on this issue – and they aren’t all pussies.

Poor babies - they aren’t victims, and I will never think they are. This is where I disagree with you - it is a different kind of failure. Because of the express promise made and the moral implications of the failure, I hold it to a different standard.

And, you make a good point - I don’t think Clinton has been a pussy solely because of his philandering - I was just responding to Doogie’s mention of it.

That said, I never said that it was absolutely unforgivable ever - I even said a few posts ago that I would be interested in having Bill Clinton as a friend.

Unlike yourself, I’ve never claimed to be an authority on anything.

I haven’t claimed to be an authority in anything. You are confused.

However, a lot of people think masculinity is the same as being a bully and a blowhard who never admits a mistake. At least by the evidence around these parts.

I actually despise bullies and blowhards - that is, people who try and drown out their opponents with noise and constantly engage in puffery about themselves. I am not accusing you of doing that, just that we agree that bullies suck.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]doogie wrote:
The cheerleaders are certainly here.

His anger seems VERY calculated and is used to divert attention from the questions.

He knew the questions were coming, and it appears he planned to get pissed so his anger would be the story rather than his failures to defend the U.S. from Bin Laden.[/quote]

Exactly. He is a savvy politician.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]hspder wrote:

I am humbled by your greatness, oh great thunderbolt.[/quote]

There is no need for sarcasm, Professor - I don’t claim to be awesome, fantastic, or incredible. I just make arguments.

YOU said Clinton was the quintessential pansy, i.e. he was “the essence of a thing [pansy] in its purest and most concentrated form”. That automatically means nobody is more of a pansy than he is. Hence, yes, YOU made it a relative comment. I was just pointing out that he could not be the “quintessential” pansy because there are bigger pansies.

Nice try, but what Bush is or is not is irrelevant - after all, this whole thread is about your Messiah. If you had said Clinton was awesome, and I responded that Bush was awesomer, it would distract from what we are talking about - Clinton.

By the way, tell me oh great one who, in your enlightened opinion, is an Alpha Male?

Well, I am neither great nor do I advertise that I am - a stark contrast between you and me.

But I will throw out two current political figures - Senator John McCain and Senatorial candidate Jim Webb of Virginia.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]hspder wrote:
hedo wrote:
List a reference then. Your opinion on what you claim he said is irrelevant.

The reference is the actual book:

Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror: Clarke, Richard A.:...

If you mean quotes, you don’t really expect me to start typing the whole book, do you?

But don’t take my word for it, take these:

"
Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com. Spend less. Smile more.

Few political memoirs have made such a dramatic entrance as that by Richard A. Clarke. During the week of the initial publication of Against All Enemies, Clarke was featured on 60 Minutes, testified before the 9/11 commission, and touched off a raging controversy over how the presidential administration handled the threat of terrorism and the post-9/11 geopolitical landscape. Clarke, a veteran Washington insider who had advised presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush, dissects each man’s approach to terrorism but levels the harshest criticism at the latter Bush and his advisors who, Clarke asserts, failed to take terrorism and Al-Qaeda seriously.

From Publishers Weekly
[…]The level of detail Clarke includes is impressive. Not only does he paint a vivid portrait of the White House in crisis mode, but he even recalls a number of conversations (including one in which Bush, after learning of al Qaeda’s involvement, purportedly tells Clarke, “See if Saddam did this. See if he’s linked in any way”). […] His frustration over how the current administration has responded to 9/11 and how he believes the FBI and CIA failed to act leaks through at times.
"
[/quote]

Yet Clarke himself said the exact opposite in the interview posted earlier.

It is amazing what people will say to sell books.

[vroom]

Well, on a different note, maybe a few folks will actually buy the book and read it, to find out what was actually said?

[thunderbolt23]

Overheard in a conversation with a friend of mine (a Democratic voter and a liberal hawk):

“If only Clinton had the same amount of piss and vinegar at OBL in the 90s as he had with Wallace last night, we’d be having a different conversation about terror.”

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]hspder wrote:

hedo wrote:
Clarke never changed his story. You must be reading from the “left” side of the book.

His quotes from 2002 are in stark contrast to the account in his book. So, clearly, he changed his mind, at least.
[/quote]

Or was trying to sell a book and get in high position in Kerry’s admin.

[Headhunter]

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
doogie wrote:
knewsom wrote:
I don’t give two shits what Clinton did with his dick. That’s his business, not mine, and I do not have the right to critisize his personal life. Neither do any of you fucks. I don’t even care that he lied about it. If the man had an abnormal penis, and people accused him of having one, and he lied about having an abnormal penis, would anyone think less of the man? FUCK no.

What in the holy fuck are you raving about? No one gives a shit about your micropenis. We’re talking about breaking vows and oaths.

No, we’re talking about Wallace trying to ambush Clinton, like he was told.
And getting his ass kicked. That’s what we are talking about.[/quote]

Clinton AGREED to an open forum, then went ballistic when the dude followed the program. Hell, he got pissed when the man quoted Clinton himself. He’s fucking deranged! So, that’s why you like him.

You’re probably envious of Monica too.

You’re late for your train.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]knewsom wrote:
doogie wrote:
It’s funny that there are two non-Americans and two Republic of California citizens defending Clinton.

I’m sorry, are you tryign to assert that I’m less than a US Citizen?? Believe you men, if Cali could leave this mess, I’d be all for it.

…you fuckers would be crippled without California.[/quote]

Please.

[Professor_X]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
A guest on the Rush Limbaugh show tells us he was lying…surprise, surprise.

Slant much?[/quote]

Exactly. Debates will much more interesting now that we know we can use Talk-News-Entertainment hosts as reliable sources of info that the American people listen to.

So much hell was raised when it was mentioned in past debates that people do take what these guys say as truth. We were told that NO ONE does and that we can’t use that as proof of the spread of false knowledge or info with an agenda.

Looks like we were right after all. Who knew?

[vroom]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Clinton AGREED to an open forum, then went ballistic when the dude followed the program. Hell, he got pissed when the man quoted Clinton himself. He’s fucking deranged! So, that’s why you like him.
[/quote]

Oh please, everybody is okay with Bush going on a rampage and getting upset… so I don’t think the spin factor is going to get away with “ballistic” here.

[Professor_X]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
doogie wrote:
knewsom wrote:
I don’t give two shits what Clinton did with his dick. That’s his business, not mine, and I do not have the right to critisize his personal life. Neither do any of you fucks. I don’t even care that he lied about it. If the man had an abnormal penis, and people accused him of having one, and he lied about having an abnormal penis, would anyone think less of the man? FUCK no.

What in the holy fuck are you raving about? No one gives a shit about your micropenis. We’re talking about breaking vows and oaths.

No, we’re talking about Wallace trying to ambush Clinton, like he was told.
And getting his ass kicked. That’s what we are talking about.

Clinton AGREED to an open forum, then went ballistic when the dude followed the program. Hell, he got pissed when the man quoted Clinton himself. He’s fucking deranged! So, that’s why you like him.

You’re probably envious of Monica too.

You’re late for your train.

[/quote]

Lol at “ballistic”. The man pulls out the big guns as far as his debate style and now his critics want to cry about what a meanie he is…yet he is still somehow a pussy because he got a blowjob from an intern…unlike ANY other president in history…and especially not like Thomas Jefferson.

[doogie]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
A guest on the Rush Limbaugh show tells us he was lying…surprise, surprise.

Slant much?[/quote]

Shit, you’re confused.

Clark wasn’t a guest on Limbaugh’s show.

[doogie]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
A guest on the Rush Limbaugh show tells us he was lying…surprise, surprise.

Slant much?

Exactly. Debates will much more interesting now that we know we can use Talk-News-Entertainment hosts as reliable sources of info that the American people listen to.

[/quote]

Shit, you’re confused also.

There was no guest on Limbaugh’s show. CLark’s words from his book and testimony and previous interviews (with other news channels) were used.

[orion]

[quote]JeffR wrote:

If Clinton=good and Bush=bad to the majority of the europeans, then you can go ahead and have your sweaty little demonstrations.

It means nothing.

JeffR
[/quote]

Oh but it does. Like the US we are to big to ignore, as irrational as we may be.

Clinton would have been in our panties on the first date and Bush won`t even get our number.

[orion]

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Lol at “ballistic”. The man pulls out the big guns as far as his debate style and now his critics want to cry about what a meanie he is…yet he is still somehow a pussy because he got a blowjob from an intern…unlike ANY other president in history…and especially not like Thomas Jefferson.
[/quote]

You obviously do not get the point that using superior intelligence, knowledge and verbal skill is unamerican because it leaves the viewer with the feeling that Clinton is not “one of us”.

The whole concept that a former president could be angry and on top of his game is even more insulting to Joe Republican.

To allmost physically intimitade them and use condescending cheap shots at reporters however is perfectly okay, because that is what every trailer park bully would do, for lack of a better alternative.

[ChuckyT]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Since when is Rush Limbaugh a reliable source of info? We might as well use O’Reilly. Or, hell, isn’t Howard Stern a good source too? I mean, at least he has big titties on his show often instead of simply his own obesity.[/quote]

The best post yet! pox making fun of someone else for being fat! hahaha

[pookie]

[quote]JeffR wrote:
hspder wrote:
JeffR wrote:
…uses the letters “powned.”

…everybody else writes it “p0wned”.

…Anyone who states the letters and number “p0wned” has to be[/quote]

You’re both tools.

It’s “pwned” dammit.