NationStates Jolt Archive

With the chyron machine, that is. I mean, last week when they changed Mark Foley to a Democrat on the O'Reilly show, and then twice again on other shows, many put it down as an accident. But this is getting ridiculous.

http://aycu19.webshots.com/image/4378/2001551296293851628_rs.jpg

For those of you not in the know, Lincoln Chaffee is the incumbent Republican. There are a lot of folks who call him a RINO (Republican in name only) and they have an argument for that, though when the votes are close, he caves in on his principles and does what the party requires.

On the plus side, it looks like Whitehouse is kicking some major ass, and if the Democrats are going to take the Senate, this is one of those seats they have to win.

this however might actually help the dems for all the fox news watchers who go "must...vote...republican!" and vote for the wrong guy.

I never watch Fox, so meh. :p

-SNIP-

I wonder if they'll be like Baghdad bob come November? Declaring victory even as Rep. senators start cleaning out their desks.

this however might actually help the dems for all the fox news watchers who go "must...vote...republican!" and vote for the wrong guy.

that would be so much win. :p

this however might actually help the dems for all the fox news watchers who go "must...vote...republican!" and vote for the wrong guy.
Well, Rhode Island is one of those places where the Republicans are significantly outnumbered, so that's unlikely to have a big effect. Chaffee has been Senator largely on the family name--his dad was a big RI politician for years.

It could have the opposite effect, actually--voters who would vote Democratic might get confused and think Chaffee switched parties or something.

on an almost related topic....

i had the misfortune of hearing a bit of sean hannity's radio show this afternoon.

he was wondering why no one demands that nancy pelosi return the money she received from the ACLU since they once defended someone from nambla (national man boy love association)

are the conservatives SO desperate that that is the ONLY thing the can come up with?

It could have the opposite effect, actually--voters who would vote Democratic might get confused and think Chaffee switched parties or something.

they wouldn't be watching Faux anyway.

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

*shrugs*

on an almost related topic....

i had the misfortune of hearing a bit of sean hannity's radio show this afternoon.

he was wondering why no one demands that nancy pelosi return the money she received from the ACLU since they once defended someone from nambla (national man boy love association)

are the conservatives SO desperate that that is the ONLY thing the can come up with?
Yes.

This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.--Atrios (copyright 2006) :D

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

*shrugs*

You'd think that a transvestite like Coulter would be more careful about equating relationships with underage persons with homosexuality. ;)

I never watch Fox, so meh. :p

I can top that. I don't watch any news channels. Hooray for RSS Feeds! :D

Fox hunting sometimes sounds very enticing...

Oops, Fox did it again, they fucked with the facts, oh baby baby, Oops they think they are smart, and they'll get away with it, but they're really not that intelligent.

I call copyright on that song:p

A mistake is a mistake. At least they're not Reuters.

Yes.

This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.--Atrios (copyright 2006) :D

o

ok.

maybe i should try listening to rush limbaugh on my way to albquerque tomorrow. id love to hear him be that desperate.

You'd think that a transvestite like Coulter would be more careful about equating relationships with underage persons with homosexuality. ;)

I'd almost have sex with her, then i saw her testicles, and i won't like, they're bigger than mine.

A mistake is a mistake. At least they're not Reuters.

And what is four mistakes of the exact same nature?

You'd think that a transvestite like Coulter would be more careful about equating relationships with underage persons with homosexuality. ;)

It's her hormones, I swear.

I can top that. I don't watch any news channels. Hooray for RSS Feeds! :D

Agreed. When I got my satellite system a couple of months ago, the salesperson said that we wouldn't get the Fox channels (except for the main one with like The Simpsons and such on it) unless we got the next package up. She had no idea that we considered that a feature instead of a bug.

o

ok.

maybe i should try listening to rush limbaugh on my way to albquerque tomorrow. id love to hear him be that desperate.It's fun in small doses, but I don't recommend it for long. It starts to hurt. ;)

Agreed. When I got my satellite system a couple of months ago, the salesperson said that we wouldn't get the Fox channels (except for the main one with like The Simpsons and such on it) unless we got the next package up. She had no idea that we considered that a feature instead of a bug.

I do like the regional Fox Sports channels. I would almost get satellite just for Fox Sports Detroit.

And what is four mistakes of the exact same nature?

The Bush administration?

I can top that. I don't watch any news channels. Hooray for RSS Feeds! :D

How good is the RSS Feeds, and how do I get a piece of that action?

And what is four mistakes of the exact same nature?
No feedy el trollo...

With the chyron machine, that is. I mean, last week when they changed Mark Foley to a Democrat on the O'Reilly show, and then twice again on other shows, many put it down as an accident. But this is getting ridiculous.

http://aycu19.webshots.com/image/4378/2001551296293851628_rs.jpg

For those of you not in the know, Lincoln Chaffee is the incumbent Republican. There are a lot of folks who call him a RINO (Republican in name only) and they have an argument for that, though when the votes are close, he caves in on his principles and does what the party requires.

On the plus side, it looks like Whitehouse is kicking some major ass, and if the Democrats are going to take the Senate, this is one of those seats they have to win.
Why is this a surprise in any sense of the word? Fox lies. We all knew that. At least, those of us who actually listen to facts did.

Why is this a surprise in any sense of the word? Fox lies. We all knew that. At least, those of us who actually listen to facts did.

Not really a surprise, except in the continued audacity of the network.

Why is this a surprise in any sense of the word? Fox lies. We all knew that. At least, those of us who actually listen to facts did.

I wouldn't say they lied, probably an error somewhere, but I dunno about lied.

How good is the RSS Feeds, and how do I get a piece of that action?

Read on. Lots of sites have 'em, but most news ones come from the AP: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/RSS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME

It's fun in small doses, but I don't recommend it for long. It starts to hurt. ;)

i can sometimes last 20 minutes of listening to rush before i start to rant.

michael savage seldom takes more than 5.


sean hannity is too lame to bother with, this was probably the 2nd time ive heard his show.

I wouldn't say they lied, probably an error somewhere, but I dunno about lied.

...

Uh, no. Once, maybe, on one show--like say, Mark Foley the Dem on the O'Reilly Show--is an error. This is deliberate out and out lying to make Republicans look better than Democrats. Come on, Wilgrove. I know you're not stupid.

Of course, I don't know why they bother. Both parties are equally shit anyway.

Last time I heard Rush, I lasted about 5 minutes -- about the same as with Al Franken or Randi Rhodes.

...

Uh, no. Once, maybe, on one show--like say, Mark Foley the Dem on the O'Reilly Show--is an error. This is deliberate out and out lying to make Republicans look better than Democrats. Come on, Wilgrove. I know you're not stupid.

Of course, I don't know why they bother. Both parties are equally shit anyway.

I do agree that both parties are shit, and that many Republicans are RINOs (hence why I am a Libertarian) but unless they go around doig what Ann Coulter doing and all you have is this photograph, I'm marking it up as an error until I can see otherwise.

Last time I heard Rush, I lasted about 5 minutes -- about the same as with Al Franken or Randi Rhodes.

Same here.

I do agree that both parties are shit, and that many Republicans are RINOs (hence why I am a Libertarian) but unless they go around doig what Ann Coulter doing and all you have is this photograph, I'm marking it up as an error until I can see otherwise.
Well, there was the whole thing last week where they identified Mark Foley on three different shows as a Democrat instead of as a Republican. And it's not like Fox has done this in the past--this is a new phenomenon.

I gotta remember to send in my check for the aclu. They earned it .


I just want to grab hannity by the ears and while saying " yer a great Americun " stick his head in a barrell and have a gay dude give him the whats for and what he needs .


I cant STAND that dude...

I hate Howard Stern ...but he did Hanity and DESTROYED him .

Last time I heard Rush, I lasted about 5 minutes -- about the same as with Al Franken or Randi Rhodes.

al franken bores me senseless but randi has a wicked crazy streak that i find fascinating. there are times when she is just so WRONG that i cant turn the station, its like listening to a car wreck

(for all i know she is nutz every day. ive only heard her a half dozen times or so)

Last time I heard Rush, I lasted about 5 minutes -- about the same as with Al Franken or Randi Rhodes.

I can listen to Al and Randy. I just rant at the radio everytime they say something I disagree with...which is most of what they say.

With the chyron machine, that is. I mean, last week when they changed Mark Foley to a Democrat on the O'Reilly show, and then twice again on other shows, many put it down as an accident. But this is getting ridiculous.

http://aycu19.webshots.com/image/4378/2001551296293851628_rs.jpg

For those of you not in the know, Lincoln Chaffee is the incumbent Republican. There are a lot of folks who call him a RINO (Republican in name only) and they have an argument for that, though when the votes are close, he caves in on his principles and does what the party requires.

On the plus side, it looks like Whitehouse is kicking some major ass, and if the Democrats are going to take the Senate, this is one of those seats they have to win.


How do two senators even fit in Rhode Island?

How do two senators even fit in Rhode Island?One's on a boat?

How do two senators even fit in Rhode Island?

they get very "Friendly".

they get very "Friendly".

Hahahaha.

But who's in front, and who's in back?

Lets pick on Nancy Grace...I cant stand her either.:D

Hahahaha.

But who's in front, and who's in back?

Well, according to the poll, Chafee is on the bottom.





It had to be said.

A mistake is a mistake. At least they're not Reuters.Exactly. They don't correct mistakes. :)

There are a lot of folks who call him a RINO (Republican in name only) and they have an argument for that, though when the votes are close, he caves in on his principles and does what the party requires.

You sure about him caving in? I could've sworn he was the only Republican to vote against the torture bill.

You sure about him caving in? I could've sworn he was the only Republican to vote against the torture bill.

When it's a tight vote. When it's not close, and the torture bill was not close, he votes his conscience (such as it is). Of course, since some Dems are often spineless and the Republicans currently hold a 5 seat majority, he gets away with it more often than not.

Exactly. They don't correct mistakes. :)
No, they just photoshop the occasional picture.

When it's a tight vote. When it's not close, and the torture bill was not close, he votes his conscience (such as it is). Of course, since some Dems are often spineless and the Republicans currently hold a 5 seat majority, he gets away with it more often than not.

Man, if it would only be worth it to send them all spinal braces, but such a gag would be expensive and they would ignore it anyway...

No, they just photoshop the occasional picture.
Come on now--Reuters didn't photoshop that picture. The free-lancer did and they pulled it and the rest of his pics as soon as they found out.

Man, if it would only be worth it to send them all spinal braces, but such a gag would be expensive and they would ignore it anyway...
But what a photo-op. :D

Man, if it would only be worth it to send them all spinal braces, but such a gag would be expensive and they would ignore it anyway...

send em Pig Spines. with a note saying "here, the original owners didn't need em any more."

No, they just photoshop the occasional picture.Reuters? No they don't. A freelance photographer did, but Reuters itself hasn't. :)

With the chyron machine, that is. I mean, last week when they changed Mark Foley to a Democrat on the O'Reilly show, and then twice again on other shows, many put it down as an accident. But this is getting ridiculous.

http://aycu19.webshots.com/image/4378/2001551296293851628_rs.jpg

For those of you not in the know, Lincoln Chaffee is the incumbent Republican. There are a lot of folks who call him a RINO (Republican in name only) and they have an argument for that, though when the votes are close, he caves in on his principles and does what the party requires.

On the plus side, it looks like Whitehouse is kicking some major ass, and if the Democrats are going to take the Senate, this is one of those seats they have to win.

I live in Rhode Island and there is no chance that anyone in this state is going to fall for that "mistake" that Fox has made.

Chaffee is actually not a bad guy but in the state that has the lowest approval ratings for Bush in the country having that R next to your name is like having an albatross hanging around your neck.
The big plus about living in such a small state is everyone knows who Chaffee and Whitehouse are.
Messing around with the graphics will do Faux "News" no good in RI.

I live in Rhode Island and there is no chance that anyone in this state is going to fall for that "mistake" that Fox has made.

Chaffee is actually not a bad guy but in the state that has the lowest approval ratings for Bush in the country having that R next to your name is like having an albatross hanging around your neck.
The big plus about living in such a small state is everyone knows who Chaffee and Whitehouse are.
Messing around with the graphics will do Faux "News" no good in RI.

Glad to hear it. :D

I live in Rhode Island and there is no chance that anyone in this state is going to fall for that "mistake" that Fox has made.

Chaffee is actually not a bad guy but in the state that has the lowest approval ratings for Bush in the country having that R next to your name is like having an albatross hanging around your neck.
The big plus about living in such a small state is everyone knows who Chaffee and Whitehouse are.
Messing around with the graphics will do Faux "News" no good in RI.

I think it is time the people of Connecticut Annex Rhode Island. Why should you get all the good beaches? ;)

I think it is time the people of Connecticut Annex Rhode Island. Why should you get all the good beaches? ;)

It might be more fun to just nuke Long Island....

It might be more fun to just nuke Long Island....

yeah why not? their pollution drifts our way anyway.

oh by the way, I am in Simsbury though originally from West Hartford and Farmington. Hartford Country basically, right in the valley.

I fucking love thread drift! :D

I fucking love thread drift! :D

I don't mind it either... but becareful where it drifts...




























there's been reports of Iceburgs in the area....

i can sometimes last 20 minutes of listening to rush before i start to rant.

michael savage seldom takes more than 5.


sean hannity is too lame to bother with, this was probably the 2nd time ive heard his show.

20 minutes? What are you, Wonder Woman? I can't take 20 seconds of that cigar-sucking, bloviating jackass.

20 minutes? What are you, Wonder Woman? I can't take 20 seconds of that cigar-sucking, bloviating jackass.

What kind of stuff does that guy say, anyway?

Also: I retract my Reuters comment. Had no idea it was a freelancer. My apologies.

I wonder if they'll be like Baghdad bob come November? Declaring victory even as Rep. senators start cleaning out their desks.

Didnt they do that in 2000? And it worked too....

I just love the idea of those who blast Fox as "lying" as if they're the only news service to do so.

I just love the idea of those who blast Fox as "lying" as if they're the only news service to do so.

It'd be nice if they lied a bit better. This is pretty crappy lying by any standard.

It'd be nice if they lied a bit better. This is pretty crappy lying by any standard.

Or..maybe whomever's in charge of writing that made what's known as, quote, "less science-like and such" in the political world and, again I quote, "a whoopsie." I wouldn't call flopping the R and D a lie. That's a mistake. I'd be willing to bet a lot of news formats do it and it doesn't set off claxons because there aren't a slew of people combing over them with eagle eyes, hot on the look out for a mistake/misprint/misrepresentation/distortion/and, yes, a lie. All news services, whether they be televised, in print, or over the radio, lie. Get used to it, folks. Instead of being so childishly partisan about it...

Note: I'm not a Republican and I don't get up in arms when CNN lies. Though, I will admit, there are news f-up's that can't be tolerated by anyone (case in point: the "authentic" documents used by Dan Rather). That's just piss poor journalism standards.

And, yeah, most people are bad liars.

It'd be nice if they lied a bit better. This is pretty crappy lying by any standard.

A better lie would be "Libral Activist Infiltrates FOX News To Falsify Broardcasts - Investigation Underway"

I wouldn't say they lied, probably an error somewhere, but I dunno about lied.
Why do conservatives always talk so apologetic? Why can't they admit that their guys lie sometimes?

At least liberals can stomach calling Democrats for being shit.

I do agree that both parties are shit, and that many Republicans are RINOs (hence why I am a Libertarian)
That's bullshit, you're so biased in favour of Republicans.

Why do conservatives always talk so apologetic? Why can't they admit that their guys lie sometimes?

At least liberals can stomach calling Democrats for being shit.


That's bullshit, you're so biased in favour of Republicans.

Which would be why they rarely do, eh? Can't remember the last leftist I met that actually admitted that Clinton committed perjury...

Which would be why they rarely do, eh? Can't remember the last leftist I met that actually admitted that Clinton committed perjury...

OK. Clinton did commit perjury. We just didn't care. It would have been weirder if he was up front about cigars and dress stains.

Or..maybe whomever's in charge of writing that made what's known as, quote, "less science-like and such" in the political world and, again I quote, "a whoopsie." I wouldn't call flopping the R and D a lie. That's a mistake. I'd be willing to bet a lot of news formats do it and it doesn't set off claxons because there aren't a slew of people combing over them with eagle eyes, hot on the look out for a mistake/misprint/misrepresentation/distortion/and, yes, a lie. All news services, whether they be televised, in print, or over the radio, lie. Get used to it, folks. Instead of being so childishly partisan about it...

Note: I'm not a Republican and I don't get up in arms when CNN lies. Though, I will admit, there are news f-up's that can't be tolerated by anyone (case in point: the "authentic" documents used by Dan Rather). That's just piss poor journalism standards.

And, yeah, most people are bad liars.
Happened too many times, too recently to just be mistakes. It could just be some guy in charge of assigning letters to politicians fucking with FOX... that guy should probably be fired now.

Happened too many times, too recently to just be mistakes. It could just be some guy in charge of assigning letters to politicians fucking with FOX... that guy should probably be fired now.

I'd still be inclined to flag it as a mistake, regardless of whether it was Fox, CBS, MSNBC, etc, etc, etc...Shoot me, I guess, for not considering something so trivial as a lie. A-oh snap.

Come back shouting from the rooftops about the evils of Fox when they run Photoshopped images of Democrats running puppies through paper shredders or beating kittens with croquet mallets. Then I'll raise a torch with you, all right?

And yeah, he probably should be fired by now.

Along with 95% of everyone else working for all networks.

Happened too many times, too recently to just be mistakes. It could just be some guy in charge of assigning letters to politicians fucking with FOX... that guy should probably be fired now.

I'm telling you! It's a subversive librul activist that has infiltrated Fox!

[/republican clutching at straws]

OK. Clinton did commit perjury. We just didn't care. It would have been weirder if he was up front about cigars and dress stains.

Congrats for being the first in a while to concede that (as far as I can recall). I guess, y'know, I just figure that the most powerful person in the world--elected by and for the people--should be held accountable for a crime that would put you or I in jail.

Congrats for being the first in a while to concede that (as far as I can recall). I guess, y'know, I just figure that the most powerful person in the world--elected by and for the people--should be held accountable for a crime that would put you or I in jail.

Does lying to people so you can drop bombs on innocent peoples houses count as such a crime?

I'd still be inclined to flag it as a mistake, regardless of whether it was Fox, CBS, MSNBC, etc, etc, etc...Shoot me, I guess, for not considering something so trivial as a lie. A-oh snap.

Come back shouting from the rooftops about the evils of Fox when they run Photoshopped images of Democrats running puppies through paper shredders or beating kittens with croquet mallets. Then I'll raise a torch with you, all right?

And yeah, he probably should be fired by now.

Along with 95% of everyone else working for all networks.

OK. You're really not the one that needs convincing... shunning of all network news is better than watching FOX or any other single newschannel without getting your news from other sources.

Does lying to people so you can drop bombs on innocent peoples houses count as such a crime?

I'm not getting into that argument in this thread. You want to do it, we can, but not here. Open a new thread; no need to hijack this one.

But...I will say this: there's a great difference between being fed faulty intelligence and lying. If I tell you I'm sure there's cookies in the cookie jar in the kitchen, but when you go there and they aren't any, was I lying? No, I was giving you an answer based on the best of my knowledge. The intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass murder (as the President calls them; I prefer BWMDs--Bovine Weapons of Mass Destruction, hurling cows with a trebuchet) was an assumed guess fed to the President by those beneath him.

I propose to you this: if you Joe tells you there's cookies in the kitchen and you, without having personally confirmed or debunked this yourself, are led to believe this is true, what would you do?

And, yes, I just made a cookie analogy in the world stage. This is why I write satire.

Congrats for being the first in a while to concede that (as far as I can recall). I guess, y'know, I just figure that the most powerful person in the world--elected by and for the people--should be held accountable for a crime that would put you or I in jail.

He knew that everybody else knew it was a witch hunt. He also knew he had a far better than a 50/50 chance of getting away with lying about something which had zero to do with national security.

OK. You're really not the one that needs convincing... shunning of all network news is better than watching FOX or any other single newschannel without getting your news from other sources.

Meh, works for me. I watch various news services, including Fox. I won't lie about it. I watch them. I don't believe everything they say nor should anyone. Everyone has a bias and everyone puts it into their content. [insert network here] is no different and I challenge anyone to argue that. We are drowning in media bias from all sides, shapes, and angles. It's everywhere and you can't escape it.

The solution? Stick your head in the ground and hope it goes away. Personally? Gorge yourself on a suicidal diet of ice cream and cookies until you're the size of a hippo and die of a massive heart attack.

Q: How does that solve the media bias problem?
A: It doesn't. But you get to eat ice cream and cookies until you die. Death by gross obesity; it's [sadly] the American way.

I'm not getting into that argument in this thread. You want to do it, we can, but not here. Open a new thread; no need to hijack this one.

But...I will say this: there's a great difference between being fed faulty intelligence and lying. If I tell you I'm sure there's cookies in the cookie jar in the kitchen, but when you go there and they aren't any, was I lying? No, I was giving you an answer based on the best of my knowledge. The intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass murder (as the President calls them; I prefer BWMDs--Bovine Weapons of Mass Destruction, hurling cows with a trebuchet) was an assumed guess fed to the President by those beneath him.

I propose to you this: if you Joe tells you there's cookies in the kitchen and you, without having personally confirmed or debunked this yourself, are led to believe this is true, what would you do?

And, yes, I just made a cookie analogy in the world stage. This is why I write satire.

It depends on if you went on for a couple of hours before hand about how good the cookies were. Were you lying? Not sure but you are still getting a punch to the face.

He knew that everybody else knew it was a witch hunt. He also knew he had a far better than a 50/50 chance of getting away with lying about something which had zero to do with national security.

I'll give you that. The situation wasn't in his favor to begin with (the GOP would've demanded someone's head, at least), but lying helps nothing and doesn't change the fact that he broke the law.

I'll give you that. The situation wasn't in his favor to begin with (the GOP would've demanded someone's head, at least), but lying helps nothing and doesn't change the fact that he broke the law.

Apart from the lie, which law did he break that the lie did not change?

It depends on if you went on for a couple of hours before hand about how good the cookies were. Were you lying? Not sure but you are still getting a punch to the face.

Fair enough. But I wasn't lying. :)

Apart from the lie, which law did he break that the lie did not change?

Without getting into the nastiness that is sure to abound from the mere mention of Vince Foster (poor chum, though I'm willing to admit that's a stretch) or how US District Judge Royce Lamberth decreed that Clinton broke the privacy act over the whole Kathleen Willey thing, I'll give you this: "Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing," (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury))

Bear in mind: it's 5:30AM where I live. If I disappear on you, it's not because I'm avoiding an answer; it's because I fell asleep at my computer. Again.

An obvious conspiracy against the Democrats with the dastardly purpose of ....errr...what was the purpose of the conspiracy again? Besides making Fox look inept? Anyway is is a dastardly conspiracy of misinfiormation by Fox specifically to hurt Democrats and it must be exposed for what it is and stopped before more harm is done!

An obvious conspiracy against the Democrats with the dastardly purpose of ....errr...what was the purpose of the conspiracy again? Besides making Fox look inept? Anyway is is a dastardly conspiracy of misinfiormation by Fox specifically to hurt Democrats and it must be exposed for what it is and stopped before more harm is done!

Here's your options on this thing. Either Fox is deliberately flipping the parties--for what reason I won't even try to speculate--or they've got inept people working on their national broadcasts (which is unlikely at best). So they're either liars or incompetent. Your choice. What's it going to be?

Here's your options on this thing. Either Fox is deliberately flipping the parties--for what reason I won't even try to speculate--or they've got inept people working on their national broadcasts (which is unlikely at best). So they're either liars or incompetent. Your choice. What's it going to be?
There is a third option:
They're so far into a state of denial over the impending loss for GOP that they're unconsciously changing things.
"Senator fiddling kiddies!"
Fox: "Oh god, no! But..but..but...it can't be a family values gopper that we've been championing! He must be...must be...a Liberal. yes, yes, that's it! He's really a dem!"
"GOP losing seat by a huge a margin"
Fox: "But...but...but...that can't be right! GOP always wins, nobody likes Liberals! We said so. We told them this. It must be....must be...they switched sides! yes, yes, that's it! People support him cause they think he's GOP!"
and so on.

With the chyron machine, that is. I mean, last week when they changed Mark Foley to a Democrat on the O'Reilly show, and then twice again on other shows, many put it down as an accident. But this is getting ridiculous.

http://aycu19.webshots.com/image/4378/2001551296293851628_rs.jpg

For those of you not in the know, Lincoln Chaffee is the incumbent Republican. There are a lot of folks who call him a RINO (Republican in name only) and they have an argument for that, though when the votes are close, he caves in on his principles and does what the party requires.

On the plus side, it looks like Whitehouse is kicking some major ass, and if the Democrats are going to take the Senate, this is one of those seats they have to win.

People who watch Faux News aren't interested in actual information anyway, so it doesn't hurt anything if they lie in every broadcast.

People who watch Faux News aren't interested in actual information anyway, so it doesn't hurt anything if they lie in every broadcast.
Indeed, it's probably one of their mission statements.

An obvious conspiracy against the Democrats with the dastardly purpose of ....errr...what was the purpose of the conspiracy again? Besides making Fox look inept? Anyway is is a dastardly conspiracy of misinfiormation by Fox specifically to hurt Democrats and it must be exposed for what it is and stopped before more harm is done!

A conspiracy theory … about a clear to read network broadcast? Hardly a secret that they either fucked up

Multiple times

On different shows

Almost a week after the first incident … you would figure that they would have “warned” their staff to never do it again after the outcry from the last time around. Guess not.

Or..maybe whomever's in charge of writing that made what's known as, quote, "less science-like and such" in the political world and, again I quote, "a whoopsie." I wouldn't call flopping the R and D a lie. That's a mistake. I'd be willing to bet a lot of news formats do it and it doesn't set off claxons because there aren't a slew of people combing over them with eagle eyes, hot on the look out for a mistake/misprint/misrepresentation/distortion/and, yes, a lie. All news services, whether they be televised, in print, or over the radio, lie. Get used to it, folks. Instead of being so childishly partisan about it...

Note: I'm not a Republican and I don't get up in arms when CNN lies. Though, I will admit, there are news f-up's that can't be tolerated by anyone (case in point: the "authentic" documents used by Dan Rather). That's just piss poor journalism standards.

And, yeah, most people are bad liars.

If it was once, twice, three times a lady I might give them the befit of the doubt. But to do it to two different people and 4 times in 4 days? Come on now! There's mistakes and then there's 4 times in 4 days. These are calculated efforts to undermine the correct disemination of information. Confuse and slander is the refuge of the scoundrel and actually the official paryt platform of Bush R's. I am an R, but certainly not a Bush-R.

Congrats for being the first in a while to concede that (as far as I can recall). I guess, y'know, I just figure that the most powerful person in the world--elected by and for the people--should be held accountable for a crime that would put you or I in jail.


Clinton lied about a BJ, Bush lies about his reasons for going to war. Which is the greater crime.?For God's sake... They tried for years to get something, anything, please oh please can we find something to nail him on...and got nothing. If consentual sex between two adults bothers you so much go hang around Mark Foley. I'll never understand the rabid preoccupation with his penis. Was he wrong, yes! Was it something that could ignite a powder keg of hatred towards our country, NO!!!! How'd that impeachment go anyway? NOWHERE! :headbang:

As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court ruled fairly recently that it is unconstitutional to try and illegalize blowjobs between consenting adults.

As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court ruled fairly recently that it is unconstitutional to try and illegalize blowjobs between consenting adults.


Hey they got something right...but then again they gey everything "Right".

20 minutes? What are you, Wonder Woman? I can't take 20 seconds of that cigar-sucking, bloviating jackass.

its a special circumstance. i only listen to rush when im in the car driving the husband to the airport (it takes an hour to get there). the husband loves to turn the radio to rush limbaugh, probably just so he can make me rant. its a matter of pride (survival) to last as long as i can before i start to rant about how stupid whatever he is saying is. then i rant for the rest of the drive, on and off since there are lots of ads.

rush used to amuse me now and then. 10 years ago or so. he would make up silly song mocking democrats (especially ted kennedy) that were funny. now he just plays obscure sound clips of the more extreme members of the party (or those who can be made to sound extreme by the right choice of what to clip) and pretends that every democrat or liberal supports the speaker.

the rest is mostly rallying his listeners to believe that all is OK in the world and making strawman arguments against pretend liberals.

Congrats for being the first in a while to concede that (as far as I can recall). I guess, y'know, I just figure that the most powerful person in the world--elected by and for the people--should be held accountable for a crime that would put you or I in jail.

if you were in court being asked about a land scheme you were involved in, were suddenly asked a totally irrelevant question about getting a blow job, and you lied (or prevaricated) about it, you wouldnt be charged with anything nor would you go to jail for it.

perjury is lying about things relevant to the case. prosecutors arent allowed to ask you about personal things that have no connection to the case at hand.

if you were in court being asked about a land scheme you were involved in, were suddenly asked a totally irrelevant question about getting a blow job, and you lied (or prevaricated) about it, you wouldnt be charged with anything nor would you go to jail for it.

perjury is lying about things relevant to the case. prosecutors arent allowed to ask you about personal things that have no connection to the case at hand.
And in Clinton's case, it was at best a civil matter that was stretched into a criminal one by a prosecutor with an axe to grind. Few people remember that Ray, the original prosecutor looking into Whitewater, had said he was done and had found no wrongdoing. Starr was sent to replace him because the people driving the investigation didn't want to hear that. Starr was sent to find out anything he could, and the best he came back with was Lewinski.

There is a third option:
They're so far into a state of denial over the impending loss for GOP that they're unconsciously changing things.
"Senator fiddling kiddies!"
Fox: "Oh god, no! But..but..but...it can't be a family values gopper that we've been championing! He must be...must be...a Liberal. yes, yes, that's it! He's really a dem!"
"GOP losing seat by a huge a margin"
Fox: "But...but...but...that can't be right! GOP always wins, nobody likes Liberals! We said so. We told them this. It must be....must be...they switched sides! yes, yes, that's it! People support him cause they think he's GOP!"
and so on.

The idea of this being one huge cognitave dissonance is both oddly humourous and worisomely plausable.

And in Clinton's case, it was at best a civil matter that was stretched into a criminal one by a prosecutor with an axe to grind. Few people remember that Ray, the original prosecutor looking into Whitewater, had said he was done and had found no wrongdoing. Starr was sent to replace him because the people driving the investigation didn't want to hear that. Starr was sent to find out anything he could, and the best he came back with was Lewinski.

50 years from now, it wont be clinton who is the villian of this story.

it was a pathetic attempt to remove a popular president from power. we paid a high price for republican hate of clinton.

50 years from now, it wont be clinton who is the villian of this story.

it was a pathetic attempt to remove a popular president from power. we paid a high price for republican hate of clinton.If the Republican party hadn't lost its collective mind, Clinton would unquestionably be the best known President of this era. Instead, the history books will be focused on the idiot son of an asshole, King George the Lesser, and the tremendous mess he made the world into.

If the Republican party hadn't lost its collective mind, Clinton would unquestionably be the best known President of this era. Instead, the history books will be focused on the idiot son of an asshole, King George the Lesser, and the tremendous mess he made the world into.


Two of Clintons biggest successes, Welfare Reform and Balancing the Budget, were products of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America". The two may not have liked one another but they actually got things done. You can't mention Clintons successes without mentioning the Republican Congress of that era.

The Republicans of today have strayed far from what they were in the '90s though.

And I would not be so tough on Bush. Alot of the rhetoric i hear out Bush sounds very similar to what i heard about Clinton when he was President. Bush has been president in much more trying times so history will not be able to judge him for quite some time. Bush's main problem as far as I see it is not his vision but the incompetent people he puts in charge of executing his policies and his standing by them even when they are failing.

Two of Clintons biggest successes, Welfare Reform and Balancing the Budget, were products of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America". The two may not have liked one another but they actually got things done. You can't mention Clintons successes without mentioning the Republican Congress of that era.

The Republicans of today have strayed far from what they were in the '90s though.

And I would not be so tough on Bush. Alot of the rhetoric i hear out Bush sounds very similar to what i heard about Clinton when he was President. Bush has been president in much more trying times so history will not be able to judge him for quite some time. Bush's main problem as far as I see it is not his vision but the incompetent people he puts in charge of executing his policies and his standing by them even when they are failing.
So if our leader is not capable of organizing things to be competently done what USE is he in any practical sense?

That’s like saying he is a good cop but has problems working handcuffs …

Two of Clintons biggest successes, Welfare Reform and Balancing the Budget, were products of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America". The two may not have liked one another but they actually got things done. You can't mention Clintons successes without mentioning the Republican Congress of that era.

The Republicans of today have strayed far from what they were in the '90s though.

And I would not be so tough on Bush. Alot of the rhetoric i hear out Bush sounds very similar to what i heard about Clinton when he was President. Bush has been president in much more trying times so history will not be able to judge him for quite some time. Bush's main problem as far as I see it is not his vision but the incompetent people he puts in charge of executing his policies and his standing by them even when they are failing.


Dude you are way too sane...

Starr was a monster and the republicans IMO are just getting Karma ....but Clinton...even if he is THE guy...did lie he commited perjury and thats a FACT. So they kinda had a point ...all the dude had to DO ...was stand up and SAY


"YES I DID HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMEN ...BEST BLOW JOB I HAD IN YEARS "...now go away you pervs and get your own interns...

BUT HE FUCKING LIED UNDER OATH ...Perjury even by a cool dude who is President is a criminal act...

Even if its in a civil action...its even WORSE when its the fucking President...


OK time to sing the evil Bush songs again...

So if our leader is not capable of organizing things to be competently done what USE is he in any practical sense?

That’s like saying he is a good cop but has problems working handcuffs …


well we're stuck with him for another 2 years, so what do you want me to say? I think he could be much better and I agree with alot of his principles, but some serious errors have been made. However, there is nothing I can do about it but hope for the best over the next 2 years.

Also, I do not see just the negative. Unemployment is way down, the Stock Market is Booming, Wages are finally starting to go up, there has not been another terror attack since 9-11 on U.S. Soil, Afghanistan is relatively stable and the tax cuts are working.

And Canada, Germany and Mexico have recently elected America-friendly leaders. Even France has a chance, though a small one, of electing a guy who does not hate America. These are promising developments.

Two of Clintons biggest successes, Welfare Reform and Balancing the Budget, were products of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America". The two may not have liked one another but they actually got things done. You can't mention Clintons successes without mentioning the Republican Congress of that era.

The Republicans of today have strayed far from what they were in the '90s though.

which is why clinton was a brillian president. instead of doing what most democrats would do--just fight republican policies, he worked with them to pass rational versions of their most cherished political plans--wefare reform and balancing the budget. who else would have done that? obviously NOT a republican president with a republican congress

the republican party has strayed from what it was because it is drunk with power. in the past they were the voice of reason in a sea of democratic power. now that they ARE the power, they do as they please with no way to stop them.


And I would not be so tough on Bush. Alot of the rhetoric i hear out Bush sounds very similar to what i heard about Clinton when he was President. Bush has been president in much more trying times so history will not be able to judge him for quite some time. Bush's main problem as far as I see it is not his vision but the incompetent people he puts in charge of executing his policies and his standing by them even when they are failing.


bush's failure is to stay loyal to people and ideas long after they have been shown to be wrong. its not a sign of good character to keep incompetent people in power.

Dude you are way too sane...

Starr was a monster and the republicans IMO are just getting Karma ....but Clinton...even if he is THE guy...did lie he commited perjury and thats a FACT. So they kinda had a point ...all the dude had to DO ...was stand up and SAY


"YES I DID HAVE SEX WITH THAT WOMEN ...BEST BLOW JOB I HAD IN YEARS "...now go away you pervs and get your own interns...

BUT HE FUCKING LIED UNDER OATH ...Perjury even by a cool dude who is President is a criminal act...

Even if its in a civil action...its even WORSE when its the fucking President...


OK time to sing the evil Bush songs again...

Without getting into the nastiness that is sure to abound from the mere mention of Vince Foster (poor chum, though I'm willing to admit that's a stretch) or how US District Judge Royce Lamberth decreed that Clinton broke the privacy act over the whole Kathleen Willey thing, I'll give you this: "Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing," (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury))
bolding added


what part of "material matter" dont you understand? lying about getting a perfectly legal blowjob has no relevance to an inquiry into a failed land deal in arkansas. all ken star did was to trap a man in a lie about something he reallllly didnt want his wife to know.

if i was going to have to face hillary, id have lied too.

which is why clinton was a brillian president. instead of doing what most democrats would do--just fight republican policies, he worked with them to pass rational versions of their most cherished political plans--wefare reform and balancing the budget. who else would have done that? obviously NOT a republican president with a republican congress

the republican party has strayed from what it was because it is drunk with power. in the past they were the voice of reason in a sea of democratic power. now that they ARE the power, they do as they please with no way to stop them.


bush's failure is to stay loyal to people and ideas long after they have been shown to be wrong. its not a sign of good character to keep incompetent people in power.


Well, we essentially agree here. The only difference in our point of view would be on Clinton. I do credit him with working with Congress in the end, but he resisted fiercely until early in the '96 election when polls showed Welfare Reform and fiscal responsibility were heavily favored among the public. These polls showed the same 2 results years earlier, but it took an election to finally sign these initial reforms into law. After the proven success of these reforms, then Clinton and the Congress cooperated much more. And Dole lost his two biggest campaign issues.

In a sense, the best thing that ever happened to Bill Clinton was Newt Gingrich and the best thing to happen to Newt Gingrich was Bill Clinton. The two fed off each other. Before this relationship, the Republicans were seen as the angry white mans party and Clinton's presidency was known for "don't ask, don't tell" and "hillary care", with his poll numbers dropping.

Two of Clintons biggest successes, Welfare Reform and Balancing the Budget, were products of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America". The two may not have liked one another but they actually got things done. You can't mention Clintons successes without mentioning the Republican Congress of that era.

The Republicans of today have strayed far from what they were in the '90s though.
I believe history will judge them on that, in the end.

It's a sort of political control experiment. You watch what happens when each party is in control of what.

Frankly, the move to a balanced budget was led by the Democratic 103rd Congress in Clinton's first two years in office, when the Democrats performed the unpopular but necessary move of hiking taxes and cutting spending. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993) The many successes of the Clinton era began with a Democratic congress, and continued through three successive Republican congresses in spite of - or perhaps even because of - increasingly bitter conflict between the legislative and executive branch.

When that same Republican congress - largely the very same people that served in the Clinton era, check the length of time they've been in office and the turnover rate for incumbents - had a Republican president to work with, things fell apart.

For this reason, I think that historians of decades in the future will largely remember Clinton as a good president who presided over a golden decade.

I believe history will judge them on that, in the end.

It's a sort of political control experiment. You watch what happens when each party is in control of what.

Frankly, the move to a balanced budget was led by the Democratic 103rd Congress in Clinton's first two years in office, when the Democrats performed the unpopular but necessary move of hiking taxes and cutting spending. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993) The many successes of the Clinton era began with a Democratic congress, and continued through three successive Republican congresses in spite of - or perhaps even because of - increasingly bitter conflict between the legislative and executive branch.

When that same Republican congress - largely the very same people that served in the Clinton era, check the length of time they've been in office and the turnover rate for incumbents - had a Republican president to work with, things fell apart.

For this reason, I think that historians of decades in the future will largely remember Clinton as a good president who presided over a golden decade.

Alot of the Republicans elected in '94 set term limits on themselves though. I am not sure how many actually stayed true to their limits, but I do know quite a few of them left after 6-8 years of being in office. Plus, the leadership has changed and there has been a shift from "conservative principles" to "Republican survival". The problem is the Democrats have this same "party first" mentality and nothing will change if they take over the house. this could be a very rocky next couple of years no matter who holds power. :(

Alot of the Republicans elected in '94 set term limits on themselves though. I am not sure how many actually stayed true to their limits, but I do know quite a few of them left after 6-8 years of being in office. Plus, the leadership has changed and there has been a shift from "conservative principles" to "Republican survival". The problem is the Democrats have this same "party first" mentality and nothing will change if they take over the house. this could be a very rocky next couple of years no matter who holds power. :(
I can't recall many that did actually retire after 6-8 years. I do see lots of cases (http://www.overlawyered.com/2006/07/congressman_sued_for_breaking.html) in which they didn't and their opponents have called them on it. Many of today's leading party members were elected for the first time in 1994.

I suppose this may just be a case of power corrupting, as I believe you more or less suggest. Perhaps I am too cynical.

Well, Rhode Island is one of those places where the Republicans are significantly outnumbered, so that's unlikely to have a big effect. Chaffee has been Senator largely on the family name--his dad was a big RI politician for years.

It could have the opposite effect, actually--voters who would vote Democratic might get confused and think Chaffee switched parties or something.

Voters who "would vote Democrat" probably aren't watching FOX.

With the chyron machine, that is. I mean, last week when they changed Mark Foley to a Democrat on the O'Reilly show, and then twice again on other shows, many put it down as an accident. But this is getting ridiculous.

http://aycu19.webshots.com/image/4378/2001551296293851628_rs.jpg

For those of you not in the know, Lincoln Chaffee is the incumbent Republican. There are a lot of folks who call him a RINO (Republican in name only) and they have an argument for that, though when the votes are close, he caves in on his principles and does what the party requires.

On the plus side, it looks like Whitehouse is kicking some major ass, and if the Democrats are going to take the Senate, this is one of those seats they have to win.


You watch Fox News Nazz? You know if you're critical of it you can always turn the channel.

I can't recall many that did actually retire after 6-8 years. I do see lots of cases (http://www.overlawyered.com/2006/07/congressman_sued_for_breaking.html) in which they didn't and their opponents have called them on it. Many of today's leading party members were elected for the first time in 1994.

I suppose this may just be a case of power corrupting, as I believe you more or less suggest. Perhaps I am too cynical.

don't you wish we could reboot the congress...like a freezing or buggy computer?

Voters who "would vote Democrat" probably aren't watching FOX.
I do. I do it for entertainment, mostly, but also to "know my enemy" so to speak.

I've found that you can almost always figure out exactly what laws the conservatives are breaking by listening to what they accuse "libruls" of doing. If they accuse liberals of being soft on crime, they're probably involved in illegal business dealings and gambling rings. If they accuse liberals of being sexually immoral, they're probably cheating on their wives and molesting little kids. If they accuse liberals of being a bunch of limp-wristed sissies, they're almost definitely a bunch of closet-cases who use legislative gay-bashing to compensate for their own self-loathing. If they say liberals are "soft on terror," you can bet they're supressing yet another report of how they're fucking up on national defense and security.

I do. I do it for entertainment, mostly, but also to "know my enemy" so to speak.

I've found that you can almost always figure out exactly what laws the conservatives are breaking by listening to what they accuse "libruls" of doing. If they accuse liberals of being soft on crime, they're probably involved in illegal business dealings and gambling rings. If they accuse liberals of being sexually immoral, they're probably cheating on their wives and molesting little kids. If they accuse liberals of being a bunch of limp-wristed sissies, they're almost definitely a bunch of closet-cases who use legislative gay-bashing to compensate for their own self-loathing. If they say liberals are "soft on terror," you can bet they're supressing yet another report of how they're fucking up on national defense and security.

This is funny because I've always heard the exact same thing mentioned by conservatives concerning what liberals say. The U.S. is surely as divided about politics now as ever. I disagree with the premise in this statement though that FoxNews is like the voice of conservativism. I'm more conservative than not and I get so mad when I watch FoxNews sometimes because I see alot of the same crap I see on other network news.

How about we just do away with political parties?

Just vote for whatever indiviudal you think will do the best.

I don't know why we debate on something like politics no one is going to change their opinion.

I do. I do it for entertainment, mostly, but also to "know my enemy" so to speak.

I've found that you can almost always figure out exactly what laws the conservatives are breaking by listening to what they accuse "libruls" of doing. If they accuse liberals of being soft on crime, they're probably involved in illegal business dealings and gambling rings. If they accuse liberals of being sexually immoral, they're probably cheating on their wives and molesting little kids. If they accuse liberals of being a bunch of limp-wristed sissies, they're almost definitely a bunch of closet-cases who use legislative gay-bashing to compensate for their own self-loathing. If they say liberals are "soft on terror," you can bet they're supressing yet another report of how they're fucking up on national defense and security.

Kind of like how when a liberal calls a conservative a racist, yet turns around and calls a black republican an "uncle tom" an "imbecile", a "******" or some other sort of racial epithet and attack jews in Israel as "zionist oppressors". Or when they demand their right to free speech be protected, but go ahead and shout down or rush a stage to silence a conservative speaker. Or when they claim to stand for human rights, but remain eerily silent when it comes to the subjugation of women in Islamic countries. Or how Michael Moore and many other liberals own stock and profit heavily from the oil and war industries. Or how Nancy Pelosi accepts the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Unions but only uses non-UFW workers on her Napa Valley Vineyard...

hypocrisy all around. Everywhere you look. I will admit though, what you said was pretty witty and could of been on the Daily Show or some other political satire.

And I would not be so tough on Bush. Alot of the rhetoric i hear out Bush sounds very similar to what i heard about Clinton when he was President. Bush has been president in much more trying times so history will not be able to judge him for quite some time. Bush's main problem as far as I see it is not his vision but the incompetent people he puts in charge of executing his policies and his standing by them even when they are failing.

Sorry, but that's crap. You never would have heard the words "axis of evil" or "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" come out of Clinton's mouth, and with good reason--Clinton's not stupid. And another thing--if Clinton had put someone incompetent in charge of something (unlikely, but if), he certainly wouldn't have kept that person in charge when it became clear he or she was incompetent. Bush's loyalty is one of his worst traits, in my opinion, because it shows his unwillingness to address real problems.

How long until Fox has George W. Bush (D) Texas?

You watch Fox News Nazz? You know if you're critical of it you can always turn the channel.
Actually, I don't watch any tv news--but I read a lot about the news media. That's why I'm up on this stuff.

this however might actually help the dems for all the fox news watchers who go "must...vote...republican!" and vote for the wrong guy.

Reminiscent of teh Florida ballot where, because of the placing of the names on the baloot, people thought they were voting for Gore but were accidentally voting for Nader. This would be payback in kind.

Reminiscent of teh Florida ballot where, because of the placing of the names on the baloot, people thought they were voting for Gore but were accidentally voting for Nader. This would be payback in kind.

People from my hometown in Michigan got fucked up ballots in 2004, but it really did seem to be an honest mistake and it was only sent to a couple of dozen people.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/juliandrago/Livejournal%20Random/ballot2.jpg

Sorry, but that's crap. You never would have heard the words "axis of evil" or "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" come out of Clinton's mouth, and with good reason--Clinton's not stupid. And another thing--if Clinton had put someone incompetent in charge of something (unlikely, but if), he certainly wouldn't have kept that person in charge when it became clear he or she was incompetent. Bush's loyalty is one of his worst traits, in my opinion, because it shows his unwillingness to address real problems.


Reagan used the term "Evil Empire" and was mocked for it at the time. Now he is lauded for his boldness. When Bush mentioned the "Axis of Evil" he was absolutely right to do so and nailed the countries we should watch out for, such as Iran and North Korea who are now proving themselves as true threats. To be honest, as I see it, words such as this not coming out of Clintons mouth is a sign of weakness to me. FDR, Truman, JFK and Reagan proved that you should not handle your enemies or threats to the country with velvet gloves if you want to be taken seriously.

and yes, Bush's loyalty is a major handicap to his presidency, he needs to learn to bend a little even to political and media pressure, or else he will break.

Reminiscent of teh Florida ballot where, because of the placing of the names on the baloot, people thought they were voting for Gore but were accidentally voting for Nader. This would be payback in kind.

That was Bush's fault also. He controls the outcomes of elections as well as clearly evidenced by Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004. Powerful man he is.

Reminiscent of teh Florida ballot where, because of the placing of the names on the baloot, people thought they were voting for Gore but were accidentally voting for Nader. This would be payback in kind.

Actually, they thought they were voting Reform, I think.

Reminiscent of teh Florida ballot where, because of the placing of the names on the baloot, people thought they were voting for Gore but were accidentally voting for Nader. This would be payback in kind.


actually, it was Buchanan they were accidentally voting for. The thing is, the Butterfly ballot was designed and approved by the Florida State Democrats.

Reagan used the term "Evil Empire" and was mocked for it at the time. Now he is lauded for his boldness. When Bush mentioned the "Axis of Evil" he was absolutely right to do so and nailed the countries we should watch out for, such as Iran and North Korea who are now proving themselves as true threats. To be honest, as I see it, words such as this not coming out of Clintons mouth is a sign of weakness to me. FDR, Truman, JFK and Reagan proved that you should not handle your enemies or threats to the country with velvet gloves if you want to be taken seriously.

and yes, Bush's loyalty is a major handicap to his presidency, he needs to learn to bend a little even to political and media pressure, or else he will break.

You don't really need a catch phrase to figure out that North Korea is freaking bat country.

You don't really need a catch phrase to figure out that North Korea is freaking bat country.


actually you do need a catch phrase because most Americans probably didn't even know there was a difference between North and South Korea.

actually you do need a catch phrase because most Americans probably didn't even know there was a difference between North and South Korea.

They're the same country, right? I know, it's sad that not alot of Americans know much about the world.

They're the same country, right? I know, it's sad that not alot of Americans know much about the world.

One would think after watching 50,000 hours of MASH Americans would atleast know about Korea. In a completely stereotyped 30 year old fashion.

One would think after watching 50,000 hours of MASH Americans would atleast know about Korea. In a completely stereotyped 30 year old fashion.

Well, Hyundais and Kias are becoming more popular. So perhaps through materialism the American public will be more educated on this topic.

Reagan used the term "Evil Empire" and was mocked for it at the time. Now he is lauded for his boldness. When Bush mentioned the "Axis of Evil" he was absolutely right to do so and nailed the countries we should watch out for, such as Iran and North Korea who are now proving themselves as true threats. To be honest, as I see it, words such as this not coming out of Clintons mouth is a sign of weakness to me. FDR, Truman, JFK and Reagan proved that you should not handle your enemies or threats to the country with velvet gloves if you want to be taken seriously.

and yes, Bush's loyalty is a major handicap to his presidency, he needs to learn to bend a little even to political and media pressure, or else he will break.

You notice that Reagan never refused to talk to his enemies? He sat at the table with them all the time and had regular phone contact with them.

Reagan used the term "Evil Empire" and was mocked for it at the time. Now he is lauded for his boldness.
Not particularly. His rhetoric is as mockable now as it was then; it hasn't become any more realistic. It was rhetoric, plain and simple.
When Bush mentioned the "Axis of Evil" he was absolutely right to do so and nailed the countries we should watch out for, such as Iran and North Korea who are now proving themselves as true threats. To be honest, as I see it, words such as this not coming out of Clintons mouth is a sign of weakness to me. FDR, Truman, JFK and Reagan proved that you should not handle your enemies or threats to the country with velvet gloves if you want to be taken seriously.

and yes, Bush's loyalty is a major handicap to his presidency, he needs to learn to bend a little even to political and media pressure, or else he will break.
Now, when Bush labeled a three country "Axis of Evil," he marked Iraq - which, as we now know, had no plans to attack the US, just plans for a much-hyped war with Iran. He marked Iran and North Korea, and subsequently proceeded to antagonize both of them as much as possible. Neither of those two countries is liable to attack the US in the near future. They aren't "proving themselves as true threats." They are being hyped as threats, much as Iraq was; the only way either one is likely to mount an attack on the US is as a result of being attacked by the US.

Reagan used the term "Evil Empire" and was mocked for it at the time. Now he is lauded for his boldness.
Lauded by the right. In fact, lauded isn't even the right word--lionized, worshiped even. But that didn't make it any mroe accurate, and it didn't hasten the inevitable fall of the Soviet Union either.

When Bush mentioned the "Axis of Evil" he was absolutely right to do so and nailed the countries we should watch out for, such as Iran and North Korea who are now proving themselves as true threats. To be honest, as I see it, words such as this not coming out of Clintons mouth is a sign of weakness to me. FDR, Truman, JFK and Reagan proved that you should not handle your enemies or threats to the country with velvet gloves if you want to be taken seriously.He was an idiot then, and he's an idiot now. Iran is not a threat to the national security of the US, and won't be even if they get nukes. There is no country that could threaten the actual security of the US right now, not even China (though that may change in the near term), and certainly neither Iran nor North Korea could do more than aggravate us, even if they threw everything they had at us. You've bought into the bogus threats that the Bush administration have been spouting ever since 9/11.

FDR and Truman and JFK faced real threats--JFK faced the biggest threat of all in the prospect of nuclear war, and he certainly didn't play the saber-rattling game. No, when he was faced with a choice of taking Kruschev on and giving him a diplomatic out, he went with the diplomacy, and probably saved all of us as a result. Reagan faced no such threat--he faced a dwindling empire that was rotten at its core, and when he got his nose bloodied in Lebanon in 1983, he turned and ran and started trading arms for hostages in Iran to get help for his death squads in Latin America. Reagan doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the other three.

And Bush couldn't carry Reagan's jock.

and yes, Bush's loyalty is a major handicap to his presidency, he needs to learn to bend a little even to political and media pressure, or else he will break.
You might as well ask for a flying unicorn, because you're as likely to get that as you are to get Bush to bend on anything.

What kind of stuff does that guy say, anyway?

Also: I retract my Reuters comment. Had no idea it was a freelancer. My apologies.

Rush Limbaugh is a bullshit factory in pants. He's a tool of the extreme right and does nothing but spout Republican Party talking points in the most inflammatory, jingoistic language possible. Screaming-heads like him make the Party's politicians seem moderate by comparison.

Limbaugh is most recently famous for spending years carrying on at length about how drug addicts are all heinous criminals and that there should be zero tolerance for any level of addiction and all addicts should be sent to prison for life without chance of parole, no matter what their excuse may be, because they are all immoral pieces of crap. These were the same years he himself was addicted to prescription painkillers, which he took in vast quantities and obtained by illegal means including "doctor shopping" and buying from blackmarket dealers. I enjoyed it when that little hypocrisy got exposed.

Congrats for being the first in a while to concede that (as far as I can recall). I guess, y'know, I just figure that the most powerful person in the world--elected by and for the people--should be held accountable for a crime that would put you or I in jail.

You should try recalling a little bit further and wider. The broadcast media are full of Dems and liberals who state clearly that Clinton did wrong. So is this forum. What we argue is that (A) his wrongs were not as bad as Bush's wrongs, (B) his wrongs did not cause Bush's wrongs, and (C) his wrongs do not excuse Bush's wrongs. We argue this when rightwingers try to argue the opposite. But I have never heard anyone say that Clinton did not do what he did.

Here's your options on this thing. Either Fox is deliberately flipping the parties--for what reason I won't even try to speculate--or they've got inept people working on their national broadcasts (which is unlikely at best). So they're either liars or incompetent. Your choice. What's it going to be?

They could also be incompetent liars, couldn't they?

(A) his wrongs were not as bad as Bush's wrongs,

You get the Noble prize for the biggest understatement of the year.

Originally Posted by Ashmoria
50 years from now, it wont be clinton who is the villian of this story.

it was a pathetic attempt to remove a popular president from power. we paid a high price for republican hate of clinton.
If the Republican party hadn't lost its collective mind, Clinton would unquestionably be the best known President of this era. Instead, the history books will be focused on the idiot son of an asshole, King George the Lesser, and the tremendous mess he made the world into.

Truer words have never been spoken on the subject. Bush had the nerve to say the war in Iraq will someday only be a comma in history. He is wrong. Clinton will be reduced to the mere comma before the chapter upon chapter of wars, destabilization, terrorism, death and fear that Bush has launched for us with his idiotic policies.

How long until Fox has George W. Bush (D) Texas?

His numbers have go a bit lower for that to happen, I think. :D

You get the Noble prize for the biggest understatement of the year.

Thank you! :)

I always believed I'd win it someday, for something.

You get the Noble prize for the biggest understatement of the year.
Thank you! :)

I always believed I'd win it someday, for something.
So who gets the IgNobel Prize (http://www.improb.com/ig-pastwinners.html#ig2006) for overstatement of the year? Dubya?

So who gets the IgNobel Prize (http://www.improb.com/ig-pastwinners.html#ig2006) for overstatement of the year? Dubya?
A team win, I think, for his whole cabinet.

Most historians, independants and moderate Democrats praise Reagan as a good leader and a strong President. Only a partisan liberal will completely dismiss Reagan's presidency and not admire his boldness to use the phrase "evil empire" and to demand Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". Reagan is ionized not by just conservatives but also the former Soviet block nations whom credit him with their liberation. Only a minority of people who could find no good in a Republican or a Conservative will refuse to recognize Reagan as a great President. FDR's New Deal did not work, but he is considered a great president. JFK screwed up big time with the bay of pigs and was not seen as a strong leader by the soviets, but he is considered a great president. Reagan may have had his mishaps as well, but he is still considered a great president. All three were great leaders and gave hope to the country. Reagan should not be siingled out simply because he was a conservative Republican. Forget about the petty politics.

And there is absolutely no way in hell America should just allow Iran or N. Korea to develop nuclear weapons. First of all, Bush did not antagonize N. Korea in any way. In fact, Bush kept the status quo from the Clinton administration where we were giving them economic incentives NOT to enrich uranium but they ignored their own promise and sought to develop a nuclear weapon in secret and in violation of the treaty they signed. N. Korea can not be blamed on Bush, that is absurd. The one who should be blamed is the truly crazy dictator in charge of that country. Also, there is no way N. Korea is being "hyped" as a threat. If anything, they were being downplayed. The truth is North Korea can not be hyped enough as a threat. If they start showcasing working nuclear weapons then Japan will develop their own in response, followed soon after by South Korea. Taiwan will also most likely join in the nuclear race which will seriously aggravate China. India will ready its nuclear arsenal since it is near the area and in response Pakistan will ready theirs. The whole world could be in serious jeopardy. North Korea having nuclear weapons is the work of a mad man, not Bush, and is a very real threat that even the early Clinton administration saw.

Then there is Iran. Military Generals have long been saying that it is Iran who is meddling in Iraqi affairs and aiding the insurgency. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that he wishes to see Israel destroyed, an ally America has sworn to protect. Iran developing nuclear weapons would be an absolute and immediate threat. Ahmadinejad's quest for nuclear weapons has nothing to do with Bush, it is an attempt to ignite national pride among his population to combat dissent and to threaten Israel. Israel will respond militarily if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, they have to, just like they did in the 1980s against Iraq. Iran IS a threat. North Korea IS a threat. They can not be ignored and it is NOT Bush's fault, these threats have always existed and have slowly been working towards their goals all along.

Now please excuse my language, but put aside the damn politics.

Clinton lied about a BJ, Bush lies about his reasons for going to war. Which is the greater crime.?For God's sake... They tried for years to get something, anything, please oh please can we find something to nail him on...and got nothing. If consentual sex between two adults bothers you so much go hang around Mark Foley. I'll never understand the rabid preoccupation with his penis. Was he wrong, yes! Was it something that could ignite a powder keg of hatred towards our country, NO!!!! How'd that impeachment go anyway? NOWHERE! :headbang:

When is it going to enter your minds that it wasn't about the sex. I'm not interested in the fact that he got a hummer from an ugly intern. I'm interested in the fact that he LIED about it under oath. That's illegal. Since when does a crime get waived off as unimportant and meaningless if it's about something personal, like consensual sex?

50 years from now, it wont be clinton who is the villian of this story.

it was a pathetic attempt to remove a popular president from power. we paid a high price for republican hate of clinton.

Christ, I hope you're wrong. I don't know if I want to live to see that then.

Christ, I hope you're wrong. I don't know if I want to live to see that then.

Ashmoria is Christ!??! :eek:

So should I call myself an "Ashmorian," then? :p

Most historians, independants and moderate Democrats praise Reagan as a good leader and a strong President. Only a partisan liberal will completely dismiss Reagan's presidency and not admire his boldness to use the phrase "evil empire" and to demand Gorbachev to "tear down this wall".
Using the phrase "evil empire" is a completely different matter from demanding that Gorbachev "tear down this wall." The latter has been taken as an iconic phrase demanding the drop of the barrier between the First and Second worlds; the former was a simple rhetorical device used as part of a scare tactic.
Reagan is ionized not by just conservatives but also the former Soviet block nations whom credit him with their liberation.
"Liberation?" From what I have heard, the dismantling of the Soviet Union was viewed as a collaborative effort, undertaken from both sides. Some feel Reagan is given far too much credit (http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=16982) by conservative American historians. This is not, I have found, an unusual conclusion in the United States; many historians feel the Soviet Union would have ended with or without Reagan. He is, however - unlike the current standing president of the US - viewed well for the most part, here and abroad.
Only a minority of people who could find no good in a Republican or a Conservative will refuse to recognize Reagan as a great President. FDR's New Deal did not work, but he is considered a great president. JFK screwed up big time with the bay of pigs and was not seen as a strong leader by the soviets, but he is considered a great president. Reagan may have had his mishaps as well, but he is still considered a great president. All three were great leaders and gave hope to the country. Reagan should not be siingled out simply because he was a conservative Republican. Forget about the petty politics.
Reagan will not be singled out for being a conservative republican. He was - like Clinton - a highly popular two-term president who enjoyed success. Just as Clinton may be mocked for Lewinsky and lobbing cruise missiles at Bin Laden, Reagan may be mocked for his "evil empire" rhetoric and declaring ketchup to be a vegetable.
And there is absolutely no way in hell America should just allow Iran or N. Korea to develop nuclear weapons. First of all, Bush did not antagonize N. Korea in any way. In fact, Bush kept the status quo from the Clinton administration where we were giving them economic incentives NOT to enrich uranium but they ignored their own promise and sought to develop a nuclear weapon in secret and in violation of the treaty they signed. N. Korea can not be blamed on Bush, that is absurd. The one who should be blamed is the truly crazy dictator in charge of that country. Also, there is no way N. Korea is being "hyped" as a threat. If anything, they were being downplayed. The truth is North Korea can not be hyped enough as a threat. If they start showcasing working nuclear weapons then Japan will develop their own in response, followed soon after by South Korea. Taiwan will also most likely join in the nuclear race which will seriously aggravate China. India will ready its nuclear arsenal since it is near the area and in response Pakistan will ready theirs. The whole world could be in serious jeopardy. North Korea having nuclear weapons is the work of a mad man, not Bush, and is a very real threat that even the early Clinton administration saw.
North Korea has been claiming they have nuclear capability since early in the Bush adminstration.

As far as Bush antagonizing North Korea, I recommend you get in touch with the reality. Bush did not continue Clinton's policies. Clinton had length talks with North Korea; Bush has refused to open talks with North Korea. Several times North Korea issued threats that unless the US engaged in talks or signed an agreement not to invade North Korea, they would test a nuclear device.

The situation with North Korea is ongoing - but unlikely to escalate without Bush pushing it to.
Then there is Iran. Military Generals have long been saying that it is Iran who is meddling in Iraqi affairs and aiding the insurgency. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that he wishes to see Israel destroyed, an ally America has sworn to protect. Iran developing nuclear weapons would be an absolute and immediate threat. Ahmadinejad's quest for nuclear weapons has nothing to do with Bush, it is an attempt to ignite national pride among his population to combat dissent and to threaten Israel. Israel will respond militarily if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, they have to, just like they did in the 1980s against Iraq. Iran IS a threat. North Korea IS a threat. They can not be ignored and it is NOT Bush's fault, these threats have always existed and have slowly been working towards their goals all along.
Iran? Provide trouble for the unwanted US troops sitting right next to their western border? Not at all unlikely, but we shouldn't have wound up in Iraq in the first place... and Bush lumping the two together in one "Axis of Evil" implies that Iraq and Iran were working together. As we now know beyond any doubt, Iraq's military contingency plans primarily focused on a war with Iran.

Iran threatens only Israel - at most - just as North Korea threatens at most Japan. Neither country has ICBMs or a global network of nuclear submarines.

Israel has missile defenses and nukes of their own. In practical terms, Iran is no more likely than Israel to use a nuclear device unprovoked; pursuing nukes is more about political gains than about any urgent plans to nuke territory that Muslims have holy sites in.

Iran's quest for nuclear weapons, however, does have plenty to do with the perceived threat of an American invasion - a threat thoroughly grounded in Bush's rhetoric. The United States has not and is highly unlikely to invade a country with a nuclear arsenal (e.g., North Korea) because of the repercussions of being the nation to touch off a nuclear war.
Now please excuse my language, but put aside the damn politics.
Excuse me... but this thread is, IMO, about politics.

Most historians, independants and moderate Democrats praise Reagan as a good leader and a strong President. Only a partisan liberal will completely dismiss Reagan's presidency and not admire his boldness to use the phrase "evil empire" and to demand Gorbachev to "tear down this wall". Reagan is ionized not by just conservatives but also the former Soviet block nations whom credit him with their liberation. Only a minority of people who could find no good in a Republican or a Conservative will refuse to recognize Reagan as a great President. FDR's New Deal did not work, but he is considered a great president. JFK screwed up big time with the bay of pigs and was not seen as a strong leader by the soviets, but he is considered a great president. Reagan may have had his mishaps as well, but he is still considered a great president. All three were great leaders and gave hope to the country. Reagan should not be siingled out simply because he was a conservative Republican. Forget about the petty politics.

And there is absolutely no way in hell America should just allow Iran or N. Korea to develop nuclear weapons. First of all, Bush did not antagonize N. Korea in any way. In fact, Bush kept the status quo from the Clinton administration where we were giving them economic incentives NOT to enrich uranium but they ignored their own promise and sought to develop a nuclear weapon in secret and in violation of the treaty they signed. N. Korea can not be blamed on Bush, that is absurd. The one who should be blamed is the truly crazy dictator in charge of that country. Also, there is no way N. Korea is being "hyped" as a threat. If anything, they were being downplayed. The truth is North Korea can not be hyped enough as a threat. If they start showcasing working nuclear weapons then Japan will develop their own in response, followed soon after by South Korea. Taiwan will also most likely join in the nuclear race which will seriously aggravate China. India will ready its nuclear arsenal since it is near the area and in response Pakistan will ready theirs. The whole world could be in serious jeopardy. North Korea having nuclear weapons is the work of a mad man, not Bush, and is a very real threat that even the early Clinton administration saw.

Then there is Iran. Military Generals have long been saying that it is Iran who is meddling in Iraqi affairs and aiding the insurgency. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that he wishes to see Israel destroyed, an ally America has sworn to protect. Iran developing nuclear weapons would be an absolute and immediate threat. Ahmadinejad's quest for nuclear weapons has nothing to do with Bush, it is an attempt to ignite national pride among his population to combat dissent and to threaten Israel. Israel will respond militarily if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, they have to, just like they did in the 1980s against Iraq. Iran IS a threat. North Korea IS a threat. They can not be ignored and it is NOT Bush's fault, these threats have always existed and have slowly been working towards their goals all along.

Now please excuse my language, but put aside the damn politics.


Cant...first of all you are sane an well reasoned. Secondly you are posting at Nation States...

PUT aside politics ????

Too boring .

-Snip-
Thanks a lot Hairball... I spent 15 minutes to write my response, and you totally said the same things in half the time. You bastard!

Thanks a lot Hairball... I spent 15 minutes to write my response, and you totally said the same things in half the time. You bastard!

I agree. Of course, on the plus side, I didn't have to write all that stuff and give myself a temporary rise in blood pressure doing it, so that's a good thing.

Using the phrase "evil empire" is a completely different matter from demanding that Gorbachev "tear down this wall." The latter has been taken as an iconic phrase demanding the drop of the barrier between the First and Second worlds; the former was a simple rhetorical device used as part of a scare tactic.

I did not see it as a scare tactic, but the truth spoken out loud by a world leader for the first time. If anything it emboldened the American public and those in Europe to keep their resolve.

"Liberation?" From what I have heard, the dismantling of the Soviet Union was viewed as a collaborative effort, undertaken from both sides. Some feel Reagan is given far too much credit (http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=16982) by conservative American historians. This is not, I have found, an unusual conclusion in the United States; many historians feel the Soviet Union would have ended with or without Reagan. He is, however - unlike the current standing president of the US - viewed well for the most part, here and abroad.

It absolutely was a collaborative effort but Reagan was the spine or backbone of this effort. He is referred to as "The Great Liberator" in the former Soviet nations for a reason.

Reagan will not be singled out for being a conservative republican. He was - like Clinton - a highly popular two-term president who enjoyed success. Just as Clinton may be mocked for Lewinsky and lobbing cruise missiles at Bin Laden, Reagan may be mocked for his "evil empire" rhetoric and declaring ketchup to be a vegetable.

Reagan will have the stronger legacy than Clinton. His "it depends what the meaning of the word is, is..." statement beats out Reagans vegetable comment. Though the worst would have to be the first Bush's "Read my lips..." remark. That single line was his downfall.

North Korea has been claiming they have nuclear capability since early in the Bush adminstration.

Which means the Clinton policy of exhaustive negotiations and economic incentives failed. Clinton, to his credit, really tried to nip this problem at the bud; but talking to a mad man and giving him money was not the right course of action.

As far as Bush antagonizing North Korea, I recommend you get in touch with the reality. Bush did not continue Clinton's policies. Clinton had length talks with North Korea; Bush has refused to open talks with North Korea. Several times North Korea issued threats that unless the US engaged in talks or signed an agreement not to invade North Korea, they would test a nuclear device.

Why continue talks when promises were broken? Talks were nothing more than a stall tactic on North Koreas part. Bush wanted multilateral lateral talks (as many Democrats suggested he should have done with Iraq) so China could be included. Bilateral talks failed, North Korea broke their word and took this country's money. Why should Bush continue a failed policy? He was taking it to the next step...get China involved. North Korea initially agreed to these talks, and then agreed to postpone their nuclear program...but this was all a lie, same as before. John McCain made a speech today blasting Democrats who tried to spin the North Korea issue against Bush. McCain said bluntly that it was the Clinton policy that failed. McCain is not known to call out people in this manner. I hardly see how Bush can be blamed for this, especially when he wanted multilateral talks, exactly what opponents of the Iraq war demanded he do instead of taking a unilateral approach.

Now it seems North Korea has tested 2 nuclear missiles. China looks like they may finally get involved. Lets just hope Russia isn't too busy murdering reporters and decides to pressure North Korea as well.

The situation with North Korea is ongoing - but unlikely to escalate without Bush pushing it to.

The situation has escalated since the day Clinton made a deal with them. They can not be trusted. It is Kim Jun ill you should be scolding, not President Bush.

Iran? Provide trouble for the unwanted US troops sitting right next to their western border? Not at all unlikely, but we shouldn't have wound up in Iraq in the first place... and Bush lumping the two together in one "Axis of Evil" implies that Iraq and Iran were working together. As we now know beyond any doubt, Iraq's military contingency plans primarily focused on a war with Iran.

Those unwanted troops were welcomed by the shiites of Iraq. Who cares what Iran thinks? They want to dominate the region just as much as Hussein did. And I don't know about you but I am pretty satisfied with the fact that Iran is now surrounded by American troops on two fronts; Iraq and Afghanistan. If we make them nervous, I say good.

Iran threatens only Israel - at most - just as North Korea threatens at most Japan. Neither country has ICBMs or a global network of nuclear submarines.

Only Israel? Israel is the only democracy in the region, a sworn ally of America and one America has obligated themselves to protect because nobody else will. Japan could develop a nuclear weapon within months. They have the technology and the Uranium supply...they just need a good reason.

Israel has missile defenses and nukes of their own. In practical terms, Iran is no more likely than Israel to use a nuclear device unprovoked; pursuing nukes is more about political gains than about any urgent plans to nuke territory that Muslims have holy sites in.

Ahmadinejad and the "supreme leaders" of Iran are not practical.


Excuse me... but this thread is, IMO, about politics.

I should have used the word "partisan". In these times of a potential serious crisis, partisanship needs to be put aside. Threats like these must be dealt with by a unified America.

I agree. Of course, on the plus side, I didn't have to write all that stuff and give myself a temporary rise in blood pressure doing it, so that's a good thing.

Sometimes it is good to get your blood flowing Nazz. Makes you feel alive. ;)

Sometimes it is good to get your blood flowing Nazz. Makes you feel alive. ;)
I think, based on my post history here, that I'm the last person you need to say that to. ;)

I think, based on my post history here, that I'm the last person you need to say that to. ;)

Nice one to take your post count to 9,600 with there, Nazz.

Christ, I hope you're wrong. I don't know if I want to live to see that then.

Why? Why should it ruin your life if Clinton is not considered a villain in the future?

Why? Why should it ruin your life if Clinton is not considered a villain in the future?


Statues of Clinton in the future will be erected at every college campus .

HOW can the man who made giving blowjobs an art and a desirable act for a women to do with a man ...EVER be considered a villian..:D


Your all nuts..Clinton is going into the GUY hall of fame and will be given a gold satue.

Before Clinton ..did you ever think for a SECOND ..women would be going to classes for BLOWJOBS ???


I forsee a Clinton day in the future ...

Villian...NO WAY !

Statues of Clinton in the future will be erected at every college campus .

HOW can the man who made giving blowjobs an art and a desirable act for a women to do with a man ...EVER be considered a villian..:D


Your all nuts..Clinton is going into the GUY hall of fame and will be given a gold satue.

Before Clinton ..did you ever think for a SECOND ..women would be going to classes for BLOWJOBS ???


I forsee a Clinton day in the future ...

Villian...NO WAY !
Hey, man, tell it to Colerica. I'm not the one who needs convincing that it's better to spend the nation's dime on unnecessary sex than on unnecessary wars. :D

Hey, man, tell it to Colerica. I'm not the one who needs convincing that it's better to spend the nation's dime on unnecessary sex than on unnecessary wars. :DIs sex ever really unnecessary? Unpleasant perhaps. Uninspired maybe. But unnecessary?

Okay, sex involving Britney Spears is unnecessary, but beyond that?

Is sex ever really unnecessary? Unpleasant perhaps. Uninspired maybe. But unnecessary?

Okay, sex involving Britney Spears is unnecessary, but beyond that?

Asked and answered. :D

Statues of Clinton in the future will be erected at every college campus .

HOW can the man who made giving blowjobs an art and a desirable act for a women to do with a man ...EVER be considered a villian..:D


Your all nuts..Clinton is going into the GUY hall of fame and will be given a gold satue.

Before Clinton ..did you ever think for a SECOND ..women would be going to classes for BLOWJOBS ???


I forsee a Clinton day in the future ...

Villian...NO WAY !


heh heh, you said Erected.

you said ... nuts.

Statues of Clinton in the future will be erected at every college campus .

HOW can the man who made giving blowjobs an art and a desirable act for a women to do with a man ...EVER be considered a villian..:D


Your all nuts..Clinton is going into the GUY hall of fame and will be given a gold satue.

Before Clinton ..did you ever think for a SECOND ..women would be going to classes for BLOWJOBS ???


I forsee a Clinton day in the future ...

Villian...NO WAY !

And according to Rush Limbaugh, it was Clinton who actually invented the blowjob. Prior to him it was apparently just a way of kissing the base.


...so I said the name of an act that was performed between Clinton and Lewinski and then filtered down into the school system...

Is sex ever really unnecessary? Unpleasant perhaps. Uninspired maybe. But unnecessary?

Okay, sex involving Britney Spears is unnecessary, but beyond that?

If that's what it takes to keep her from singing, it's very necessary.

They could also be incompetent liars, couldn't they?

No. Incompotent liars occaisonally tell the truth accidentally. Bush is an incompotent liar. The crew at FOX is comprised of expert liars.

No. Incompotent liars occaisonally tell the truth accidentally. Bush is an incompotent liar. The crew at FOX is comprised of expert liars.


people sure like the word liar around here.

people sure like the word liar around here.It often applies---or are you going to argue that ineffectively also?

WHAT? HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE FOX NEWS OF BIAS! ME AND MY NRA BUDDIES WILL DESTROY YOU!!!!!:sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

ARRRRGGGH!!!

Okay...really, I saw that. That's just the kinda thing fox news likes to do.