2
   

Bill Clinton Takes On Fox News

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 04:12 pm
okie wrote:
Wallace asked a simple question, and Clinton set about to attack Fox and right wingers instead of answering the question.

As simple as a question that runs on for 10 sentences can be, yeah..

Quote:

One simple question, indeed.. not. More like an exercise in grandstanding to the Fox audience.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 04:29 pm
gunga -- No one can be the "most major expert." I hope that you are not one of the people calling for education reform.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 04:36 pm
Of course, the real question is does bush have enough brains to be out of his mind?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 04:39 pm
Re: BBB
McGentrix wrote:


The economy is good.


Compared to what? With so many businesses in trouble, with good jobs becoming scarcer, with so many people living marginal existences, to say that the economy is good is absurd.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 04:42 pm
okie wrote:

Hey Democrats and liberals, vote for your policies, but please don't elect another Clinton. I think you all know deep down how screwed up the guy was and is.


I thought you believed in freedom?!

Screwed up? How about Cheney? Rumsfeld? There are some sick bastards.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 04:45 pm
okie wrote:
Old Europe, ask the U.S. Congress, as when they authorized Bush to use force in their resolution, one of the two reasons was to enforce U.N. resolutions. Check the history of all the resolutions. There were many.



Okie's such a great grammarian!
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 04:50 pm
okie wrote:
Advocate, because his legacy is that of a loser. About the only thing he ever accomplished in office that amounted to a hill of beans was welfare reform, and that was a Republican initiative. He did absolutely nothing about terrorism, and our reputation around the world .


First of all, there are people who have never been -- and will probably never be on -- welfare who absolutely hate Bill Clinton for the welfare deal.

Second, terrorism was barely an issue. I first heard of Bin Laden from my daughter who was then living in France. BTW, I was in France when the entire country was locked down because of terrorist threats but found the French better able to cope, despite machine gun toting militia in the subways and locked trash bins. Paris was cleaner than any American city ever is, despite the lack of places to toss refuse.

And, you are right in saying that Clinton did nothing [to hurt] our reputation in the world: he was well loved around the planet.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 04:56 pm
gungasnake wrote:


It'w worth repeating. Many of our soldiers are from heavily demokkkrat-infested areas like Baltimore, Detroit, and LA. They're statistically safer in Iraq than they would be at home. The one thing which correlates most strongly with danger level in American cities is demokkkrat infestation.


I'm from Detroit. Detroit has two problems:

1.)An American automotive industry that had its head in the sands and failed to listen to the consumer but, instead, like all good repugs, forced its ideas on the public, which turned to Europe and Japan for the goods they desired.

2.) The repugs who insist on shipping jobs overseas because of the bottom line, whatever that means.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 04:59 pm
sumac -- Did you see Fahrenheit 911? Moore showed Marines recruiting in Flint, MI. Reminded me of British "press gangs" of earlier times.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 05:07 pm
wow, a whole page of cowshit.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 05:17 pm
McGentrix wrote:
wow, a whole page of cowshit.

wow, a whole person full of cowshit.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 05:21 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
as opposed to those who get in bushs' sights , who end up dead in the desert and shipped home in a box.



It'w worth repeating. Many of our soldiers are from heavily demokkkrat-infested areas like Baltimore, Detroit, and LA. They're statistically safer in Iraq than they would be at home. The one thing which correlates most strongly with danger level in American cities is demokkkrat infestation.


Are you volunteering to go to Iraq, Gunga?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 05:22 pm
McGentrix wrote:
wow, a whole page of cowshit.


Watch where ya step. Ya might get some on ya.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 05:37 pm
dyslexia wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
wow, a whole page of cowshit.

wow, a whole person full of cowshit.


I thought he was a boy?


Isn't "bullshit" the correct term?


Just askin'....
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 05:43 pm
dlowan wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
wow, a whole page of cowshit.

wow, a whole person full of cowshit.


I thought he was a boy?


Isn't "bullshit" the correct term?


Just askin'....


It is, but McG was taking liberty with the term to denegrate plainoldme.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 05:43 pm
dyslexia wrote:
There is no issue of getting more R's elected in november, the only open issue is how many R's will lose seats.

cjhsa wrote:
Really? And what planet did you say you live on?


The reality-based community, I'm guessing. I've collected the current assessments of the election-watchers here for you in a simple table:

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/2475/assessingthe2006uscongrfy3.gif


The Congressional Quarterly election forecast map has 4 currently Republican-held Senate seats as toss-ups or even Democratic-leaning. It only has 2 Democratic-held Senate seats as toss-ups.

Regarding the House, the CQ identifies 12 toss-up races. 11 of them are now Republican-held; just 1 of them is the Democrats' to lose.

Rasmussen Reports currently has 4 Republican-held Senate seats leaning Democrat, and another 2 being a toss-up. Conversely, there's just 1 Democrat-held seat in the Toss-up category, and none leaning Republican.

The Rothenberg Political Report currently has 2 Republican-held Senate seats leaning to the Democrats, 3 a total toss-up, and an additional one with the Republican incumbent having only a narrow advantage. Making 6 Senate seats the Reps stand to lose. Conversely, it only has 1 Democrat-held seat as a toss-up, and 1 with the Dems in a narrow advantage. Makes just 2.

For the House races, Rothenberg identifies 24 races as being in play, rated either a complete toss-up (10) or with a slight tilt to the Republicans (8) or to the Democrats (6). Every single one of these races is currently Republican-held. There is no Democratic-held seat identified as being in play.

On Real Clear Politics, 6 Republican-held Senate seats are marked toss-up, and an additional 1 as leaning Democratic. Only 2 Democratic-held Senate seats are rated toss-up, and none leaning Republican.

In the RealClearPolitics list of House seats most likely to switch party control, every single one of the first 20 are seats now held by a Republican that the Reps stand to lose to the Democrats.

The Cook Political Report has 6 Republican-held Senate seats as a toss-up. Conversely, it has just 1 Democratic-held seat rated tossup.

For the House, Cook has 2 Republican-held seats leaning Democrat outright, and another 18 rated toss-up. On the other hand, it has not a single Democratic-held seat rated toss-up or worse.

On Washington Post's The Fix, Chris Cillizza identifies "The Line" of Senate and House seats most at risk for a take-over by the other party.

Currently, of the 10 Senate seats most at risk for a take-over, 7 are Republican seats veering to a Democratic challenger. Only 3 are Democratic seats veering to a Republican.

As for the House, of the 20 seats he identifies as most vulnerable, a whopping 18 represent Republicans risking losing their seat. There's just two Democratic-held seats at play.

The NY Times election forecast map has 3 Republican-held Senate seats rated toss-up and another 2 leaning Democrat. Conversely, it has just 1 Democratic-held Senate seat as a toss-up.

As for the House, it has 15 Republican-held seats at play as a complete toss-up, and another 5 Republican-held seats leaning or safe Democratic. It has not a single Democratic-held seat at play.

Mark Blumenthal and Charles Franklin maintain the Election Scorecard at Slate. Currently they have 6 Republican-held Senate seats as toss-ups or leaning Democrat; and just 1 Democrat-held seat as toss-up.

In short - why, what planet do you live on, cjhsa?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 06:32 pm
Re: BBB
McGentrix wrote:
Bush was given an economy nose-diving into a recession as a result of Clinton's economic policies. The Bush administration has done a wonderful job of not only getting us out of the Clinton recession, but reversing it into a booming economy considering world events.

The economy was nose-diving when Bush came into office? And Bush has not just overcome that "Clinton recession", but has the economy booming more than when he got it?

What are you on? Fact: the stock market was stable when Bush came into office. Fact: it recovered fine from 9/11 as well. Fact: it only really slid down a year and a half into Bush's presidency. Fact: it still hasnt reached the point it was at when Bush came into office.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/kelticwizard100/DowJones3Pres.gif

(with thanks to Keltic)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 06:32 pm
Intrepid wrote:
dlowan wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
wow, a whole page of cowshit.

wow, a whole person full of cowshit.


I thought he was a boy?


Isn't "bullshit" the correct term?


Just askin'....


It is, but McG was taking liberty with the term to denegrate plainoldme.


If you took the time to read any of it, you would realize that it wasn't me denigrating Plainoldme, did just fine by themselves.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 06:35 pm
Re: BBB
nimh wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Bush was given an economy nose-diving into a recession as a result of Clinton's economic policies. The Bush administration has done a wonderful job of not only getting us out of the Clinton recession, but reversing it into a booming economy considering world events.

The economy was nose-diving when Bush came into office? And Bush has not just overcome that "Clinton recession", but has the economy booming more than when he got it?

What are you on? Fact: the stock market was stable when Bush came into office. Fact: it recovered fine from 9/11 as well. Fact: it only really slid down a year and a half into Bush's presidency. Fact: it still hasnt reached the point it was at when Bush came into office.

(with thanks to Keltic)


So, you are fine with using only that graph as an ecnomic indicator then?

I just want to know so that when I demonstrate the economy is doing fine according to that chart no one comes back with other indicators that the economy is doing horribly.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Sep, 2006 06:38 pm
nimh, if you look at your graph, you would notice the DOW was peaked out on the cycle before Clinton left office. The market consists of cycles, so it was already peaked and headed down by the time Bush took office.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/20/2025 at 01:20:31