Pres. Clinton and Bin Laden, The TRUTH! - Sunday night

[94 Camel]

Not exactly how worlld leaders view Bill, but even if it were so I would rather have that then the someone who makes wrong decisions.

World leaders do love Bill. Of course, world leaders aren't interested in pushing the interest of the United States. I wan't a leader as my president, and so does the bulk of the American people. It was visible in 2004 when the silent majority reelected GW. Make no mistake, when our country is in peril, the silent majority will come out and support people who are not idle and weak. Would you have really rather had Clinton in office during a time of military threat? Let alone Kerry?

[Trinity alum]

World leaders do love Bill. Of course, world leaders aren't interested in pushing the interest of the United States. I wan't a leader as my president, and so does the bulk of the American people. It was visible in 2004 when the silent majority reelected GW. Make no mistake, when our country is in peril, the silent majority will come out and support people who are not idle and weak. Would you have really rather had Clinton in office during a time of military threat? Let alone Kerry?

My emphatic answer is YES!!!

[Frances Bavier]

... Clinton's artfully interweaves facts with misdirection while skillfully preventing the interviewer from responding. ... he interupts the interviewer to ensure that he doesn't have to answer to that criticism. ....

 

Actually, Clinton was not interupting his interviewer. Wallace asked him a question, and during his answer, Wallace TRIED to cut him off, and attempted (several times) to interupt Clinton. This is (sadly) becoming a common tactic used by hosts of both radio and TV shows, to control what is being said.

 

In polite company, and during controlled debates, one listens to the complete anwer to a question, without "shouting down" the person on the other side of the table.

 

If you need an example of this, just tune in to the Sean Hannity show (not that he is the only one to do so), and count what percentage of callers actually get to finish their point when he is in control of the "mute button".

 

 

Frances

[5wide]

Whether you're right or wrong, you're likely biting off more than you can chew if you want to go toe-to-toe with Slick Willie Clinton. Like him or not (and I never cared much for him), he's as good as they get when it comes to talking. He's smooth, polished, doesn't get rattled, and he's very convincing. So, whether he's telling the truth is irrelevant. He's probably not. He's a politician. I automatically assume he's lying when he speaks. Just like I assume W is lying...or if they aren't lying, they are spinning and distorting it to the point that it may as well be a lie. The point is, Clinton is such an effective speaker, you'll think he's telling the truth whether he is or not, so he wins. It's not about the truth to these guys. It's a game. It's about creating perception. Clinton is a master of that. Bush, on the other hand, is terrible. Luckily, he has a great staff to stack the deck in his favor. Ultimately, it all comes to the same end.

[75center]

I forgot the beautiful shade of purple slick turns when he's lying. Classic!

[02Ram54]

The fact of the matter is that while Clinton is a divisive figure in politics, the effect is mittigated because Clinton remains wildly popular for a major politician. Far more so than W.

 

I know that most Limbaugh listeners don't recognize this, but Bill would have won again in 2000 were it legal, and he would win today.

[75center]

And Reagan would have stomped Bill both times, and if a frog had wings.....

[75center]

Here's an interesting take on slick's interview:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/743aibjn.asp

[02Ram54]

And Reagan would have stomped Bill both times, and if a frog had wings.....

At the end of their terms Clinton the First and Reagan went out statistically even (68% approval) but that isn't even a valid point. By 1993, Reagan was incapable of serious campaigning, and more was known nationally about his illness. Clinton, on the other hand, would still be physically able to defeat Bush and run the country if he were legally permitted.

[the mathemagician]

I've been waiting for years for someone on here to prove that Uncle Bill's "moral/ethical core" is any worse than that of George W. Bush. I am just not convinced by all the right -wing Sunday School teachers that "W" is anymore moral in his core than Uncle Bill. Does anyone on here know the two men well enough to make a definitive judgment? I don't think so. The only thing that can be said for certain is that Bill is the much more intelligent and politically shrewd man. I certainly don't trust "W" anymore than I do Bill. In fact, probably less.

[the mathemagician]

At the end of their terms Clinton the First and Reagan went out statistically even (68% approval) but that isn't even a valid point. By 1993, Reagan was incapable of serious campaigning, and more was known nationally about his illness. Clinton, on the other hand, would still be physically able to defeat Bush and run the country if he were legally permitted.

 

 

True. "W" would have never beaten W.J.Clinton. Never. Clinton would have beaten him in 2000, would beat him in 2008, would beat him in 2020.

[Rickyp]

I've been waiting for years for someone on here to prove that Uncle Bill's "moral/ethical core" is any worse than that of George W. Bush. I am just not convinced by all the right -wing Sunday School teachers that "W" is anymore moral in his core than Uncle Bill. Does anyone on here know the two men well enough to make a definitive judgment? I don't think so. The only thing that can be said for certain is that Bill is the much more intelligent and politically shrewd man. I certainly don't trust "W" anymore than I do Bill. In fact, probably less.

 

I offer as "Exhibit A" a stained dress.

 

"Exhibit B" Perjury.

 

But I can see why you would trust Clinton. He is a very talented, experienced, and conviencing liar.

[Rickyp]

I forgot "C" Vince Foster

[Hatz]

I offer as "Exhibit A" a stained dress.

 

"Exhibit B" Perjury.

 

But I can see why you would trust Clinton. He is a very talented, experienced, and conviencing liar.

 

 

And I would offer

 

Exhibit A: We are going to war in Iraq because they are developing weapons of mass destruction.

 

Exhibit B: We are going to war in Iraq to liberate an enslaved people who are waiting for us to bring them freedom.

 

Exhibit C: We are going to war in Iraq in order to fight terroism on their soil.

 

Exhibit D: We are going to war in Iraq because I said so.

[the mathemagician]

I forgot "C" Vince Foster

 

 

There you go again...(to quote one of your favorites) , believing Pat Robertson AGAIN!