Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Clinton P0WNS Fox News!
croxis
I am the walrus
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/22/clinton-fox/[/url]
This... made me so happy.
Especially the full transcript linked on the site.
This... made me so happy.
Especially the full transcript linked on the site.
Comments
Here's the reality: The neocons have been in control for 6 years. Six years of a sputtering economy. 6 years of median income dropping. Sure, we've got less unemployment, but Wal-Mart doesn't pay a living wage. After 6 years, all the neocon campaign promises are just as empty as my wallet.
"God, Gays, and Guns." "Clinton's fault." Get a new line already. Stop acting like Limbaugh's parrot.
And your right, we have had 6 years of a sputtering economy, meaning the situation that lead to this economy had to have been crafted before this. All the false joy and success of the 90's built of a giant scam, and companies paying wages they couldnt sustain, because they were not delivering product, and to say that the "neocons" have had control is also false despite your air america rhetoric, unlike the democratic party, the republican party is alot more fractured and has alot of "RINOS" who do regularly vote democratic, if you look at most of the legislation that did get passed it has quite clearly been compromise legislation.
Last but not least the ability of the goverment to manage the economy in our policial system is horribly over rated, even the vaunted FDR and his programs never dropped unemployment below 10% during the great depression, it was the war, and the fact that it killed off or otherwise permanently removed 2% of the american workforce that helped boost things around, plus the post war boom of being the only undamaged major economy in the world.
How thats relevent to my 9/11 points Im not sure, but hey you brought it up.
SNL's Weekend Update has more relevant facts than those bozos at Fox.
His greatest failures though were in his massive lack of oversight and plain ignoring, or rather at times even enjoying the insane hijinks of the CIA and FBI and their in ability to co-operate, and the well culture of incompatancy that the people he put in basicly created. It was like Brown and FEMA, but probably even more dangerous.
[B]The world would definitely be a better place with clinton as president. I liked the states when he was president. I really dont now. [/B][/QUOTE]
Can you point to why? or is it just Iraq and Afghanistan?
the vast majority of american domestic and even foreign policies havent actually shifted that dramaticly.
;)
Personally I always thought Sadam was a secular dictator the only religion being himself. I don't see how they (Osama) could cooperate with each other on ideological terms. It just wouldn't make sense for Osama to say Hey Saddam can get some money for this little massacre Im planning. Heres whats gonna happen...Ya see theres these planes. I think he would have laughed in his face. Because odds are it wouldn't work...your telling me your gonna use razors to hijack a plane. Yeah man seriously I had some migs that couldn't do a damn your telling me 4 planes are gonna make it accross the continent and ram in to the most prestigious buildings in the world? Without so much as a shot...get bent.
He, in my opinion, was not a terrible president, but not a good one either. He didn't screw with the economy, but he can't take credit for it. He was too concerned with image to effectively conduct military operations in Iraq, Kosovo, Somalia, or anywhere else he sent troops. His foreign policy made America seem more friendly and reasonable, but weak enough to encourage daring terrorist attacks. Embassy bombings? USS Cole? WTC bombing number one? No meaningful action for any of them.
I personally believe he was and is a morally bankrupt human being. The President of the United States should be, ideally, a man who aspires to the same dignity and bearing, the same nobility of purpose, that America's first President sought to embody.
He should not be a man who tries to sign over aspects of national sovreignity to foreign powers (Kyoto Protocol), a man who lies under oath (I know many presidents have had extramarital affairs, but perjury is another matter entirely), or a man who authorizes sale of sensitive military technology to potentially hostile nations (missile guidance and warhead bussing to Communist China).
Most of his effective actions were in the nature of compromising with Republicans in Congress, and co-opting many of their ideas.
Just remember, for those of you in other countries. The job of any national leader is not to do what is best for any country but his own. It is not to do what is best for the Third World, not to do what is best for the UN, and not to be your friend. If it so happens that people can do more working together than against each other, somewhere in the middle compromise is reached, and progress is made. The reason NATO worked with many dissimilar members was in part because they shared common goals. There is as yet no common goal for the world, and until there is, the UN will continue to fail at everything it tries to do.
Nick
[B]Can you point to why? or is it just Iraq and Afghanistan?
the vast majority of american domestic and even foreign policies havent actually shifted that dramaticly. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes I can. It is partly Iraq, but also the change in foreign policy. Clinton was always trying to open dialogues, Bush closes them off. Secularization is not the way forward imo. Also, Bush represents the christian fundamentalists of the states as an opposite to Clinton that was working for a free excercise of any religion. Clinton wanted same-sex marriages, Bush doesnt.
Rare audio
[url]http://www.aldaynet.org/2006/09/11/clinton-on-obl-he-had-committed-no-crime/[/url]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvQmrtuQUnI[/url]
[B]His greatest failures though were in his massive lack of oversight and plain ignoring, or rather at times even enjoying the insane hijinks of the CIA and FBI and their in ability to co-operate, and the well culture of incompatancy that the people he put in basicly created. It was like Brown and FEMA, but probably even more dangerous. [/B][/QUOTE]And because of that you're liking "gross ignoramuses" making your cabinet.
And now theocons added distortion and misrepresentation to incompetency making total better.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by The Cabl3 Guy [/i]
[B]Personally I always thought Sadam was a secular dictator the only religion being himself. I don't see how they (Osama) could cooperate with each other on ideological terms.[/B][/QUOTE]Yep, while Bin Laden really wasn't religious in his youth he made U-turn in that and Saddam again was entirely secular leader with secular government.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Hasdrubal [/i]
[B]I personally believe he was and is a morally bankrupt human being.
The President of the United States should be, ideally, a man who aspires to the same dignity and bearing, the same nobility of purpose, that America's first President sought to embody.[/B][/QUOTE]Much less than current one... who with his buddies has changed course of your state toward economical bankrupt.
And don't expect those things from anyone with bought presidency, especially from those who have had that golden spoon in the ass from the birth.
[QUOTE][B]Just remember, for those of you in other countries. The job of any national leader is not to do what is best for any country but his own. It is not to do what is best for the Third World, not to do what is best for the UN, and not to be your friend...
There is as yet no common goal for the world, and until there is, the UN will continue to fail at everything it tries to do.[/B][/QUOTE]You said it, can't see rest of the world agreeing with your goal as long as it involves primarily screwing rest of the world.
[B]
Much less than current one... who with his buddies has changed course of your state toward economical bankrupt.
And don't expect those things from anyone with bought presidency, especially from those who have had that golden spoon in the ass from the birth.
You said it, can't see rest of the world agreeing with your goal as long as it involves primarily screwing rest of the world. [/B][/QUOTE]
While the US economy isnt extreme, the posturing that were heading towards being bankrupt is completely asinie, the US economy is still doing better then most of the economies in europe for god sakes, and while the Anlashoks median income has dropped, it hasnt exactly dropped that precipitiously, in absolute dollars it actually HASNT dropped, but it has failed to keep place with inflation
The current US MEDIAN household income is 46,325 dollars, meaning a full 50% of american households actually make more then that amount. When adjusted for exchange rates and purchasing power this is at least 10,000 more then the median income in Finland.
The US budget deficit continues to annualy hover around 25%. The idea that somehow we were going to have "huge budget surpluses" at the end of the Clinton administration was sheer lying, based on faulty analysis of future trend, IE they were saying "were gonna make a hella lot of money in the future! were just not quite sure how" Thats not to say the current administration hasnt been fiscally irresponsible to a large degree, it has, and the military portions of the budget and Iraq are just a drop in the bucket, considering the annual deficit is 450 billion.
And before you go and blame Tax relieaf and the war, Id point out that a full 49% of that disapering income is due to due to "economic and technical re-estimates" IE they were flat out wrong, another 29% was due to "tax relief", and the remaining 22% was due to "war, homeland, and other enacted legislation". I also am in the lower taxes = more economic activity camp (check recent Irish, Spanish and to a certain degree Italian economic activity) and I believe that those tax cuts are the only reason that the "economic and technical re-estimates" have not been worse.
As to Messiahs part, Id say clintons role of diplomat has been horribly over stressed. What he was good at was hiding the problems from view, not actualy solving them. The only one of his international situations that was "resoved" was Yugoslavia, and that was resolved do to lots of bombs and that the factions drew boundry lines around fairly ethnicly homogeneous areas.
I am curious as to how secularization in the middle east situation isnt the way to go, but then again from both things Ive read and my first hand knoweledge of the religion from practicioners here, I have a very dim view on its ability to coexist as a theology/ideology with others.
As for Bushes christian view point you do have a point there. But I guess that what makes the current conlict with Islam so interesting, is at the end of the day, the american religious right does have alot more in common with the tenants of Islam and their social and cultural policies, I personaly am more well equiped to live under the global caliphate that both sides of the Sunni Shia divide are aiming for then anybody else on this forum except A# ;)
[B]I am curious as to how secularization in the middle east situation isnt the way to go, but then again from both things Ive read and my first hand knoweledge of the religion from practicioners here, I have a very dim view on its ability to coexist as a theology/ideology with others.[/B][/QUOTE]Don't throw axe to well yet.
If anyone would have said same thing from Christians 500 years ago which now caused latest incident with Muslims it would have guaranteed very slow and painful death in torture bench by "good Christians".
Also there's Christian minorities in Muslim countries, quite considerable for example in Lebanon but this Hezbollah, depicted as such ultimate evil by your government, hasn't done anything to them while at same age Christianity was quite actively hunting everyone who didn't sing their songs so compared to path traveled by Christianity one of Islam doesn't look so bad.
But then again at the same time you had the ottoman empire destroying the byzantines, taking over the balkands and attempting to forcibly convert the populations there? ever hear of the Jannisaries? Or the beginings of the armenian genoicide that the turks perodicly engage in?
Or the bloody swaths the islamic armies were cutting through India?
Lebonon is an example Im very familiar with having friends who are lebanese christians, and they have lost family members at the hands of that oh so noble orginization Hezbollah. Or are you forgetting that terribly bloody civil war that was waged for about 15 years and only ended in 1990? A civil war in which massive bloodletting was conducted by both sides, but the start was when a group of what was most likely palestinians tried to kill the lebonese marionite christian leadership, and things spiraled out of control from there?
Or how about the fact that under the Taif agreement every militia group was disarmed EXCEPT hezbollah? oh could it be because if they had pressed for hezbollah to be bound by the agrement they would end up dead?
Why do our own government reports say that the risk of terrorist attacks is higher now that we've invaded Iraq? Wasn't that supposed to make us safer?
Why isn't Iraq paying for itself like we were told?
Why is a top General refusing to submit his budget requests until Rumsfeld is fired? Why hasn't Rumsfeld been fired after the stunning incompetence displayed in Iraq?
What has your Fortunate Son done that really benefits anyone except his own cabal?
As for us being even more in danger, thats a cherry picked line from a classified report, we dont know what the whole document says. The only reason why we are more in danger is that Al-aeda and associated orginizations have had 15 years of refining and pracicing their craft. Their first attempted anti american attacks were in 1992 for god sakes.
Now these idiots you helped vote in are trying to "redefine" and "clarify" the Geneva conventions. The United States does not torture" they tell us, but they try to redefine torture to exclude their actions. How does that make us look in the eyes of the world? Oh, that's right, why care what the world thinks of us, we're the only superpower and can do whatever we want! Speak against the neocon agenda or question why they're doing these things and be labeled "unamerican" or "helping the terrorists!"
Do [i]you[/i] have any constructive suggestions? Parroting O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh do not count, and that's all I've seen from you.
[B]
As for us being even more in danger, thats a cherry picked line from a classified report, we dont know what the whole document says. [/B][/QUOTE]
It's not classified anymore, Fearless Leader opted to declassify the document after the leak.
[B]Do [i]you[/i] have any constructive suggestions? Parroting O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh do not count, and that's all I've seen from you. [/B][/QUOTE]
I do, but its not popular, as you may know, I was a resident of NYC on sept 11th, and was at the WTC almost every day for several years leading up to 9/11 since my wife and mother worked there, So I take sept 11th rather personally,
Nuke the whole frickin region, declare islam an outlaw religion, Nuke the region again, have tea.
Honestly though, there IS No solution, they say they won't be happy until the US pulls out of the Middle East entirely, but would that solve the problem? No, because these extremists are just nutjobs in search of a Cause, if we pulled 100% out of the Middle East, they'd find something else to hate us about.
Find out [i]why[/i] they are wanting to attack us. And don't give me that ridiculous "They hate our freedom" bullshit. If we know what they hate about us (I do have some thoughts on that) maybe we can come to some form of resolution without one side exterminating the other.