What if the Clinton Administration was Responsible for 9/11? (1671 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.12 on 97 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by <> (View user info) at 2006-09-27 00:20:00 EDT
I love Keith Olbermann - he's so bitchy and snide. We need him voting in UberMadness.
Watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3592217964261572444&q=Olbermann+Clinton&hl=en
(transcript below for those still stuck in the 20th century)
This is the Clinton interview in question:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9026120716999978732&q=clinton+fox&hl=en
=====
And finally tonight, a Special Comment about President Clinton's interview. The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong. It is not essential that a past President, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.
It is not important that the current President's "portable public chorus" has described his predecessor's tone as "crazed."
Our tone should be crazed. The nation's freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as Al-Qaeda; the nation's "marketplace of ideas" is being poisoned, by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would've quit. Nonetheless.
The headline is this: Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done, in five years. He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.
"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. "That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."
Thus in his supposed emeritus years, has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by anyone, in these last five long years.
The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama Bin Laden before 9/11.
The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.
The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."
The Bush Administration... did... not... try.—
Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest "pass" for incompetence and malfeasance, in American history!
President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs — some of them, 17 years old — before Pearl Harbor.
President Hoover was correctly blamed for — if not the Great Depression itself — then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash.
Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War — though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.
But not this President.
To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been President on September 11th, 2001 — or the nearly eight months that preceded it.
That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the Executive.
KO-Bush.jpg
But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps we should simply sigh and keep our fingers crossed, until a grown-up takes the job three Januarys from now.
Except... for this:
After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts — that he was President on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton's.
Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.
As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.
Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News, Friday afternoon.
Consider the timing: The very same weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is — not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it!
The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the administration and its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat.
It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired — but a propagandist, promoted:
Promise to talk of charity and generosity; but instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless.
And don't even be professional enough to assume the responsibility for the slanders yourself; blame your audience for "e-mailing" you the question.
Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.
He told the great truth un-told... about this administration's negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about Bin Laden.
He was brave.
Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I — in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist — and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.
The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon.
Disney was first to sell-out its corporate reputation, with "The Path to 9/11."
Of that company's crimes against truth one needs to say little. Simply put: someone there enabled an Authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr. Bush's new and improved history.
The basic plot-line was this: because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.
The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this slapdash theory, is that the Right Wingers who have advocated it — who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews — have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.
Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for Bin Laden in 1998 because of the Lewinsky nonsense — why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed Bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on August 20th of that year? For mentioning Bin Laden by name as he did so?
That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie "Wag The Dog."
Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton's judgment.
Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri — the future Attorney General — echoed Coats.
Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.
And of course, were it true Clinton had been "distracted" by the Lewinsky witch-hunt — who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt? Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?
Who corrupted the political media?
Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air, the counter-terrorism analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us, here?
Who preempted them... in order to strangle us with the trivia that was... "All Monica All The Time"?
Who... distracted whom?
This is, of course, where — as is inevitable — Mr. Bush and his henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are.
The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four.
But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it's all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you.
The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton... but by the same people who got you... elected President.
Thus instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before it... we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently redd the Orwell playbook too quickly.
Thus instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us "safe" ever since — a statement that might range anywhere from Zero, to One Hundred Percent, true.
We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything.
And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush — you got the name of the supposedly targeted Tower in Los Angeles... wrong.
Thus was it left for the previous President to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack:
You did not try.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.
Then, you blamed your predecessor.
That would be the textbook definition... Sir, of cowardice.
To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.
That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair — writing as George Orwell — gave us in the novel "1984."
The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power...
"Power is not a means; it is an end.
"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.
"The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is torture. The object of power... is power."
Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln's State of the Union address from 1862.
"We must disenthrall ourselves."
Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln's sentence. He might well have.
"We must disenthrall ourselves — and then... we shall save our country."
And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date... to save... our... country.
—
The "free pass" has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush...
You did not act to prevent 9/11.
We do not know what you have done, to prevent another 9/11.
You have failed us — then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11.
You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.
And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your predecessor.
And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture — which doesn't work anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding; which only humiliates our country further in the world; and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate.And there it is, sir:
Are yours the actions of a true American?
I'm Keith Olbermann, good night, and good luck.
User Reviews
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-10-14 12:57:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Gas in Denver can now be had at $2.24 a gallon, almost identical to 2 years ago for the same period.
I still hate the Republican Party.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-10-14 12:04:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I was in Morecombe recently. It's even grimmer than Blackpool.
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2006-10-01 00:25:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"The hardest part of my job is linking Iraq with the war on terror" - George W. Bush
When Clinton went off on that tirade I applauded the fact that a democrat finally
grew some balls.
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2006-09-30 11:27:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Christ, I miss American television. I was in the Dominican Republic last week and I got my first fix of the fox news network in four years. Bill O'Reilly has a very punchable face.
It's like cigarettes and alcohol, man - you know it's bad for you but you just can't help yourself.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-30 02:05:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
@Indo: I *know* that if the Democrats were in power the *exact same thing* would be happening.
Dropping prices before an election helps whoever holds the seats, right or left.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-09-29 14:18:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS is a lunatic. Say "Hello" to Tupac & Elvis for me, jerky.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-29 13:43:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by LeaderOfMen (user info) at 2006-09-29 06:23:15 (#)
Ranking: 0
Subliminal symbolism: Olberman "spinning" the globe?
IM JUST SAYING!!...
=====
Hahahahahahahaha.
Submitted by LSD420 (user info) at 2006-09-29 08:11:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
while your political analysis will surely not fall on deaf ears, I'm beginning to feel more and more ubersite is not the place for it.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-29 07:52:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-29 02:19:09 (#)
Ranking: 2
So you're telling me that over the course of about 2 weeks, the supply went up over 30 fucking percent?
That's smart of you, Stabkill. Real fucking smart.
Open your eyes, shit-for-brains. We're all being had, and you're an even bigger idiot for defending it.
------------------
Well your analogy of "% increase in supply= % increase in price" doesn't make any sense (and nobody has implied), I think I know what you mean.
Has the supply increrased in 2 weeks (closer to a month) enough so that the price should drop 30%? The answer to that one is also no.
But if you could try and think about something besides conspiracy theories and remember anything besides watching loose change videos over the past few months it is pretty easy to understand. what happened when Israel and Lebannon got in a tiff? What happened everytime a hurricaine developed? What happened when negative news came from nigeria? What happened every time Tehran had strong language to washington or vice versa? what happened after the pipeline in Alaska had problems? the gas companies jacked up the prices even though there was no real threat to supply, just a possible future threat. None of those reasons for hiking up the price ever really caused the decrease in supply which would require such a hike, oil companies were lining their pockets on the hint of a decrease in supply. they can't keep the price that high forever.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-29 02:25:13 (#)
Ranking: 2
Are they lowering prices to help out in an election year? Yes.
---------------------------------
Do you really think if democrats had the presidency and the congress that they wouldn't be lowering prices?
Submitted by LeaderOfMen (user info) at 2006-09-29 06:23:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Subliminal symbolism: Olberman "spinning" the globe?
IM JUST SAYING!!...
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-29 02:25:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Don't be an idiot Brad.
Has supply gone up this summer? Yes.
Are they lowering prices to help out in an election year? Yes.
As much as you think? No.
They kept the inflated price through the end of August, which is when folks are able to tell whether or not the gulf is going to get hit with a storm.
You see black and white, totally good and totally evil.
That's ONE OF your biggest problems.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-29 02:19:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-09-28 16:45:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
Hahah...I notice ETS's typical belief that the gas companies are lowering prices to hook up republicans with a victory this fall.
Facts are, supply is way, way, way up because there were no supply problems this summer due to hurricanes or what-have-you. It is just facts any economist will tell you... but nope. Ignore them and believe in the conspiracy theory.
-------------------
So you're telling me that over the course of about 2 weeks, the supply went up over 30 fucking percent?
That's smart of you, Stabkill. Real fucking smart.
Open your eyes, shit-for-brains. We're all being had, and you're an even bigger idiot for defending it.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-28 19:39:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-09-28 16:41:24 (#)
Ranking: -2
Keith Olbermann is an annoying dickhead that has a very unhealthy obession with Bill O'Reilly.
===
But he uses words like malfeasance.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-09-28 16:45:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Hahah...I notice ETS's typical belief that the gas companies are lowering prices to hook up republicans with a victory this fall.
Facts are, supply is way, way, way up because there were no supply problems this summer due to hurricanes or what-have-you. It is just facts any economist will tell you... but nope. Ignore them and believe in the conspiracy theory.
When something happens there is an explaination that is probably 99% most likely, and ETS will opt for the 1% wacky reasoning.
Although, I did think that this was possible (gas prices dropping for exactly that reason) but reality set in.
I wonder when the democrats don't wind up kicking ass what will be said. Diebold? Republican fraud? Something will be used for an explaination other than the democratic party is slipping more from the mainstream into the wacky progressive-nutty liberal left that people generally dislike.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-09-28 16:41:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Keith Olbermann is an annoying dickhead that has a very unhealthy obession with Bill O'Reilly.
Submitted by LeaderOfMen (user info) at 2006-09-28 16:37:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The emotion Bill Clinton displayed and how he conducted myself gave me a new found respect for him... I never thought a politician, save ex-Pres, could actually respond with passion to a question, not some look on his face that screamed a cross between constipation and bloated.
What does this tell us though, a President can only tell us what he thinks or what we need to know when he is 6 years removed from office? Our government has lost touch with the people.
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2006-09-28 03:14:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2006-09-27 08:26:53 (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuck yes.
How did Bushy win again? He imparted fear into the hearts of many Americans, made "liberal" a bad word and told lies in order to shield his true intention - get the man who tried to kill his daddy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He won because the other guy was even worse. His political platform was "I'm not bush but I'll do the same shit. But at least I'm not bush."
Submitted by Serious_Melvin (user info) at 2006-09-27 21:13:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-09-27 20:50:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-27 19:21:43 (#)
Ranking: 0
A political copy/paste with 77 reviews that's still in the positives?
What madness is this?
---
Well played Miss Assistant, well played.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-27 19:21:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
A political copy/paste with 77 reviews that's still in the positives?
What madness is this?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-27 19:14:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-09-27 18:59:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
LETS ASSIGN BLAME WHERE IT REALLY BELONGS, SHALL WE?
JIMMY CARTER.
------------------
Jimmy Carter had his own faults, but he certainly had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. On the contrary, he did quite a bit to quell tensions in the middle east. With the exception of the Iran hostage situation, he did a pretty good job in that regard. But now we know that the kidnappers were looking at their watches, waiting for a specific time to release the hostages on the DAY of Reagan's inauguration. Seems a little fishy.
Al Qaeda was formed during the Reagan years with the help of the CIA and the Pakistani ISI.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-27 19:06:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:42:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-27 01:22:02 (#)
Ranking: 2
I wish we could just get it over with and get a third party in there, but I don't know if this is the time.
--
This sums up exactly why the country would go down the toilet if the majority of voters thought like you.
I'm sorry man, but that's as bad as saying, "I don't vote because it doesn't really matter."
A third party will NEVER get in, not in this country. What you have to do is get your douchebag artiste buddies to get up off their stoned asses and vote in EVERY election, not just the big one every 4 years. If you make your voices heard you might see a change in whichever party you endorse.
The hard working, tax-paying conservative right has known this for years. They don't bitch endlesly, they just GO OUT AND VOTE ON ELECTION DAY.
------------
Again...WHAT? Are you having a hard time understanding me, dude, or am I just not being clear enough? Of course I'm gonna vote, I'm just saying that this is a year the third party stuff should be put on the backburner, because we need to get this herd of pigs out of there NOW.
My long term goal is to destroy the two-party system...single-handedly, of course.
Bottom line, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, and anyone else who was in the administration at the time of 9/11 need to be impeached and tried for treason. This goes for the heads of the intelligence agencies as well. I am convinced they carried out a black op against the American people on that day and at least 42% of the American public now agrees with me. This, to me, is urgent. If we don't take care of this now and right this ship, I fear the repercussions for the future, for our children, will only get worse.
Absolutely... VOTE PEOPLE, VOTE!
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2006-09-27 19:05:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
On 22 March 2006, Latham did not appear in Campbelltown Local Court to face the charges, instead giving a lecture to political science students at the Australian National University. When asked by a student how he could blame everyone else but himself, Latham replied: "I'm sorry I didn't come in here and expose myself as a miserable arsewipe"
har
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-09-27 18:59:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
LETS ASSIGN BLAME WHERE IT REALLY BELONGS, SHALL WE?
JIMMY CARTER.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-27 18:45:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:40:02 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm in full agreement with you, there, without question.
They used 9/11 like a $2 whore in the 02 and 04 elections. And because it's a Republican congress, he's got carte blanche.
That's why I'm wondering what the hell this "big suprise" Rove is yammering about may be. If it's just an ad blitz, it won't do much. If they start an offensive back in Afghanistan to hunt for Bin Laden, or actually PRODUCE Bin Laden, then it'll either let them BARELY keep the Senate and House OR (and this is my hope) independent voters will see through it fast enough to slam a serious majority of their votes to Democrats, and they'll sweep both rooms.
And if we get a Democratic Congress, Bush is f-u-c-k-e-d.
-------------------
Ok, Jay... I'm gonna do my best to be cordial here.
What do you mean when you say "independent voters will see through it" when regarding Bush suddenly producing Bin Laden? It sounds to me like you - like myself - have considered this possibility, but guess what some people would call such a thing...
a conspiracy theory.
The very fact that you've entertained that idea in your head tells me you see more than you let on.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-09-27 18:10:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Professional_Peon (user info) at 2006-09-27 13:30:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm just gonna drop my +2 and run from this subject before it sucks me in
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:47:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
He's right.
While the countries voter registration is roughly 33D/33R/33I, the voter turnout is skewed to something like 25D/45R/30I.
The only reason Dems win anything is because independents *tend* to be more liberal than conservative and vote on issue.
|
|
|
V
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:42:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-27 01:22:02 (#)
Ranking: 2
I wish we could just get it over with and get a third party in there, but I don't know if this is the time.
--
This sums up exactly why the country would go down the toilet if the majority of voters thought like you.
I'm sorry man, but that's as bad as saying, "I don't vote because it doesn't really matter."
A third party will NEVER get in, not in this country. What you have to do is get your douchebag artiste buddies to get up off their stoned asses and vote in EVERY election, not just the big one every 4 years. If you make your voices heard you might see a change in whichever party you endorse.
The hard working, tax-paying conservative right has known this for years. They don't bitch endlesly, they just GO OUT AND VOTE ON ELECTION DAY.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:31:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:19:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Latham
In all seriousness, this guy is in my opinion one of the finest politicians we've ever had.
===
I'm reading some of his speeches. This one on political correctness has some gems:
http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=2182189&TABLE=HANSARDR&TARGET=
"As far as I am concerned, if you want civility in Canberra, buy a parrot."
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:19:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:15:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:10:45 (#)
Ranking: 2
The last Leader of the Opposition here is just about to release a book entitled "A Conga-Line of Suckholes" in which he laments the rise of "metrosexual knobs".
====
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I love it.
-------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Latham
In all seriousness, this guy is in my opinion one of the finest politicians we've ever had.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:16:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thorpe I think the lack of shennanigans like that pisses me off about American politics more than corruption, towing the party line, and special intrest groups.
Well at least almost as much.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:16:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The Health Minister recently called the Shadow Health Minister a "snivelling grub" and then when she said it right back to him she was ejected.
Submitted by Anansie (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:15:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Thanks for the transcript, there's no sound on this computer.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:15:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:10:45 (#)
Ranking: 2
The last Leader of the Opposition here is just about to release a book entitled "A Conga-Line of Suckholes" in which he laments the rise of "metrosexual knobs".
====
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I love it.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:13:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
A couple of Opposition MPs were also recently ejected from Parliament for bringing in a clucking chicken toy which they set off during the Treasurer's replies in Question Time.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:12:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The current Opposition leader and a Government MP also recently stood toe to toe on the steps of Parliament and yelled in each others' faces "Get your weak and worthless self in there" and "you're a fat so-and-so".
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:10:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The last Leader of the Opposition here is just about to release a book entitled "A Conga-Line of Suckholes" in which he laments the rise of "metrosexual knobs".
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:06:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:56:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't know if the big deal is because he personally usually remains calm though, or if that was really a politician losing it by American standards.
---------------
American politicians, especially presidents (or x-presidents) haven't raised their voices since I can remember.
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:05:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I loved it and I love it still.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-27 12:02:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:56:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
I've watched the interview, and it's the most over-hyped piece of crap. He hardly even raised his voice.
Any Australian politician of significance would have been involved in dozens of incidents ten times worse than that, without exaggeration.
I don't know if the big deal is because he personally usually remains calm though, or if that was really a politician losing it by American standards.
===
This comment made me nostalgic for John Prescott:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/05/17/click_here_for_the_prescott/
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:57:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
@Indo:
If they produce him, I know the 1/3 of the nation that's Republican will come out in droves, and the right-leaning indies will probably go right, but the ceter and the center-left will still shift, because if they produce him in September, that gives the Dems perfect timing to hit the nation with "See, they hold the mastermind of 9/11 in secret for political gain. They don't care about the country, they care about themselves."
@Filthy:
I don't think a Dem congress will change the world, but I do think they'll restore check/balance. Right now Congress is a rubberstamp organization for the administration. Anything the White house wants they get. With Dem control, at least they'll start blocking some legislation like another PATRIOT renewal. And I always hope that they'll start an investigation and an impeachment process for abuse of power. That's all I could hope for.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:56:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I've watched the interview, and it's the most over-hyped piece of crap. He hardly even raised his voice.
Any Australian politician of significance would have been involved in dozens of incidents ten times worse than that, without exaggeration.
I don't know if the big deal is because he personally usually remains calm though, or if that was really a politician losing it by American standards.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:49:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:40:02 (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm in full agreement with you, there, without question.
They used 9/11 like a $2 whore in the 02 and 04 elections. And because it's a Republican congress, he's got carte blanche.
That's why I'm wondering what the hell this "big suprise" Rove is yammering about may be. If it's just an ad blitz, it won't do much. If they start an offensive back in Afghanistan to hunt for Bin Laden, or actually PRODUCE Bin Laden, then it'll either let them BARELY keep the Senate and House OR (and this is my hope) independent voters will see through it fast enough to slam a serious majority of their votes to Democrats, and they'll sweep both rooms.
And if we get a Democratic Congress, Bush is f-u-c-k-e-d.
===
I don't know that we can rest easy on the thought that so long as we get a democratic congress, things will change. Personally I'd rather see a democratic congress than a republican one but they're not exactly the way and the light themselves. There needs to be wholesale reform of the entire political sphere but that isn't likely to happen until people are mad enough about whats going on - and while we can still wander down wal-mart and buy half the earth for a dollar, most people aren't going to get that riled up.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:47:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:40:02 (#)
Ranking: 2
That's why I'm wondering what the hell this "big suprise" Rove is yammering about may be. If it's just an ad blitz, it won't do much. If they start an offensive back in Afghanistan to hunt for Bin Laden, or actually PRODUCE Bin Laden, then it'll either let them BARELY keep the Senate and House OR (and this is my hope) independent voters will see through it fast enough to slam a serious majority of their votes to Democrats, and they'll sweep both rooms.
-----------------------------------------
Dude if they produce Osama the Democrats will lose seats.
Even if they have had him for nine months and just decide to realease proof days before the election, no matter that it would be seen by everyone as a publicity stunt it would still work.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:40:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:05:37 (#)
Ranking: 2
I LOVE watching Indoninja try to do his job and fail.
Tell you what, read Greg Palast, people, and THEN decide what happened in 2000 and 2004. Watch his videos. Or maybe read another one of the thousands of articles detailing how the GOP stole both elections. http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptNoneDare.html
I'm gonna keep pummeling you with articles rather than waste my time tearing Indo apart ONCE AGAIN point by point.
----------------------------
I have to read a different article now, what was wrong with the first one? what happens when someone takes the five minutes needed to realize that that article is BS, you will move onto something from prison planet?
That article was fucking worthless, read the sources the writer used and you can tell it is useless. Some of the studies he cites say the exact opposite of what he writes.
You have never torn any of my arguments apart, as far as I have seen you have never torn anyones apart. Right here is classic ETS. That article was shit. If you take the time to read the sources he cites it is pretty clear the article is shit. But you won't debate that. You won't read where his sources contradict or at least give reasonable explinations for his claims. You will continue linking random article that are regurgitating the same shit instead of actually learning anything.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:40:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm in full agreement with you, there, without question.
They used 9/11 like a $2 whore in the 02 and 04 elections. And because it's a Republican congress, he's got carte blanche.
That's why I'm wondering what the hell this "big suprise" Rove is yammering about may be. If it's just an ad blitz, it won't do much. If they start an offensive back in Afghanistan to hunt for Bin Laden, or actually PRODUCE Bin Laden, then it'll either let them BARELY keep the Senate and House OR (and this is my hope) independent voters will see through it fast enough to slam a serious majority of their votes to Democrats, and they'll sweep both rooms.
And if we get a Democratic Congress, Bush is f-u-c-k-e-d.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:33:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:12:28 (#)
Ranking: 2
So do I blame the Bush *administration* for 9/11? In part. They had warning signs, and if the processes were streamlined, and if the agencies didn't have conflicts of ego, those signs could have been heeded. And while I doubt they could have stopped the plan before it started, I'd like to think that the folks at NORAD would have had enough info to blow the planes out of the sky in time.
Now, do I blame Bush himself as an individual? Not really. Even though he's the president, he's only one man. He delegates a lot of the running of this country to people he trusts. We may not trust them, but he does.
===
Even if (and this is a real stretch for the sake of argument) the Bush administration was not complicit in 9/11 - their scandalous manipulation and profiteering on top of it is nothing short of a war crime, to my mind.
I find it ludicrous that Clinton was impeached for jazzing on some white house slattern and yet this man, proven to have lied again and again over issues far more insidious than jamming a cigar up some bint's twat, remains in office.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:29:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
With the voting scandal, why do people keep going back to the ticky-tacky, tough to prove stuff? It's established beyond a reasonable doubt that the Diebold electronic voting machines fail even the most minimal security standards, can be altered by pretty much anybody with a screwdriver, and are controlled by a company run by people who were both top Bush fundraisers, and with a history of ethical and/or criminal lapses (insider trading by the CEO, wire fraud connected to ATMs by a senior VP). This is all factual. And what's more, Republicans should be just as worried about it as Democrats, because mischievous anarchic blue-state college kids might be tempted to tamper with the machines just to tamper with them (MIT, I'm looking at you). Exit polls and absentee ballots are just a distraction.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:26:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"And while I doubt they could have stopped the plan before it started, I'd like to think that the folks at NORAD would have had enough info to blow the planes out of the sky in time."
-------------
Listen to you, Jay. All you have are "doubts" and conjectures. You mention NORAD, but you say they didn't have "TIME"!?!?!?!
Let's talk about NORAD, Jay.
Why did they stand down for an hour and a half? 1.5 HOURS. 90 MINUTES. 5,400 seconds.
Why and more importantly HOW did they manage to stand down for that period of time?
Why weren't jets scrambled to intercept the other flights the radar operators suspected had been hijacked and were severely off course?
I want you to sit and think about that, Jay. Think about why all the planes had been moved to places like Florida and Canada for supposed training missions. Think about it for a full hour and a half, because that's about how long NORAD had to scramble jets after the first strike on WTC and didn't.
If I berate people for being idiots, or for not seeing what I see, it's because they DON'T see what I see when it comes to 9/11. That was a classic false flag operation and the American public has bought it hook, line, and sinker. Even here on the internet - a supposed haven for liberal thinking - cowardly people like you simply cannot get past the shock of such an idea long enough to examine the evidence with clarity. You taint it at every turn with your presupposed assumptions that nothing like this could EVER happen, when history has shown repeatedly the opposite.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:12:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I wouldn't actually bitch with (most) of this. It's statement of opinion, and I have very few issues with people stating an opinion. (exceptions being when it's done with malicious intent or that sort of thing)
Brad tries to preach to us that we're blind to everything he sees as fact, and condemns us for it, not understanding that we've seen the information he's seen, and we've placed each bit of information higher and lower on our "believability" scale.
I don't doubt that the Bush administartion KNEW about SOME plan against the US. I doubt they knew specifics, though. What targets, what date, stuff like that. Only because I doubt the hijackers new the date until a few days or a week beforehand.
So do I blame the Bush *administration* for 9/11? In part. They had warning signs, and if the processes were streamlined, and if the agencies didn't have conflicts of ego, those signs could have been heeded. And while I doubt they could have stopped the plan before it started, I'd like to think that the folks at NORAD would have had enough info to blow the planes out of the sky in time.
Now, do I blame Bush himself as an individual? Not really. Even though he's the president, he's only one man. He delegates a lot of the running of this country to people he trusts. We may not trust them, but he does.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:11:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by consuelo212 (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:00:06 (#)
Ranking: 2
Yep Jack, you're a fucking retard if "too much estrogen" is your only comeback to this article.
===
I'd actually really like to see a detailed response to Olbermann's points from Jack. He used to enrage me with his political views and I kinda miss that.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:09:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't get to vote. Unless someone who wasn't planning on voting anyway volunteers to vote the way I tell them to.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:08:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-27 10:48:50 (#)
Ranking: 2
Ya know, if ETS presented cases like you, I wouldn't have such a dislike for him.
This wasn't condecending, this wasn't lashed together with "facts" from other conspiracy sites, this didn't argue points that weren't relevant to topic.
Maybe this can rub off on him a bit.
*crosses fingers*
------------------------
Interesting you'd say that since the post is...oh...about one sentence in length.
You'd be shocked if you found that I'd actually written this and had FA post it for me, wouldn't you?
Not that that happened, mind you. But it's food for your thoughts...that is...if you have any.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:05:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I LOVE watching Indoninja try to do his job and fail.
Tell you what, read Greg Palast, people, and THEN decide what happened in 2000 and 2004. Watch his videos. Or maybe read another one of the thousands of articles detailing how the GOP stole both elections. http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptNoneDare.html
I'm gonna keep pummeling you with articles rather than waste my time tearing Indo apart ONCE AGAIN point by point.
All the people out there who are fed up with the way things are going in the world, go vote against the current ruling party. What the hell have you got to lose? The world is already IN hell and the hand basket has buned up long ago. Let's elect the Dems and sic them on this administration. Let's write them expressing the urgent need for trials on war crimes to take place. Tell them we want another 9/11 investigation. We want an investigation into how they manufactured the WMD intel that got us into Iraq. Whatever you do, don't just sit there.
Submitted by consuelo212 (user info) at 2006-09-27 11:00:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2006-09-27 00:22:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
This is what happens when a man has too much estrogen in his system.
-----
Submitted by Lisa (user info) at 2006-09-27 02:50:53 (#)
Ranking: 2
The conservatives that I know--all of them--are ignorant people. They just aren't sharp. They've been brainwashed by religion and they act according to other people's ideas of right and wrong. They're gullible, trusting of all authority that associates itself with their beliefs and are afraid of question and original thought. They are followers. They believe that they're protected by a higher power, and their absorption in the metaphysical world renders them useless and apathetic in the real world.
-----
Yep Jack, you're a fucking retard if "too much estrogen" is your only comeback to this article.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-27 10:56:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-27 10:46:23 (#)
Ranking: 0
Mo Mowlam. She's dead now - that's what you get for negotiating with terrorists.
===
I laughed really hard at this when I typed it, but now feel quite guilty. Sorry Mo, you were a nice lady and that brain tumour was tragic.
Perhaps if you'd been wearing your tin foil ha.........oh god. I can't stop.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-27 10:54:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-27 10:48:50 (#)
Ranking: 2
Ya know, if ETS presented cases like you, I wouldn't have such a dislike for him.
This wasn't condecending, this wasn't lashed together with "facts" from other conspiracy sites, this didn't argue points that weren't relevant to topic.
Maybe this can rub off on him a bit.
*crosses fingers*
===
Fear not, I'm sure he'll throw his 2 million cents in soon enough.
I suspect if I'd actually put any of my own thoughts in this, you'd probably hate it and we'd be having a big back and forth slurfest right now. I'm just keeping out of it in the hopes that more people will watch the videos.
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-09-27 10:50:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-27 07:32:12 (#)
When it comes to spin and finger pointing neither side is worse.
-=-=-=-=-=-
True, but when it comes to outright lies, the right has the lead far and away. And I'm no Democrat.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-09-27 10:48:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Ya know, if ETS presented cases like you, I wouldn't have such a dislike for him.
This wasn't condecending, this wasn't lashed together with "facts" from other conspiracy sites, this didn't argue points that weren't relevant to topic.
Maybe this can rub off on him a bit.
*crosses fingers*
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-27 10:46:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2006-09-27 10:42:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
how was ira terrorism solved?
by hunting them down and exterminating them?
as far as i know, a peace was NEGOTIATED
and one of the main figures in this, some fat pommie woman politician, is the only major public figure i've seen suggest a similar approach with the clothheads
====
Mo Mowlam. She's dead now - that's what you get for negotiating with terrorists.
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2006-09-27 10:42:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
how was ira terrorism solved?
by hunting them down and exterminating them?
as far as i know, a peace was NEGOTIATED
and one of the main figures in this, some fat pommie woman politician, is the only major public figure i've seen suggest a similar approach with the clothheads
Submitted by shandythedog (user info) at 2006-09-27 10:39:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
not bad, but as usual the concept of actually trying to understand the situation, viewpoint and POLITICAL objectives of the 'terrorists', with a view to negotiating a solution, is not even part of the discourse.
To me, that is the real mistake.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-09-27 10:36:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
that's actual the logical thing seeing as it takes so long for a president to implement all his policies in one term. bush is still a twat though and the last three prez's all went to the same school anyway. maybe it's a group effort.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-09-27 10:19:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is a very thought-provoking article. Nice filename too - rapist hands - hahahaha
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-27 09:30:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-27 07:32:12 (#)
Ranking: -1
"The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four."
You kind of took a turn after this.
=====
You?
You understand that the text there is a transcript of the Olbermann commentary and not my own, right? I never can tell with you.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2006-09-27 09:03:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-09-27 08:38:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2006-09-27 01:34:57 (#)
Ranking: 2
This is one of the greatest things I have ever seen.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-27 08:32:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I can't help it that Rolling stone article gets worse and worse.
"The first indication that something was gravely amiss on November 2nd, 2004, was the inexplicable discrepancies between exit polls and actual vote counts. Polls in thirty states weren't just off the mark -- they deviated to an extent that cannot be accounted for by their margin of error. In all but four states, the discrepancy favored President Bush.(16)"
Inexplicable? Inexplicable!! It is explained right in the source he is using.
(16) Evaluation of Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004'' prepared by Edison Media Research and Mitofksy International for the National Election Pool (NEP), January 19, 2005, Page 3)
"Our investigation of the differences between the exit poll estimates and the actual vote
count point to one primary reason: in a number of precincts a higher than average Within
Precinct Error most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher
rate than Bush voters."
The report he is citing as a source goes on to say.
"Exit polls do not support the allegations of fraud due to rigging of voting equipment."
It is like he did a keyword search of his sources and didn't actually read them.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2006-09-27 08:26:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuck yes.
How did Bushy win again? He imparted fear into the hearts of many Americans, made "liberal" a bad word and told lies in order to shield his true intention - get the man who tried to kill his daddy.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-27 08:22:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-27 02:57:32 (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
http://www.gregpalast.com/stealing-america-the-film-that-bust-the-fraud#more-1490
For those who would say that these are leftist sources, why don't you try countering their claims.
------------------------------------------
Have you read it? It is obviously geared towards pimple faced "rebels' who think the system is fucked and who will swallow any half truth they are presented. So, perfect for you.
I don't have time to pick through all of this shit so i will focus on what the writer deems to be the most important part.
"In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots.(14)"
"14) Democratic National Committee, Voting Rights Institute, ''Democracy at Risk: The 2004 Election in Ohio'', June 22, 2005. Page 5"-
Well right off the back he answers his own question. Don't you think that an unprecedented number of voters may cause some type of problem in processing those registrations? If I am a govt office, say passports, and it normally takes 4 weeks to process them and all of the sudden an "unprecedented flood" of passport applications come through, don't you think that might slow down the process?
But lets ignore the facts and pretend that it was some GOP conspiracy. Even if you show up at the polls and aren't registered you can still vote with provisional ballots.
Of the thinly veiled hints that race and therefore party was the cause of people having to resort to provisional ballots, "difference between the two groups is not statistically significant. 3.5 percent (plus or minus 0.5 percent) of white voters cast a provisional ballot, while 4.1 percent (plus or minus 1.0 percent) of African American" (from DNC source above).
The report then goes to great lengths to isolate a specific groups of voters (people who voted in ohio before but have since moved) in order to show a difference in the percent who had to cast provisional votes along race lines. Nevermind that this is not a significant number overall, there is a difference so it must be a conspiracy, right? Wrong, unless this is backed up with some data as to when these people registered it is meaningless. It is very easy to picture mass registration drives occruing in black areas, which goes back to the original baseless claim of "foul play" because people had to vote with provisional ballots.
If I had more time I would go through and debunk the rest of his "shocking voting irregularity" discoveries, but I am busy today. One last quick thought. What do you think the largest block of overseas voters do? Who do you think the military would probably vote for? Overseas absentee ballots not getting sent in time hurt Bush more then helped him.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-09-27 07:32:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
"The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four."
You kind of took a turn after this.
When it comes to spin and finger pointing neither side is worse.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-09-27 04:53:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That was fucking fantastic. That should be required viewing for every single mouth breathing American.
That video needs to be seen. Outstanding!
oh... and my vote would be Colbert.
Submitted by Lisa (user info) at 2006-09-27 04:00:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Phallic, Clinton's interview is strong enough on its own. You don't even have to watch Olbermann's comment to accept the points that he's trying to get across.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-09-27 03:32:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Uhm...are you guys just waking up to the fact that Bush is a retard?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-09-27 03:04:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2006-09-27 02:47:51 (#)
Ranking: 2
lmao at mccallum, men with too much estrogen seek the company of multiple cats instead of getting laid
===
HAHAHA
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-27 02:59:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2006-09-27 02:33:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
I thought ETS wrote this, it was so bilious.
In a tirade i found biased enough to ignore
---------------------
Next people will be saying that if I say 5x5=25 I'm just being biased against the fucking number 24.
Jesus fucking CHRIST...enough!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-27 02:57:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Lisa (user info) at 2006-09-27 02:50:53 (#)
Ranking: 2
Now I'm all fired up.
How could so many people have voted for Bush the second time around? How can anyone not see that he's an empty-headed puppet?
---------------------
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
http://www.gregpalast.com/stealing-america-the-film-that-bust-the-fraud#more-1490
For those who would say that these are leftist sources, why don't you try countering their claims.
Submitted by Lisa (user info) at 2006-09-27 02:50:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Now I'm all fired up.
How could so many people have voted for Bush the second time around? How can anyone not see that he's an empty-headed puppet?
The conservatives that I know--all of them--are ignorant people. They just aren't sharp. They've been brainwashed by religion and they act according to other people's ideas of right and wrong. They're gullible, trusting of all authority that associates itself with their beliefs and are afraid of question and original thought. They are followers. They believe that they're protected by a higher power, and their absorption in the metaphysical world renders them useless and apathetic in the real world. There are too many people like that in America--without them, Bush would never have been elected twice, and the kind of obvious propaganda campaigns implemented by his administration wouldn't be so ridiculously successful.
I think religion hinders life in so many ways. It prevents people from facing reality. I'd like to read something that even comes close to convincing me that the benefits of religion outweigh the downfalls.
All this ranting, and I don't even LIKE politics. I guess it's time for bed.
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2006-09-27 02:47:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
lmao at mccallum, men with too much estrogen seek the company of multiple cats instead of getting laid
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-27 02:44:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2006-09-27 02:33:41 (#)
Ranking: 0
In a tirade i found biased enough to ignore...
===
Everything is biased to some extent. If you're only going to pay attention to pure, unadulterated-by-opinion-or-personal-politics fact, then I suspect you're going to have an awful lot of free time on your hands.
Having watched it again, I appreciate the jibe about claiming the question was emailed in by a boatload of viewers. If you watch the Clinton segment I've linked up there, it really is a painfully clumsy justification for shoehorning the question in. Not even close to subtle.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2006-09-27 02:33:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I thought ETS wrote this, it was so bilious.
In a tirade i found biased enough to ignore, this stood out:
"And of course, were it true Clinton had been "distracted" by the Lewinsky witch-hunt — who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt? Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?"
as a very good point.
Submitted by the_lone_stranger (user info) at 2006-09-27 02:09:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Nice!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-27 02:03:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2006-09-27 01:52:43 (#)
Ranking: 0
He makes a good point, but I don't like the extreme terms he uses sometimes.
----------------
Extreme times usually call for extreme measures...I think you can deal with a few "extreme terms" you fucking faggot.
There's an "extreme term". What Mr. Olbermann spoke is usually referred to as the "truth". Learn the difference, boy.
Submitted by whiskey_jack (user info) at 2006-09-27 02:01:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Keith Olberman PWNS SOULS
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2006-09-27 01:52:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
He makes a good point, but I don't like the extreme terms he uses sometimes.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2006-09-27 01:34:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is one of the greatest things I have ever seen.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-09-27 01:22:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This is going to be an interesting mudslinging war. I doubt it will happen, but I'm hoping beyond hope that it will get dirty enough that skeletons will start coming out...the kind that get people impeached.
Oh, by the way...gasoline in Evansville, Indiana is now back down to $1.99 per gallon.
Nice strategy. I just hope common people see through it. Talks I've had with people here in middle America bible-beltland indicate they do.
This is going to be a fun election year, but I fear a disappointing one for Democrats. I think that, in spite of everything their opponents have donw wrong, they will lose because of diversionary tactics and/or electronic voting machine fraud.
I wish we could just get it over with and get a third party in there, but I don't know if this is the time.
Submitted by jeveuxgagner (user info) at 2006-09-27 01:02:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by AsshOly (user info) at 2006-09-27 00:57:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
they werent.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-27 00:45:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't have much of an opinion on Clinton one way or the other, but I got a kick out of his behaviour in that interview.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-09-27 00:41:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
bill clinton was ace
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-09-27 00:39:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
he sounds a litlte bit too intense for my taste. very grandiose.
but his crusade against O'Reilly, JackMacCullum's favorite media source, is hilarious
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-09-27 00:31:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The Linzy household is currently engaged in debate over who is sexier - Olbermann or Colbert.
It's a tough call. Colbert is a sexy, sexy individual but how can you not want to fellate a man who uses phrases like "a monkey posing as a newscaster"
Who would you rather do?
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2006-09-27 00:30:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Worse than Harding? That's harsh. Tough to argue with though.
Submitted by HotWillie (user info) at 2006-09-27 00:26:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2006-09-27 00:22:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This is what happens when a man has too much estrogen in his system.