samclemens

QUOTE(Soxy @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 12:49 PM) Well, let me ask you an analogous situation (I think your idea of PC might be more anti-liberal than simply broad): Let's say a fringe extreme group that is against contraceptives (all contraceptives) boycotts Walgreens because they provide those products. If Walgreens gives in (about as likely as Six Flags giving in), is Walgreens being too PC? They too would be pandering to a vocal minority. oh, i think that would be BS if walgreens gave in to that too. though the term PC and a homogenizing liberal agenda do have a strong link under my definition.

QUOTE(longshot7 @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 03:19 PM) I will entirely blame the Bush administration, for failing to respond to the Cole attack, blowing off Richard Clarke, ignoring the PDB about "Bin Laden determined to attack in America", reading "My Pet Goat" for 10 minutes after the attacks happened, failing to get Bin Laden in Tora Bora - their failure list grows everyday..... i know! nevermind the 8 years under clinton during which he did f@*# all. bush should have taken care of it completely during the first 8 months of his administration.

An opinion on clinton's reasons for his anger in the interview

Bush Has Met Privately With 1,149 Relatives Of Dead Service Members

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 11:43 AM) Personally, I think that if you let the Swift Boat liars convince you of anything other than the fact that they were willing to do anything and say anything to keep Mr. Kerry from getting into office, you're learning the wrong message from them. Kerry could have won 7 Congressional Medals of Honor and they'd have said that that medal had no meaning. He could have been nothing but a torso and they'd have said his wounds were faked. true, kerry and those guys have been duking it out ever since kerry ratted (no other word for it) on his fellow soldiers in 'nam. they have always hated him, and will do anything to destroy him, because, lets face it, his ratting was a big contributor to the animosity towards vets when they came home. it never mattered to me whether or not kerry was telling the truth. he crossed the line when he ratted his fellow soldiers out for political clout and fame. in a way, he kind of reaped what he sowed. maybe it wouldnt have been such a monumental issue if he hadnt brought up his service in 'nam every other word he spoke during his campaign. on a side note, had anyone ever seen the debate that occurred in the early '70s between john kerry and the head of the vietnam vet association (cant remember his name)? its a fascinating debate, im sure theres a link for it somewhere on the net but i dont have time to find it. can anyone help with that?

QUOTE(Soxy @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 11:34 AM) IF Six flags gives in (highly unlikely), then it will be pandering to the minority. Politically correct though? Please. There is nothing political about eating a stupid cockroach. political correctness has a broader meaning for me that it does for you i guess.

im no fashion expert, but i know stars arent supposed to wear the same exact thing. i guess kimonos are on the ins now?

I just rented an australian movie called "the proposition". it takes place in the outback when australia was still being colonized. if you like dark westerns, its not too bad. i recommend it. Also, i rented "Lucky # Slevin" too. It's so-so, the ending can be called out about half-way through but its pretty good.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 11:27 AM) In his last season with Colorado (2004,) Vinny "Focking" Castilla had a higher road OPS (by 50 points too) than Michael Young has for his career. anyone remember last season when a bunch of people advocated trading joe crede for vinny castilla? that was frickin hilarious.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 11:16 AM) I think that this has nothing to do with being PC. PETA is against the cruelty to animals and is also against eating animals. So, it's not PC BS. It's what the organization (by definition of its name) aims to do. So you may disagree with PETA, but this stand has nothing whatsoever to do with being PC. (And are you honestly trying to say that killing roaches isn't PC?) I say PC because they are asking six flags to cancel a roach eating contest because it offends their tiny minority group. If six flags gives in to their demand, that is nothing less than polictically correct pandering. so it is PC BS in my opinion.

all together now... "PC BS"

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 25, 2006 -> 08:41 AM) Sam, have you forgotten that this was the first bit of terrorism by a foreigner? The previous event was by US military trained US citizens. Add in the Washington Sniper and perhaps we should "wake up" and start rounding up all ex-military and keeping them under lock and key. you cant draw parallels between islamic terrorists and american soldiers. i dont think it works because you only have one event brought on by mcveigh, and three brought on by islamic terrorists. the warning signs were clear and clinton was incompetant. he had 8 years and bush had 8 months- all im saying is apportion the blame accordingly. he had the WTC bombing in '93, knew bin laden was a suspect by '95, and a year later personally took a pass at taking possession of him or at least questioning him. no, that might offend some muslims. someone above said he responded to the embassy bombings, how? i dont remember anything, nothing drastic. did we even make an arrest?

QUOTE(GaelicSoxFan @ Sep 24, 2006 -> 06:48 PM) Your math is technically right but skewed. Techincally, Clinton was President during the 1993 WTC bombing. He'd been in office for exactly thirty-one days. So IMO, that really happened on W's daddy's watch. Clinton used that as an opportunity to triple the counterterrorism budgets of the CIA, NSA and FBI. I seem to recall seeing on the nightly news during the Clinton administration several sleeper cells getting cleaned out. His administration even thwarted a truck bombing plot in Albania. Now, I know that some cells slipped through the cracks, like the embassy bombings and the bombing of the USS Cole. But ask the organizers of the 1993 WTC bombing if Clinton was soft on terrorism. I hear that prisoners like having visitors. As far as I'm concerned, Clinton only made two mistakes in office: NAFTA and trusting W to act on the plans he'd left in place to go after al Quaeda. you are misunderstanding the point i was making. im not blaming clinton for the '93 WTC bombing, im saying that, the embassy bombings in africa and the USS Cole were all obvious warnings, which he did zippo about. as for increasing the counterterrorism budget after the '93 WTC bombing, I cant find any data to refute that in the net, and i dont feel like looking forever, so i'll take your word for it. clinton gets no credit for that and it counts for nothing in my book. if he gets any credit for increasing the budget in response to a terrorist attack, it is more than offset by the "Jamie Gorrelic Wall" clinton's administration is notorious for (a policy put in place that discouraged the CIA and FBI from sharing info). and finally, you omitted from your explanation on how clinton was offered osama bin laden in 1996, when bin laden had been suspected a co-conspirator in the '93 WTC bombing in 1995 (clinton claims we had no grounds- he was suspected in the bombing but we had no grounds to at least question him? well, at least he mad the right PC decision and didnt offend any muslims...). big whoop, he busted some cells. bush's admin has busted cells too. therefore bush and clinton are on even ground as far as that aspect goes. lastly, why dont you elaborate on the "plans" clinton had in place that bush has apparently failed to follow? i have never heard of them.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 24, 2006 -> 05:01 PM) I do. It's refreshing to see any political figure in this day and age take responsiblity for policy failings on his part. And it's great to see that Clinton raised over seven billion for his initiatives. He's becoming a wonderful ex president. Here's the "legitimate, fair and balanced" Fox News website promo for the Clinton interview. i commend clinton on his fundraising abilities too, but thats another thread in the filibuster. and it doesnt change the fact that his presidency has a legacy of getting voted in twice while raising taxes to the point of a profitable governement, losing the house and senate, and spending the last two years defending an affair with a naive girl. somebody name one thing he did about the screaming warning bells of a major terrorist attack, please? look, bashing foxnews accomplishes nothing here, thats why i said everyone should leave it out in my opening post. you may not like it, but they are a legitimate news source, and chris wallace is a legitimate reporter. call him a hack, whatever, you want...people say the same thing about anderson cooper, and even about mike wallace, chris' father. attacking foxnews in this thread instead of what the interview consisted of is simply deflecting. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also, here's wallace's comments on the interview per drugereport: "I was delighted to get the chance to interview former President Clinton. This was the first one-on-one sitdown he's ever given "Fox News Sunday" during our 10 years on the air. The groundrules were simple--15 minutes--to be divided evenly between questions about the Clinton Global Initiative and anything else I wanted to ask. I intended to keep to the groundrules. In fact--I prepared 10 questions--5 on the CGI and 5 on other issues. I began the interview with 2 questions about Mr. Clinton's commitment to humanitarian causes. His answers were cogent and good-humored. Then--I asked him about his Administration's record in fighting terror--fully intending to come back to CGI later (as indeed I did). I asked what I thought was a non-confrontational question about whether he could have done more to "connect the dots and really go after al Qaeda." I was utterly surprised by the tidal wave of details--emotion--and political attacks that followed. The President was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers--accused me of a "conservative hit job"--and even spun a theory I still don't understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off. Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me. The President said I had a smirk. Actually--it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing. I tried repeatedly to adhere to the ground rules--to move the President along--and back to the CGI. But he wanted to keep talking about his record fighting terror. When it became clear he wanted to throw out the ground rules--then I just went with the flow of the interview."

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 24, 2006 -> 04:51 PM) Yes. There's plenty I could say. But at some point, I'd just wind up banging my head against a wall here. You guys and the rest of the Fox News crowd want to blame Clinton 100%, and ignore everything that doesn't fit that case. I could go point by point here, but I'm heading out in about 5 minutes. There's an ungodly amount of blame for 9/11, so much so that no one in their right mind really cares exactly who is actually at fault. If it's 60-40 Bush or 60-40 Clinton, I really don't care. Both sides made a ton of mistakes, and both sides should be judged based on them. hey, you got me wrong. i dont blame clinton 100%, but i give him a large share of the blame. of course bush is partly to blame as well. there's no disputing that clinton was in office for 8 years and saw 3 terrorist attacks on US interests, and in my opinion did nothing about it. bush was in office 8 months when 9/11 occurred, should have done more, but did not have close to the opporetunity clinton ha. thats the math i base my opinion on.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 24, 2006 -> 04:38 PM) And on the other hand, any left-leaning page you go to proclaims Clinton Smacking Down Fox News over the way they've dealt with the whole 9/11 issue. Amazing how everything always fits in with however you've already decided to interpret things. ...so do you have any comment on what was actually said in the interview?

he enlisted of his own will. time to face the same consequences other deserters face when they desert. enjoy prison!

his "heal the world" do-nothing policies towards terrorism are at least a large part of the reason we are where we are today. im sure i'll be crucified for saying this. also, please don't bother slamming fox news, try instead actually adressing what was said in the interview. face it, foxnews is as legitimate as the other mainstream media sources like cnn and msnbc, and chris wallace is as legitimate as any other interviewing reporter.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060923/D8KAHRNG0.html

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 23, 2006 -> 01:10 AM) Egypt is the only arab country that recognizes and has diplomatic relations with Israel. Islamist parties are by and large banned. Their constitution says that laws that Egypt passes must implicitly comply with Sharia is by no means adopting Sharia. That's like saying that laws we pass must implicitly comply with the Ten Commandments. There's a lot of latitude with words like implicit. Egypt is not a state run by islamic extremists. apparently thats your opinion, we disagree here.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 22, 2006 -> 07:52 PM) Indonesia is an islamic country. It's the biggest in the world. It is a democracy not controlled by islamic extremists. Please name one muslim country that has an islamic extremist head of state that was Democratically elected besides Iran. thats the problem, so few are actually elected. i can think of two, one being iran, and i would have to say the other is egypt, because of the fundamentalist law that is enforced there (per their constitution, laws must agree with islamic law; non-muslims who advocate other religions can be punished under egyptian law)- given, mubarek doesnt flaunt like amenamejad (sp) but the people there live under islamic fundamentalist law, and are oppressed just the same. we just dont hear about it because mubarek smartly doesnt rattle his sword at the west.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Sep 22, 2006 -> 04:35 PM) So are you saying muslims don't deserve democracy? Because a lot of the political parties that are extremely religious conservative tend to win because of corruption within the existing system. Palestine didn't vote for terrorism with Hamas. They voted against corruption. Iran didn't vote for a crazy guy who wanted to wipe Israel off the map. They voted against an ineffectual moderate who had no luck improving the economy for the everyday Iranian. Muslims, like most voters in Democratic processes, tend to vote out of their pocketbooks and about issues that affect them locally. if thats to me, no, im not saying muslims dont deserve democracy at all. im saying that the only reason someone friendly to the US is in power is because he is able to use some force to keep himself there. and theres no denying that most elected officials in majority-muslim countries are islamic fundamentalists to a large degree. before anyone tries to counter me with examples, i dont count dictators (yes, assad in syria is a dictator), and turkey would be an outlier- in fact i personally consider turkey more european that middle eastern islamic. that's why im saying generally. i dont know how you are getting what you think i was saying out of that. all i was doing was making guesses as to mushareff's play here.

more importantly, im wondering if musharref is indicating by deduction that would the threat not have been made, that he would not have gotten on board with us? musharref has been walking a tightrope for many years, muslims in southern asia on one side and the US on the other. the fact that he is a dictator is the only reason he's still around, in my opinion. were it a democratic society there would surely be a typical hardline muslim fundamentalist in office right now. my bet is that he's covering his angles with the muslims in pakistan and the surrounding regions. though you would think he is realizing that by painting himself as a puppet of the US, he is weakening his standing with pakistani muslims. i guess that still doesnt explain why he waited so long to say this. i think hes making some kind of move the US isnt going to like, so he's playing a card to keep us off balance.

not much progress, i must say

interesting...i had no idea