An angry Clinton on Fox

RandFan said:
FWIW, I'm not convinced that Clinton did all that he could but then I'm not convinced that a Republican would have either. There is a certain amount of hindsight reasoning in all of this.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Before 9/11, I think each pretty much did what they thought was reasonable at the time. (That I personally didn't agree with what some of each thought was reasonable at the time is neither here nor there.)

After 9/11, however, some of decisions made on both sides are highly questionable, imho. I lay the blame of most of those decisions in the Republicans' laps mostly because they've been in the driver's seat the entire time.
 
Upchurch said:
As I didn't say anything about what you intended, there is very little worry of that.
Click to expand...

Huh? You just said:

Uh-huh. Sure. You weren't going out of your way do draw a connection between the two largely unrelated events at all.
Click to expand...

Which clearly bespeaks your suspicion of an agenda, a.k.a. intentions.
 
Just had a bizarre set of visuals with this thread's title:

An angry Clinton on Fox

1. Slick Willy Philandering, part IX: WJC in flagrente delicto, male dominant, with the lovely Vivica Fox.

I imagine such a juxtaposition has crossed his mind. He's still alive and breathing, right?

2. Photos of Vicente Fox and Slick Willy in the horror that none of you wanted to have flash into your heads until you just read this.

You are welcome for that visual.

My task here is done.

DR
 
Jocko said:
Sigh. Whether they are or not, your reply to Ziggurat clearly indicated that you thought he was attempting to create one - IOW, divining his "intentions."
Click to expand...

Oh, don't bother. When Upchurch gets fixated on something like this, it's really not worth the effort to get him to be able to look at it from a different perspective.
 
Jocko said:
Sigh. Whether they are or not, your reply to Ziggurat clearly indicated that you thought he was attempting to create one - IOW, divining his "intentions."
Click to expand...
I agree: *sigh*

My sarcasm and typos aside (should have been "to" rather than "do"), I didn't say he was attempting to create a relation. I said he did go out of his way to create a connection. I wasn't speaking of his intentions but of what he actually did.
Upchurch said:
You weren't going out of your way do draw a connection between the two largely unrelated events at all. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Removing the sarcasm:
Upchurch said:
You went out of your way to draw a connection between two largely unrelated events.
Click to expand...
You'll note I did not say, "You went out of your way to make Bill Clinton look like a bad person." That would have been divining Zig's intentions.
 
Upchurch said:
I agree: *sigh*

My sarcasm and typos aside (should have been "to" rather than "do"), I didn't say he was attempting to create a relation. I said he did go out of his way to create a connection. I wasn't speaking of his intentions but of what he actually did.

Removing the sarcasm:

You'll note I did not say, "You went out of your way to make Bill Clinton look like a bad person." That would have been divining Zig's intentions.
Click to expand...


A distinction only Claus could love, IMHO.
 
Ziggurat said:
Oh, don't bother. When Upchurch gets fixated on something like this, it's really not worth the effort to get him to be able to look at it from a different perspective.
Click to expand...
Oh, please. I'm the first to admit when I've made a legitimate mistake. (well, at least somewhere in the Top 20 of mistake admiters. Recent example.)

Just because we're in the Politics forum does not mean that we should not adhere to a little rigorous rationality and avoid logical fallacies.
 
Upchurch said:
No, I think he's arguing the hypocrisy of those who are arguing that he was too obsessed with OBL then are the same people who are arguing that he wasn't obsessed enough with OBL now.
Click to expand...

You're right. After reading the transcript today, Clinton was clearly arguing ad hoc.

ETA: Great. Now I look like a suck-up because of your previous post about admitting mistakes.
 
Last edited:
Cylinder said:
You're right. After reading the transcript today, Clinton was clearly arguing ad hoc.

ETA: Great. Now I look like a suck-up because of your previous post about admitting mistakes.
Click to expand...
(I won't say anything if you don't.)

I always have to look up the Latin terms*, and even then I don't always get how it applies. Are you saying that Clinton's argument is an ad hoc or that he is arguing that the Republicans are doing an ad hoc, or what?



* Who am I kidding? I had to look up "poisoning the well" to make sure I was applying it correctly.
 
I am no fan of Bill Clinton, but I believe he was getting lousy advice and guidance from his cabinet and Joint Chiefs on Bin Laden just like George Bush got lousy intelligence on Iraqi WMD.

Secondly, I don't think Wallace asked an inappropriate or disrespectful question. Clinton was waiting for the question in order to put on a show in the same way that George Bush 1 ate up an interviewer in order to kill the "wimp" personna some media types were trying to tag him with.

Thirdly, I really have to wonder about the low-level partisan political types (with nothing at stake but their silly ideology) and how they seem willing to let everything go to Hell in a handbasket just to justify their own face after talking stupid, partisan junk.
 
Vorticity said:
Wow, that was one angry Clinton.

Is it my imagination or was he being a little bit physically intimidating to that Wallace guy? Leaning forward, getting in his face, tapping his hand on the guy's leg. I thought he was going to lunge forward and grab Wallace by the lapels.
Click to expand...

I thought this too. And I thought it was disgusting and unprofessional. Reminded me of when Gore walked over to Bush during the debates trying to look tough.

Imagine if GW Bush was to do this to Wolf Blitzer. The headlines would read:

"Bush tries to intimidate reporter."

But what we got this morning was...

"Clinton passionately defends his record."



And to think he has the nerve to call Fox biased.
 
I totally agree with how Clinton handled this. He went on the offensive and went passionate. He didn't even let Matthews finish qualifying or refining the question, he cut him off and went on offense.

We will never seen another politician like Bill Clinton. He is the bar by which to judge.
 
corplinx said:
I totally agree with how Clinton handled this. He went on the offensive and went passionate. He didn't even let Matthews finish qualifying or refining the question, he cut him off and went on offense.
Click to expand...

Ummmmmmmmmmm...............That wasn't Chris Matthews. It was Chris Wallace.

We will never seen another politician like Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...

Many of us hope you are right.

He is the bar by which to judge.
Click to expand...

He should have been judged by the BAR.
 
Upchurch said:
Oh, please. I'm the first to admit when I've made a legitimate mistake. (well, at least somewhere in the Top 20 of mistake admiters. Recent example.)
Click to expand...
Hey, I gotta say, I've always found Upchurch intellectually honest. I know, he's a big boy and can defend himself and, well, who the hell am I? But I think he deserves that acknowledgment. Now, whether you want to take my word for it is a whole other matter. ;)
 
Huntster said:
Ummmmmmmmmmm...............That wasn't Chris Matthews. It was Chris Wallace.
Click to expand...

Of course you are right, that was the whiskey speaking.

If you can't see how great a politicion that Bill Clinton is despite how you think he performed his duties, then you are a blind man. He is a master politician. How much is a gallon of milk?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom