http://blogs.chicagotribune.co...08/01/obamareagan.html
Yes, I'm anti-Clinton, but read this because it is still a pretty decent article.
Yes, I'm anti-Clinton, but read this because it is still a pretty decent article.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Article: Why stop short? The Clinton's Lied about Obama's Remarks...
- Thread starter Carmen813
- Start date
Brainonska511
Lifer
Don't forget:
Trolling Tech's post: Check.
techs
Lifer
Apparently if you are anti-Clinton you can post an anti-Clinton link and just comment that its good. But if you post an anti-Bush link and comment its good you get locked and warned.
http://blip.tv/file/520347
cKGunslinger
Lifer
Where's conjur's whaaambulance when you need it?
The national press is both bored and embarrassed.
Bored they can not create a cat fight between ANY of the Candidates.
And embarrassed they were totally 100% WRONG with all their predictions
that Obama was going to win N.H. by 10+ points, and Hillary was going to pack it in afterwards.
The press wants to create these little dog fights between the Candidates.
Even the littlest comment gets full 24/7 coverage.
Thats what this op is falling for, like so many others.
You'd think, by watching msnbc, nbc, abc, cbs, fox, etc etc,
that none of the candidates talk about anything else but nit picking.
Well, on the trail they talk healthcare, taxes, the war, economy.
On the national debates, they are egged on by questions like
"was Bill Clinton our first black president". A total BS question
that means NOTHING to American voters.
Too bad we can not ban all national press coverage,
and force everyone to get their news from c-span live coverage ONLY.
I hope readers are tired of this, and more important, do not fall for it AGAIN THIS TIME...
The press has this illusion they are God, and call all the shots.
They constantly spin everything. Spin spin spin.
They treat Americans like we are all 4 year olds with the attention
spans of 3 year olds. Is that how you feel???
Thats how they view you!
Bored they can not create a cat fight between ANY of the Candidates.
And embarrassed they were totally 100% WRONG with all their predictions
that Obama was going to win N.H. by 10+ points, and Hillary was going to pack it in afterwards.
The press wants to create these little dog fights between the Candidates.
Even the littlest comment gets full 24/7 coverage.
Thats what this op is falling for, like so many others.
You'd think, by watching msnbc, nbc, abc, cbs, fox, etc etc,
that none of the candidates talk about anything else but nit picking.
Well, on the trail they talk healthcare, taxes, the war, economy.
On the national debates, they are egged on by questions like
"was Bill Clinton our first black president". A total BS question
that means NOTHING to American voters.
Too bad we can not ban all national press coverage,
and force everyone to get their news from c-span live coverage ONLY.
I hope readers are tired of this, and more important, do not fall for it AGAIN THIS TIME...
The press has this illusion they are God, and call all the shots.
They constantly spin everything. Spin spin spin.
They treat Americans like we are all 4 year olds with the attention
spans of 3 year olds. Is that how you feel???
Thats how they view you!
palehorse
Lifer
I don't really miss conjur... that guy was a fvcking tool. although, I suspect he's here somewhere...
anyways... as for the OP.. offfffff course the Clinton's lied... that's what they do. that's all they've EVER done. It's their best skill! Hell, if I needed a conman, I'd call them first! Especially Hillary, as she would be the best man for the job!...
Are YOU ready for eight more years of the Bush-Clinton dynasty?
swell.
ps: I need more Woodford Reserve... just ran out... anyone have any they could email to me? 😕
spittledip
Diamond Member
This article was meh. Not a big deal in my estimation.
rockyct
Diamond Member
This factcheck article on the SC debate is a little better: http://www.factcheck.org/elect...on-obama_slugfest.html Obama wasn't entirely accurate with his claims against Clinton, but Clinton was a bit worse.
theeedude
Lifer
I don't see the lie. He made it sound as if Republicans had the good ideas in the last 10-15 years.
"I think it?s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
NO, OBAMA, IT'S NOT FAIR TO SAY THAT.
Challenging conventional wisdom is giving Credit to the GOP. In fact, the ones challenging conventional wisdom in the last 10-15 years were the Democrats who challenged the conventional wisdom that if you raise taxes to balance the budget, you will destroy the economy. The Democrats, lead by Bill Clinton were right, they were the party of ideas.
Republicans "ideas" were a false contract with America that they proceeded to default on.
"I think it?s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
NO, OBAMA, IT'S NOT FAIR TO SAY THAT.
Challenging conventional wisdom is giving Credit to the GOP. In fact, the ones challenging conventional wisdom in the last 10-15 years were the Democrats who challenged the conventional wisdom that if you raise taxes to balance the budget, you will destroy the economy. The Democrats, lead by Bill Clinton were right, they were the party of ideas.
Republicans "ideas" were a false contract with America that they proceeded to default on.
Since when did someones post count judge the validity of their opinions?
You have other 6000 posts but from reading that one I'm guessing 90% of them were trolls. You wanna refute the article, fine, but man up and show me a counter arguement.
I don't feel like I'm falling for anything. I've been supporting Obama for a long time. I listened to the interview about his Reagan comments BEFORE the SC debate, and the fact of the matter is that both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have lied about what he said.
There are no 'versions' or the truth, or 'distortions' of the truth. A lie is a lie, no matter how large or small the consequences, something the Clinton family clearly doesn't care about.
They are also extreme hypocrits, bashing him for essentially saying something good about Reagan when they both offered praise of his presidency.
I can't stand how people give them a pass on this. Bill Clinton LIED to the American Congress during his presidency. So did Bush. Were the consequences the same? No. But they both did serious damage to the Executive Officer. Putting HIllary and Bill back in the White House won't magically turn things back to the 1990's and make everything 'wonderful' again.
Put it this way, if she is willing to lie about something her opponent said in order to win an election, will she be willing to tell us the truth on issues of national importance?
I'm 23 years old, turning 24 in August. 20 years of my life have been run by either Bush or Clinton presidencies. Enough is enough, they had their time and they caused massive divisions in the "United" States. They have dragged this country down.
On the issues, Obama and Clinton are virtually identical, however Obama is the ONLY one who is going to be willing to work with Independents and Republicans to get the job done. Hillary is a divisive political hack who will do, or say, anything to win the election. I saw it here in NY in 2000, and again in 2006. She is a PHONY.
Also, I have no access to television. I get my news online, from Drudge.
You have other 6000 posts but from reading that one I'm guessing 90% of them were trolls. You wanna refute the article, fine, but man up and show me a counter arguement.
I don't feel like I'm falling for anything. I've been supporting Obama for a long time. I listened to the interview about his Reagan comments BEFORE the SC debate, and the fact of the matter is that both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have lied about what he said.
There are no 'versions' or the truth, or 'distortions' of the truth. A lie is a lie, no matter how large or small the consequences, something the Clinton family clearly doesn't care about.
They are also extreme hypocrits, bashing him for essentially saying something good about Reagan when they both offered praise of his presidency.
I can't stand how people give them a pass on this. Bill Clinton LIED to the American Congress during his presidency. So did Bush. Were the consequences the same? No. But they both did serious damage to the Executive Officer. Putting HIllary and Bill back in the White House won't magically turn things back to the 1990's and make everything 'wonderful' again.
Put it this way, if she is willing to lie about something her opponent said in order to win an election, will she be willing to tell us the truth on issues of national importance?
I'm 23 years old, turning 24 in August. 20 years of my life have been run by either Bush or Clinton presidencies. Enough is enough, they had their time and they caused massive divisions in the "United" States. They have dragged this country down.
On the issues, Obama and Clinton are virtually identical, however Obama is the ONLY one who is going to be willing to work with Independents and Republicans to get the job done. Hillary is a divisive political hack who will do, or say, anything to win the election. I saw it here in NY in 2000, and again in 2006. She is a PHONY.
Also, I have no access to television. I get my news online, from Drudge.
jonks
Lifer
Perhaps all you kneejerk anti-clinton folks missed that John Edwards also seized on Obama's Reagan remarks and ran with it? Where's the hate for the lying, scumbaggy, deceiving antichrist Edwards?
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2...oad/entry3724550.shtml
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/17/15343/6894
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2...oad/entry3724550.shtml
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/17/15343/6894
theeedude
Lifer
The original lie was that "Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years"
It's clearly designed to distort the Clinton record in the 90s and to distract from it. It's the kind of thing you'd expect a Republican Clinton basher to say. Maybe Obama should run for the GOP nomination.
It's clearly designed to distort the Clinton record in the 90s and to distract from it. It's the kind of thing you'd expect a Republican Clinton basher to say. Maybe Obama should run for the GOP nomination.
Where do you get yours from? Fox? CNN? MSNBC?
You will find bias in any news media. I like reading AP articles. Drudge has a lot of them in one place. I check Yahoo news a lot.
I like this new argument. Because I'm Anti-Clinton I'm a republican.
Give me a fucking break.
You will find bias in any news media. I like reading AP articles. Drudge has a lot of them in one place. I check Yahoo news a lot.
I like this new argument. Because I'm Anti-Clinton I'm a republican.
Give me a fucking break.
Why don't you include the actual quote?
"I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
He is making a historical observation. The "I think" makes the statement an opinion. In the past 20 years, we have had 8 years of a Democrat as President. Dems lost Congress in 1994.
Clearly, Republicans have dominated the majority of government for the past 20 years, and must have generated ideas that got them elected.
Historical Observation.
He also said he felt Reagan was better able to 'unite' people to push his agenda across, even though it was against there ideas.
You know, I wouldn't need to explain this to you if you actually read the article (or the factcheck.org one) instead of just trolling my thread.
theeedude
Lifer
These politicians always say "I think" so that they can't be nailed down on anything. He was praising GOP in the 90s to bash Clintons. Not a good idea in the Democratic nomination. Challenging conventional wisdom is generally considered a good thing, so there is no lie in the Clinton's characterization. It may be a stretch, but it's not a lie. Obama's denial is telling though. He is playing victim to detract from his own political snafu.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
