Man, He got pissed

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: mzkhadir

Originally posted by: SuperSix
How did I stumble into P&N?

thats what I was thinking too.

 

[skace]

What I could glean from what Amused pasted was that Clinton was angry because he was supposed to on the show for something that he considered an important cause and then suddenly they were back to asking age old dead questions?

"CLINTON: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because -- you're going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers, because Rupert Murdoch is supporting my work on climate change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking about -- you said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion-plus in three days from 215 different commitments, and you don't care."

I'd be pretty angry if I was trying to get the word out about a good cause only to get the past thrown in my face. Or am I misunderstanding this?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Amused
Me thinks he doth protest too much.

Sorry, but getting over emotional won't sell your case to me any better.

That anyone thinks a tirade proves someone's case simply proves the point that his "slick" nickname fits him well.

My thoughts exactly.

Bill went overboard. He complained that the interviewer didn't spend the agreed amount of time on Bill's fundraising efforts, but then he wouldn't stop ranting to let the Fox guy get in a word edge wise.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
Me thinks he doth protest too much.

LOL me think you protest too much, you made 4 posts trying to convince us not to believe our "lying ears and eyes":laugh:. You should stick with posting about your weight lifting prowess and posting those two pics of yourself posing in the mirror.

:roll:

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: skace
What I could glean from what Amused pasted was that Clinton was angry because he was supposed to on the show for something that he considered an important cause and then suddenly they were back to asking age old dead questions?

"CLINTON: Did you ever ask that? You set this meeting up because -- you're going to get a lot of criticism from your viewers, because Rupert Murdoch is supporting my work on climate change. And you came here under false pretenses and said that you'd spend half the time talking about -- you said you'd spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise $7 billion-plus in three days from 215 different commitments, and you don't care."

I'd be pretty angry if I was trying to get the word out about a good cause only to get the past thrown in my face. Or am I misunderstanding this?

They agreed *before* the interview to spend 1/2 the time on talking about his fundraising efforts, and for the other half anything goes.
The Fox guy asked one question not related to fundraising and Clinton took the rest of the interview to explain himself and he repeated the same explanation quite a few times.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused
Me thinks he doth protest too much.

Sorry, but getting over emotional won't sell your case to me any better.

That anyone thinks a tirade proves someone's case simply proves the point that his "slick" nickname fits him well.

My thoughts exactly.

Bill went overboard. He complained that the interviewer didn't spend the agreed amount of time on Bill's fundraising efforts, but then he wouldn't stop ranting to let the Fox guy get in a word edge wise.

:roll:

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused
Me thinks he doth protest too much.

Sorry, but getting over emotional won't sell your case to me any better.

That anyone thinks a tirade proves someone's case simply proves the point that his "slick" nickname fits him well.

My thoughts exactly.

Bill went overboard. He complained that the interviewer didn't spend the agreed amount of time on Bill's fundraising efforts, but then he wouldn't stop ranting to let the Fox guy get in a word edge wise.

:roll:

How original.

 

[LLCOOLJ]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused
Me thinks he doth protest too much.

Sorry, but getting over emotional won't sell your case to me any better.

That anyone thinks a tirade proves someone's case simply proves the point that his "slick" nickname fits him well.

My thoughts exactly.

Bill went overboard. He complained that the interviewer didn't spend the agreed amount of time on Bill's fundraising efforts, but then he wouldn't stop ranting to let the Fox guy get in a word edge wise.

Just like you I got my head far up Bushes ass so I tend to agree with you and Amused regarding Clinton

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ForumMaster
clinton owned that guy. he admited that he failed which is something bush would never do. he argues before that guy without a script and he is correct imo.

Clinton owned himself. He looked like a nutball and wagged his finger just like he did when he lied about Lewinsky. Not only that, but he rehashed the "vast right wing conspiracy" craziness.

Yep, he owned himself.

do i hear a baby crying?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Richard Cranium

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused
Me thinks he doth protest too much.

Sorry, but getting over emotional won't sell your case to me any better.

That anyone thinks a tirade proves someone's case simply proves the point that his "slick" nickname fits him well.

My thoughts exactly.

Bill went overboard. He complained that the interviewer didn't spend the agreed amount of time on Bill's fundraising efforts, but then he wouldn't stop ranting to let the Fox guy get in a word edge wise.

Just like you I got my head far up Bushes ass so I tend to agree with you and Amused regarding Clinton

It's not about that even though it makes someone feel better to think it.
Clinton really took too much offense to a straight forward question. He felt the need to go on and on and on about it.

This topic is being discussed over in P&N, feel free to post any comments therei