EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

Clinton vs Wallace
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3236
Page 1 of 2

Author:  denni50 [ Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Clinton vs Wallace

anyone watch the tongue-lashing Clinton gave Chris Wallace yesterday
on Fox News...man I'd never want to get into a verbal spar that man...
he chewed up Wallace and spit him out...poor guy was half stammering
and stumbling all over his words.

go getem' Bill!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060925/ap_ ... n_fox_news

Author:  Archer [ Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Clinton vs Wallace

denni50 wrote:
anyone watch the tongue-lashing Clinton gave Chris Wallace yesterday
on Fox News...man I'd never want to get into a verbal spar that man...
he chewed up Wallace and spit him out...poor guy was half stammering
and stumbling all over his words.

go getem' Bill!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060925/ap_ ... n_fox_news


:lol: He hardly chewed him up and spit him out. More lies just like any typical politician.

Author:  LC [ Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

I thought the best part was when Clinton commented on Wallace's smirk. He DOES smirk, all the time. It's like he holds his mouth in a continuous smirk.

I'm inclined to believe Clinton on this one, although he used kind of the same tone in denying a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky (which, btw, was no one's damn business, and how rude to ask!).

I'm inclined to believe it. I think in the final outcome, history will judge Clinton with much more respect than America does now - largely because of loud mouth losers like Limbaugh. It's amazing to me how hurt and wounded the conservative voice is now with the disrespectful treatment Bush is getting (which isn't right either, he deserves the respect owed to a President) but they don't remember giving worse to Clinton.

If we could just carry on as a country without louts like Limbaugh, and Bortz, and Sean Hannity, we'd be a much better place. And if Chris Wallace would wipe that smirk off his face.

Author:  denni50 [ Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:42 am ]
Post subject: 

Bush has been the best thing for the liberal left...they couldn't have gotten
a better "weapon" to squelch the conservative fanaticism that was sweeping the country 6 years ago.

Democrats are going to sweep the upcoming elections and take back
the Congress.

Wallace is still trying to piece himself back together after the "shredding"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

sick'em Bill!!

Author:  Archer [ Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:29 am ]
Post subject: 

LC wrote:
I'm inclined to believe Clinton on this one, although he used kind of the same tone in denying a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky (which, btw, was no one's damn business, and how rude to ask!).


Wow, you don't think the character of our President is important? :shock:

Author:  denni50 [ Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:52 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
Wow, you don't think the character of our President is important?


yeah like the lying sob who took us to war in Iraq and sacrificed the lives of 2,970 Americans for nothing(oh wait...I forgot...it was 9/11).

Author:  Archer [ Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:23 am ]
Post subject: 

denni50 wrote:
Quote:
Wow, you don't think the character of our President is important?


yeah like the lying sob who took us to war in Iraq and sacrificed the lives of 2,970 Americans for nothing(oh wait...I forgot...it was 9/11).


So you think the character of our President is important. Good.

Author:  sianblooz [ Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:35 am ]
Post subject: 

Archer wrote:
LC wrote:
I'm inclined to believe Clinton on this one, although he used kind of the same tone in denying a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky (which, btw, was no one's damn business, and how rude to ask!).


Wow, you don't think the character of our President is important? :shock:


Sure its important.
Thats why we need a new president.

Author:  denni50 [ Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:49 am ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
Sure its important.
Thats why we need a new president.


=D> =D>

Author:  Grace [ Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:10 pm ]
Post subject: 

I read something interesting the other day about Bush and the "sunk costs" fallacy he continually employs with the Iraqi war. The sunk costs fallacy is the old adage of throwing good money after bad (like spending $1000 on repairs for your old car, but it breaks down again and requires another $1000 to keep it running - do you invest more because of what you've already invested or decide it's time to stop throwing away good money after bad?). This fallacy is defined as continuing an unrewarding activity because of "what you've already invested in it". You can't reclaim that money, the time and money is gone. Bush repeatedly uses that fallacy with the war "for staying the course." How many times has he said he's not going to sacrifice the lives of 2500+ troops who've died and sacrificed their lives by pulling out before the job is done? We shouldn't keep sacrificing lives simply because we owe it to those who've already been killed. It's the same as throwing good money after bad and it's fallacious.

Author:  Archer [ Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:58 pm ]
Post subject: 

sianblooz wrote:
Archer wrote:
LC wrote:
I'm inclined to believe Clinton on this one, although he used kind of the same tone in denying a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky (which, btw, was no one's damn business, and how rude to ask!).


Wow, you don't think the character of our President is important? :shock:


Sure its important.
Thats why we need a new president.


Why must everyone throw things off track with jabs at Bush? We all know everyone hates him, so can we stay on topic?

Author:  Grace [ Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

Archer wrote:
sianblooz wrote:
Archer wrote:
LC wrote:
I'm inclined to believe Clinton on this one, although he used kind of the same tone in denying a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky (which, btw, was no one's damn business, and how rude to ask!).


Wow, you don't think the character of our President is important? :shock:


Sure its important.
Thats why we need a new president.


Why must everyone throw things off track with jabs at Bush? We all know everyone hates him, so can we stay on topic?


Well I didn't see the show so I guess I have nothing to say about Clinton vs. Wallace. But I did watch Nancy Grace.. :twisted:

Author:  denni50 [ Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
Why must everyone throw things off track with jabs at Bush? We all know everyone hates him, so can we stay on topic?


Archer it was you who brought up the issue of importance in character with regards to Clinton being a 'womanizer'...was it poor judgement...sure no one disagrees with that...but at least this character flaw didn't cost any lives..maybe a tiff in his marriage.

Author:  Archer [ Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

denni50 wrote:
Quote:
Why must everyone throw things off track with jabs at Bush? We all know everyone hates him, so can we stay on topic?


Archer it was you who brought up the issue of importance in character with regards to Clinton being a 'womanizer'...was it poor judgement...sure no one disagrees with that...but at least this character flaw didn't cost any lives..maybe a tiff in his marriage.


But Clinton was the subject, not Bush.

Anyway, it revealed his character. Once again, you're trying to derail things with comparing him to Bush. Leave that be.

Author:  sianblooz [ Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

Archer wrote:
sianblooz wrote:
Archer wrote:
LC wrote:
I'm inclined to believe Clinton on this one, although he used kind of the same tone in denying a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky (which, btw, was no one's damn business, and how rude to ask!).


Wow, you don't think the character of our President is important? :shock:


Sure its important.
Thats why we need a new president.


Why must everyone throw things off track with jabs at Bush? We all know everyone hates him, so can we stay on topic?


Why did you ask the question then?

We're supposedly the richest country in the world. Why can't we have a president who can read and think and talk?

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/