Clinton vs. Fox News

My ass has more intelligence than your entire body, if your asinine posts here are any indication.

 

I thought ya' said you said that my statements "warrants no further responses to your posts." Yet you keep on responding to me!? You can't resist the Babe, can you?

 

I do respect your golf game tremendously. That's about it.

 

Again, you keep responding....hmmm. You just can't stop your self!

 

Nice to see the NY Times (surprise!) come to his rescue.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6146693

 

Yep, no need to try and address the substance of the article.

New York Times. Must be biased.

Oh, the joys of being a right-wing tool in the 21st century. You don't have to prove or refute anything, just scream "LIBERAL BIAS!" or "You guys don't have the will to win this war!" like a trained chimp.

Man, that's easy living.

So, while we're on the subject of newsroom bias, what biases influenced the awful, liberal NYT when it sat on the Bush/NSA story for more than a year, after the 2004 election. I have quite a hunch, though, that wasn't a newsroom-level decision.

 

And whenever anyone here posts a Washington Times article, the echo chamber rises up in denunciation.

You cite an exception. It proves the rule.

 

Olberman goes after Fox and Bush after the Clinton interview.

"Bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster" was Olbermann's description of Wallace.

And calls Bush a coward and the worse Pres since Buchanan

 

Great, now JR's got his lips wrapped around Olbermann's cock again.

 

Killing Saddam Hussein was a real good idea 15 years ago. (Actually, 25 and 30, too, but let's focus the discussion.) For all sorts of very good reasons (mostly with nothing to do with WMD or the other reasons the Bushies pumped up for the war). Killing him is still a real good idea today.

Limpdick Daddy Bush could have done it, but didn't.

Junior came back 10 years later, and still couldn't get the job done.

Saddam has been in custody two years now, and the son of a bitch is still not dead. I mean, is it that hard to slip somebody into the prison with a shiv, and plant it in Saddam's neck?

 

True, "smart" wasn't enough to make Clinton a great president. I'm a left-leaning moderate who voted for him, but I don't see him as any better than a C-plus/B-minus president. The impeachment mess, while it was a farce, was something he brought on himself, and it hurt his party (and the nation) in the long run. All of his intellect and wonkishness couldn't change that fact.

But somehow intellect became the enemy to some on the right, something to add to the list that included Starbucks and Volvos. A few years ago, when the "family values" issue was taking flight, I remember seeing a USA Weekend cover with Dr. Laura on it, and the headline said "Do you want a smart kid, or a good kid?" (As if the two were mutually exclusive.)

Fueled by that kind of nonsensical philosophy, Bush gave us the exact opposite: a presidency based on instinct, gut, faith -- a presidency where knowledge got in the way of action, where you create your own reality and everyone else adapts to it.

Well, we've seen how that's turned out. Being smart doesn't make you moral; we can all agree on that. But intellect matters. Critical thinking matters. Keeping an open mind to dissenting opinions matters. Being wise enough to know you don't have a monopoly on truth matters. And when you're governing, they matter even more.

 

Dissenting opinions?
With this bunch?
The "missed you at Bible study" White House?
Surely, you jest.