Faux news reports on the Clinton interview today
Nebuchadnezzar II
While the rest of the free world was laughing their asses off at Clinton
wiping the floor with Weenie Wallace's face, all Faux could talk about
was Clinton's "alleged" overreaction. They were too ashamed to speak
about the substance of the interview, as was expected. The really funny
part was, the dipshits don't even realize the simple fact that Clinton
had the balls to do an interview with Faux in the first place. You can
bet your ass you will NEVER see Shrub doing an interview with James
Carville, or anyone else who is going to ask him a tough question. The
best he could do was Larry King, whose questions are so soft he might as
well shit in Shrub's hand. Even at that he had to bring his wife with
him to help with words that have more than 2 syllables.
As Clay the Retard would say,
Too fucking funny.
MioMyo
the one laughing all the way to the bank!
"Nebuchadnezzar II" <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:kn_Rg.3562$Vk4.3253@trnddc01...
mordacp...@hotmail.com
MioMyo wrote:
> Check the Arbitron ratings before blowing your wad. You'll find that Fox is
> the one laughing all the way to the bank!
All the way to the bank so that Rupert Murdoch can make another
withdrawal to keep Faux News afloat.
Like all the cable news networks, Faux is losing money.
@midnight.net Passerby
"MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:m10Sg.5134$GR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Check the Arbitron ratings before blowing your wad. You'll find that Fox is
the one laughing all the way to the bank!
On borrowed funds...subsidized to the hilt. Lost audience share go
unnoticed by you?
MioMyo
<mordacp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159241418.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> MioMyo wrote:
>> Check the Arbitron ratings before blowing your wad. You'll find that Fox
>> is
>> the one laughing all the way to the bank!
>
> All the way to the bank so that Rupert Murdoch can make another
> withdrawal to keep Faux News afloat.
Anything comparable to Air America Radio?
Morton Davis
"Passerby" <MrE @midnight.net> wrote in message
news:_M5Sg.18020$tT6....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>
> "MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:m10Sg.5134$GR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Check the Arbitron ratings before blowing your wad. You'll find that Fox
is
> the one laughing all the way to the bank!
>
> On borrowed funds...subsidized to the hilt. Lost audience share go
> unnoticed by you?
>
Lamont Cranston
> <mordacp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159241418.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>MioMyo wrote:
>>
>>>Check the Arbitron ratings before blowing your wad. You'll find that Fox
>>>is
>>>the one laughing all the way to the bank!
>>
>>All the way to the bank so that Rupert Murdoch can make another
>>withdrawal to keep Faux News afloat.
>
>
> Anything comparable to Air America Radio?
Irrevelant.
Paul Revere
: MioMyo wrote:
:
: > <mordacp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: >
news:1159241418.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
: >
: >>MioMyo wrote:
: >>
: >>>Check the Arbitron ratings before blowing your
wad. You'll find that Fox
: >>>is
: >>>the one laughing all the way to the bank!
Arbitrons come out at the end of the month liar.
Thanks for proving you are a little lying cunt you
piece of shit.
peace
Paul Revere
mordacp...@hotmail.com
MioMyo wrote:
> <mordacp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159241418.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > MioMyo wrote:
> >> Check the Arbitron ratings before blowing your wad. You'll find that Fox
> >> is
> >> the one laughing all the way to the bank!
> >
> > All the way to the bank so that Rupert Murdoch can make another
> > withdrawal to keep Faux News afloat.
>
> Anything comparable to Air America Radio?
No, stupid rightard.
AAR doesn't have a sugar daddy like Faux News does.
If it wasn't for Murdoch infusing money into Faux News, it would have
gone off the air a very long time ago.
Nebuchadnezzar II
news:m10Sg.5134$GR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Fox is the one laughing all the way to the bank!
Perhaps you'd like to explain how this is one bit relavant, dipshit.
There will always be a market for those who spoon feed biased
information to those who are too feebleminded to think for themselves.
MioMyo
"Lamont Cranston" <lamont....@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:45193654$1...@x-privat.org...
The post I responded to was both irrelevant to the subject title as it was
not backed up by any cite. So veering off is quite relevant. Sorry you
didn't notice.
MioMyo
"Paul Revere" <PaauuuulRrevvvv@impeeach_the_efffin_chimp.gov> wrote in
message news:NSaSg.6533$UG4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Whether Arbitron or whoever, ratings are crunched constantly. How else is it
the day following they are cited?
MioMyo
<mordacp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159282505.7...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> MioMyo wrote:
>> <mordacp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1159241418.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > MioMyo wrote:
>> >> Check the Arbitron ratings before blowing your wad. You'll find that
>> >> Fox
>> >> is
>> >> the one laughing all the way to the bank!
>> >
>> > All the way to the bank so that Rupert Murdoch can make another
>> > withdrawal to keep Faux News afloat.
>>
>> Anything comparable to Air America Radio?
>
> No, stupid rightard.
>
> AAR doesn't have a sugar daddy like Faux News does.
>
> If it wasn't for Murdoch infusing money into Faux News, it would have
> gone off the air a very long time ago.
Your cite is?
MioMyo
> "MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:m10Sg.5134$GR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> Check the Arbitron ratings before blowing your wad. You'll find that Fox
>> is the one laughing all the way to the bank!
>
> Perhaps you'd like to explain how this is one bit relavant, dipshit. There
> will always be a market for those who spoon feed biased information to
> those who are too feebleminded to think for themselves.
Well if it was so irrelevant, than you wouldn't have felt any need to
further this conversation. So you need to look within to find the answer to
your own question.
Plus I notice two days after the Fox news Sunday showing and pundits on both
the left and the right are still discussing the Clinton melt down. Maybe you
should ask them why too.
Baldin...@msn.com
MioMyo wrote:
> Plus I notice two days after the Fox news Sunday showing and pundits on both
> the left and the right are still discussing the Clinton melt down.
What meltdown? I saw the whole thing and didn't see a meltdown. Clinton
talked sternly, and that is the extent of any strong emotion he
exhibited. Perhaps you don't know the meaning of "meltdown".
Pramer
Nebuchadnezzar II
>
> "Nebuchadnezzar II" <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:eEiSg.3390$422.64@trnddc03...
>> "MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:m10Sg.5134$GR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>> Check the Arbitron ratings before blowing your wad. You'll find that
>>> Fox is the one laughing all the way to the bank!
>>
>> Perhaps you'd like to explain how this is one bit relavant, dipshit.
>> There will always be a market for those who spoon feed biased
>> information to those who are too feebleminded to think for
>> themselves.
>
> Well if it was so irrelevant, than you wouldn't have felt any need to
> further this conversation. So you need to look within to find the
> answer to your own question.
I'm not entirely sure what your illiterate mind is trying to convey
here, but it again appears as if you are running off on some tangent in
a lame attempt to disguise your anal retentive nature.
> Plus I notice two days after the Fox news Sunday showing and pundits
> on both the left and the right are still discussing the Clinton melt
> down. Maybe you should ask them why too.
I don't listen to pundits on either side, dipshit. I watch things for
myself and make up my own mind. Obviously you lack the cognitive
ability to do the same.
MioMyo
> "MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:06mSg.4956$TV3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Nebuchadnezzar II" <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:eEiSg.3390$422.64@trnddc03...
>>> "MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:m10Sg.5134$GR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> Check the Arbitron ratings before blowing your wad. You'll find that
>>>> Fox is the one laughing all the way to the bank!
>>>
>>> Perhaps you'd like to explain how this is one bit relavant, dipshit.
>>> There will always be a market for those who spoon feed biased
>>> information to those who are too feebleminded to think for themselves.
>>
>> Well if it was so irrelevant, than you wouldn't have felt any need to
>> further this conversation. So you need to look within to find the answer
>> to your own question.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what your illiterate mind is trying to convey here,
> but it again appears as if you are running off on some tangent in a lame
> attempt to disguise your anal retentive nature.
>
>> Plus I notice two days after the Fox news Sunday showing and pundits on
>> both the left and the right are still discussing the Clinton melt down.
>> Maybe you should ask them why too.
>
> I don't listen to pundits on either side, dipshit. I watch things for
> myself and make up my own mind. Obviously you lack the cognitive ability
> to do the same.
It's your problem if you don't get it, still Clinton's tirade is still front
and center in many beltway discussions.
Dan Kimmel
"MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
>
> "Nebuchadnezzar II" <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:YezSg.17148$8O1.2869@trnddc04...
> > myself and make up my own mind. Obviously you lack the cognitive
ability
> > to do the same.
>
> It's your problem if you don't get it, still Clinton's tirade is still
front
> and center in many beltway discussions.
And outside of the usual rightwing knuckleheads, the reporting is that
Clinton shredded Wallace who looked like another rightwing dolt for FOX who
had no answer when Clinton decimated him with the recitation of hard facts.
Clinton's response is now being looked at as a model for how Democrats have
to respond to the rightwing smear machine. The only ones still claiming
that Wallace was an innocent "journalist" and "Bubba" engaged in a "tirade,"
are those following the FOX/RNC talking points.
MioMyo
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:cZedncsqa5fF_4HY...@rcn.net...
>
> "MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:2nFSg.6099$GR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> "Nebuchadnezzar II" <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:YezSg.17148$8O1.2869@trnddc04...
>> > I don't listen to pundits on either side, dipshit. I watch things for
>> > myself and make up my own mind. Obviously you lack the cognitive
> ability
>> > to do the same.
>>
>> It's your problem if you don't get it, still Clinton's tirade is still
> front
>> and center in many beltway discussions.
>
> And outside of the usual rightwing knuckleheads, the reporting is that
> Clinton shredded Wallace who looked like another rightwing dolt for FOX
> who
> had no answer when Clinton decimated him with the recitation of hard
> facts.
I could say the same of the left wing circles; however, I can obviously be
more objective on this topic than you.
> Clinton's response is now being looked at as a model for how Democrats
> have
> to respond to the rightwing smear machine.
Understandbaly by those on the left. But be honest, you don't think
democrats haven't already been this obtuse along with being confrontation
and insulting. Even today's Leahy's senate statments border on outright
street thuggery.
> The only ones still claiming
> that Wallace was an innocent "journalist" and "Bubba" engaged in a
> "tirade,"
> are those following the FOX/RNC talking points.
And in journalist circles, Wallace has a long history at ABC and other
networks of being a down the middle reporter. His question was fair, but
Bill just expects never to have to answer tough questions which is why he
threw his temper tantrum. It can only soften your party if you think they
should never have to face legitimate questions.
Dr. PretZel
>
> <mordacp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159241418.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> MioMyo wrote:
>>> Check the Arbitron ratings before blowing your wad. You'll find that Fox is
>>> the one laughing all the way to the bank!
>>
>> All the way to the bank so that Rupert Murdoch can make another
>> withdrawal to keep Faux News afloat.
>
> Anything comparable to Air America Radio?
Hey MioMayo,
AAR is doing fine.
As for Fox, Olbermann is kicking the "big head's" assssss.
SUCKS to be you.
>
>> Like all the cable news networks, Faux is losing money.
>>
>>> "Nebuchadnezzar II" <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kn_Rg.3562$Vk4.3253@trnddc01...
>>>> FNC spent all day talking about the Clinton interview, as was expected.
>>>> While the rest of the free world was laughing their asses off at Clinton
>>>> wiping the floor with Weenie Wallace's face, all Faux could talk about was
>>>> Clinton's "alleged" overreaction. They were too ashamed to speak about
>>>> the substance of the interview, as was expected. The really funny part
>>>> was, the dipshits don't even realize the simple fact that Clinton had the
>>>> balls to do an interview with Faux in the first place. You can bet your
>>>> ass you will NEVER see Shrub doing an interview with James Carville, or
>>>> anyone else who is going to ask him a tough question. The best he could
>>>> do was Larry King, whose questions are so soft he might as well shit in
>>>> Shrub's hand. Even at that he had to bring his wife with him to help with
>>>> words that have more than 2 syllables.
>>>>
>>>> As Clay the Retard would say,
>>>>
>>>> Too fucking funny.
--
"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their
own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their
notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights."
- Thomas Jefferson
Dan Kimmel
"MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
>
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:cZedncsqa5fF_4HY...@rcn.net...
> >
> > "MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:2nFSg.6099$GR....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> >>
> >> "Nebuchadnezzar II" <Nebucha...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:YezSg.17148$8O1.2869@trnddc04...
> >> > I don't listen to pundits on either side, dipshit. I watch things
for
> >> > myself and make up my own mind. Obviously you lack the cognitive
> > ability
> >> > to do the same.
> >>
> >> It's your problem if you don't get it, still Clinton's tirade is still
> > front
> >> and center in many beltway discussions.
> >
> > And outside of the usual rightwing knuckleheads, the reporting is that
> > Clinton shredded Wallace who looked like another rightwing dolt for FOX
> > who
> > had no answer when Clinton decimated him with the recitation of hard
> > facts.
>
> I could say the same of the left wing circles; however, I can obviously be
> more objective on this topic than you.
You just prove you can't be objective at all. Clinton is being widely
praised EXCEPT by the usual rightwing outlets.
>
> > Clinton's response is now being looked at as a model for how Democrats
> > have
> > to respond to the rightwing smear machine.
>
> Understandbaly by those on the left. But be honest, you don't think
> democrats haven't already been this obtuse along with being confrontation
> and insulting. Even today's Leahy's senate statments border on outright
> street thuggery.
To the contrary, the thuggery is all on the right, such as suggsting that
anyone opposing Bush's power grab is pro-terrorist.
>
> > The only ones still claiming
> > that Wallace was an innocent "journalist" and "Bubba" engaged in a
> > "tirade,"
> > are those following the FOX/RNC talking points.
>
> And in journalist circles, Wallace has a long history at ABC and other
> networks of being a down the middle reporter. His question was fair, but
> Bill just expects never to have to answer tough questions which is why he
> threw his temper tantrum. It can only soften your party if you think they
> should never have to face legitimate questions.
Sorry, you're very misinformed. Wallace's ineptness has been exposed such
as his lying claim that he asked equally tough questions of Republicans.
Here's an analysis of Wallace's (and predecessor Tony Snow's) long history
at FOX:
MioMyo
Enough said, media matters is tantamount to move-on and both are left wing
smear machines. You were objective on the Israel - Hezbollah conflict and
now I see you have not one objective bone in your body. Go figure!
Dan Kimmel
"MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
To the contrary, I remain objective. You can smear the source, but you
can't challenge the facts.
Wallace did his master's bidding at FOX. And you have nothing of substance
to say in return.
MioMyo
So Wallace's long career as a non-partisan journalist all washed away when
he started working for Fox News? Hmmm.
Also, just because Clinton suggested that he should have asked Bush the same
question as him, he's now a partisan? Also this notion suggest that 8-moths
(Bush fighting dems to set up his cabinet & dealing with the seizing of and
American naval vessel) is tantamount to Clinton's 8-years is somehow
equivalent!
You also discount or ignore Wallace's hard hitting interviews he recently
had with both Cheney and Rumsfeld drilling them on Iraq.
And you attempt to prop up media matters as some objective news source
though you can't see that everything they print is an attack on anything
Bush.
And finally, you parrot Clinton's exact words which seems to be the popular
DNC talking points on this interview in spit of the facts I laid and you say
don't exist.
So be it if in your mind that sums up to zero substance!
Dan Kimmel
"MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
> >> > Sorry, you're very misinformed. Wallace's ineptness has been exposed
> > such
> >> > as his lying claim that he asked equally tough questions of
> >> > Republicans.
> >> >
> >> > Here's an analysis of Wallace's (and predecessor Tony Snow's) long
> >> > history
> >> > at FOX:
> >> >
> >> > http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002
> >>
> >>
> >> Enough said, media matters is tantamount to move-on and both are left
> > wing
> >> smear machines. You were objective on the Israel - Hezbollah conflict
and
> >> now I see you have not one objective bone in your body. Go figure!
> >
> > To the contrary, I remain objective. You can smear the source, but you
> > can't challenge the facts.
> >
> > Wallace did his master's bidding at FOX. And you have nothing of
> > substance
> > to say in return.
>
>
> So Wallace's long career as a non-partisan journalist all washed away when
> he started working for Fox News? Hmmm.
Wallace's career was as a guy coasting on his father's reputation. It's why
he ended up at FOX.
>
> Also, just because Clinton suggested that he should have asked Bush the
same
> question as him, he's now a partisan? Also this notion suggest that
8-moths
> (Bush fighting dems to set up his cabinet & dealing with the seizing of
and
> American naval vessel) is tantamount to Clinton's 8-years is somehow
> equivalent!
Did you actually listen to Clinton? Clinton took action. And the same
rightwingers who criticized him THEN for taking action are now criticizing
him for not doing enough.
> You also discount or ignore Wallace's hard hitting interviews he recently
> had with both Cheney and Rumsfeld drilling them on Iraq.
Since they only occurred in your imagination, they're easy to discount. In
fact Cheney and Rumsfeld appear on FOX because they know that "hard hitting
interviews" are the last thing that will take place there.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002
Instead of dismissing the link, try reading it. They lay out the numerous
occassions Wallace and company *failed* to ask Republicans the tough
questions.
> And you attempt to prop up media matters as some objective news source
> though you can't see that everything they print is an attack on anything
> Bush.
Which only proves they've got their heads on straight. Most rational people
are attacking Bush these days. He's the worst president in US history. Why
would anyone defend him?
You still don't deal with the substance of what they point out about FOX's
obvious bias.
> And finally, you parrot Clinton's exact words which seems to be the
popular
> DNC talking points on this interview in spit of the facts I laid and you
say
> don't exist.
>
> So be it if in your mind that sums up to zero substance!
Here's a big clue: just because *you* rely on talking points to post your
screeds doesn't mean those on the other side do.
Clinton cleaned Wallace's clock. This has been widely noted everywhere
EXCEPT in the rightwing media.
MioMyo
So I noticed this seems to be but one of the lock-step responses regarding
the interview from the partisan left. The problem is in Wallace's
profession, this talking point won't fly.
>> Also, just because Clinton suggested that he should have asked Bush the
> same
>> question as him, he's now a partisan? Also this notion suggest that
> 8-moths
>> (Bush fighting dems to set up his cabinet & dealing with the seizing of
> and
>> American naval vessel) is tantamount to Clinton's 8-years is somehow
>> equivalent!
>
> Did you actually listen to Clinton?
Yes, when it first aired.
> Clinton took action.
That's Clinton's dance and he & the left are trying their best to stick to
it. I recall otherwise. In fact another talking point was he took action
against the WTC bombers of 1994, that is all but OBL. Also, there's that
lttle recording, in Clinton's own words, when the Syrians had OBL and
Clinton said he couldn't take him. This was after 1994 WTC attack and the
OBL connections had been revealed.
So what does Clinton also say in the interview, he attack the Bush
administration for not getting OBL in 8-months. He even said they ignored a
plan he developed although Condi Rice said later there was no such plan.
This notion als dismisses how the Democrats fought Bush on setting up (the
release funds usuall available after the election) his adminstration for
months, claimed he wasn't the president and fought him for months after his
nomination. And then there was that international crisis with eithr N. Korea
or China which ate up another month.
So yes, I listened to the interview. I paid also attention to historical
events as they unfolded during the Clinton years as I did to the subsequent
fall-out from the Wallace-Clinton interview by the DNC now. It seems that
Clinton & the partisan left are angry when asked tough questions. So be it,
they prefer a Larry King puff-ball interview.
> And the same
> rightwingers who criticized him THEN for taking action are now criticizing
> him for not doing enough.
>
>
>> You also discount or ignore Wallace's hard hitting interviews he recently
>> had with both Cheney and Rumsfeld drilling them on Iraq.
>
> Since they only occurred in your imagination, they're easy to discount.
> In
> fact Cheney and Rumsfeld appear on FOX because they know that "hard
> hitting
> interviews" are the last thing that will take place there.
>
> http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002
>
> Instead of dismissing the link, try reading it. They lay out the numerous
> occassions Wallace and company *failed* to ask Republicans the tough
> questions.
Of course they would say such. What the partisan left and left think tanks
like media matters want is conspiracy theory questions like, why did the
admiisrtatio plant demolition in the WTC, or why did they conspire with OBLs
family in allowing them to escape the USA post 9-11, or why isn't Cheney
admitting he was drunk when trying to gun down his hunting partner.
BFD! Those are partisan conspiracy theory BS questions.
>> And you attempt to prop up media matters as some objective news source
>> though you can't see that everything they print is an attack on anything
>> Bush.
>
> Which only proves they've got their heads on straight. Most rational
> people
> are attacking Bush these days. He's the worst president in US history.
> Why
> would anyone defend him?
I don't agree with the Bush adminstration on a number of issues, but the one
at hand- that we are discussing is that Clinton tried to lay on Bus 8-months
of inaction which is pure paristan bunk. In fact, his only defense was a
rhetorical ranting offense. It's obvious to anyone objective Clinton's doing
his damned to protect his legacy whereas most presidents whose legacys are
the most noble let the historical chips fall where they may.
> You still don't deal with the substance of what they point out about FOX's
> obvious bias.
That's because no one has presented any credible information regarding
Wallace's bias. Remember this post is about the Wallace-Clinton interview
and/or Wallace's bias, since you & the partisan left, as a defense of
Clinton are wanting to smear him as a partisan. So do be earnest- stay
focused and don't try to change the argument.
>> And finally, you parrot Clinton's exact words which seems to be the
> popular
>> DNC talking points on this interview in spit of the facts I laid and you
> say
>> don't exist.
>>
>> So be it if in your mind that sums up to zero substance!
>
> Here's a big clue: just because *you* rely on talking points to post your
> screeds doesn't mean those on the other side do.
So this is your best response, because I pointed out that you and other
partisan left posters are defending Clinton's rant by mimicing his cliche
word-for-word from the interview?
> Clinton cleaned Wallace's clock. This has been widely noted everywhere
> EXCEPT in the rightwing media.
That's your opinion. However, I don't agree that by being a bully,
stonewalling/filibustering the interviewer along with trying to intimidate
him is a sign of a winning statesman nor a collegian debater.
Dan Kimmel
"MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
> administration for not getting OBL in 8-months. He even said they ignored
a
> plan he developed although Condi Rice said later there was no such plan.
Condi Rice is a congenital liar. She has ZERO credibility. Clarke (the
terrorism expert for Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton) confirms that a plan was
indeed left for the Bushies, but they had no interest in it.
> This notion als dismisses how the Democrats fought Bush on setting up (the
> release funds usuall available after the election) his adminstration for
> months, claimed he wasn't the president and fought him for months after
his
> nomination. And then there was that international crisis with eithr N.
Korea
> or China which ate up another month.
The fact that Bush was appointed president even thought he lost the election
is an entirely separate issue. It was his actions after January 20, 2001
that are at question.
> So yes, I listened to the interview. I paid also attention to historical
> events as they unfolded during the Clinton years as I did to the
subsequent
> fall-out from the Wallace-Clinton interview by the DNC now. It seems that
> Clinton & the partisan left are angry when asked tough questions. So be
it,
> they prefer a Larry King puff-ball interview.
You mean Republicans prefer the fawning they get at FOX News and would die
if ever subjected to real questions. Watching Dick Cheney wilt under Tim
Russert's questions a few weeks ago makes it clear why Republicans rarely
appear anywhere that they don't deem safe.
Meanwhile Clinton's facts have held up, while Wallace's claims -- those that
weren't shredded on-air by Clinton -- have since proven to be false.
> > And the same
> > rightwingers who criticized him THEN for taking action are now
criticizing
> > him for not doing enough.
> >
> >
> >> You also discount or ignore Wallace's hard hitting interviews he
recently
> >> had with both Cheney and Rumsfeld drilling them on Iraq.
> >
> > Since they only occurred in your imagination, they're easy to discount.
> > In
> > fact Cheney and Rumsfeld appear on FOX because they know that "hard
> > hitting
> > interviews" are the last thing that will take place there.
> >
> > http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002
> >
> > Instead of dismissing the link, try reading it. They lay out the
numerous
> > occassions Wallace and company *failed* to ask Republicans the tough
> > questions.
>
> Of course they would say such. What the partisan left and left think tanks
> like media matters want is conspiracy theory questions like, why did the
> admiisrtatio plant demolition in the WTC, or why did they conspire with
OBLs
> family in allowing them to escape the USA post 9-11, or why isn't Cheney
> admitting he was drunk when trying to gun down his hunting partner.
>
> BFD! Those are partisan conspiracy theory BS questions.
You still haven't read the actual article. Obviously.
>
> >> And you attempt to prop up media matters as some objective news source
> >> though you can't see that everything they print is an attack on
anything
> >> Bush.
> >
> > Which only proves they've got their heads on straight. Most rational
> > people
> > are attacking Bush these days. He's the worst president in US history.
> > Why
> > would anyone defend him?
>
> I don't agree with the Bush adminstration on a number of issues, but the
one
> at hand- that we are discussing is that Clinton tried to lay on Bus
8-months
> of inaction which is pure paristan bunk. In fact, his only defense was a
> rhetorical ranting offense. It's obvious to anyone objective Clinton's
doing
> his damned to protect his legacy whereas most presidents whose legacys are
> the most noble let the historical chips fall where they may.
Hahahahahahaha!!!!! Bush has been focusing on his "legacy" from the day he
was appointed to office. It's the only thing he's cared about other than
getting tax cuts for his parents and himself and his friends.
The facts support Clinton. And it's killing you.
> > You still don't deal with the substance of what they point out about
FOX's
> > obvious bias.
>
> That's because no one has presented any credible information regarding
> Wallace's bias.
Actually they have. I've cited it twice now, but you have yet to read it.
>Remember this post is about the Wallace-Clinton interview
> and/or Wallace's bias, since you & the partisan left, as a defense of
> Clinton are wanting to smear him as a partisan. So do be earnest- stay
> focused and don't try to change the argument.
Wallace was carrying water for FOX News's rightwing agenda. That's beyond
question. It's been established beyond a doubt by anyone who has examined
the facts. That's why you have to work so hard to avoid the facts.
Once again I urge you to actually READ:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002
Simply screaming "leftist" is only showing you concede the point.
> >> And finally, you parrot Clinton's exact words which seems to be the
> > popular
> >> DNC talking points on this interview in spit of the facts I laid and
you
> > say
> >> don't exist.
> >>
> >> So be it if in your mind that sums up to zero substance!
> >
> > Here's a big clue: just because *you* rely on talking points to post
your
> > screeds doesn't mean those on the other side do.
>
> So this is your best response, because I pointed out that you and other
> partisan left posters are defending Clinton's rant by mimicing his cliche
> word-for-word from the interview?
To the contrary,. it's been pointed out repeatedly that YOU -- like
Wallace -- are deathly afraid of the facts, and have
nothing but lies and smears to fall back on.
Get you head out of the sand and start thinking for yourself.
> > Clinton cleaned Wallace's clock. This has been widely noted everywhere
> > EXCEPT in the rightwing media.
>
> That's your opinion. However, I don't agree that by being a bully,
> stonewalling/filibustering the interviewer along with trying to intimidate
> him is a sign of a winning statesman nor a collegian debater.
Clinton presented facts and demolished Wallace by showing the facts simply
didn't support his smears. It's why the public backs Clinton on this, and
sees *Bush* as the problem vis-a-vis failure to react to Osama bin Laden.
Your parroting the RNC/FOX News (as if there's a difference) talking points
is simply laughable at this point. You've lost this argument.
Even the highly biased FOX poll says this:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216299,00.html
So you know it's got to be even worse for Bush than they admit.
MioMyo
>
> "MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:XnSTg.7112$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>> news:W8Cdnf2c3IgnT4LY...@rcn.net...
>> So what does Clinton also say in the interview, he attack the Bush
>> administration for not getting OBL in 8-months. He even said they ignored
> a
>> plan he developed although Condi Rice said later there was no such plan.
>
> Condi Rice is a congenital liar. She has ZERO credibility. Clarke (the
> terrorism expert for Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton) confirms that a plan was
> indeed left for the Bushies, but they had no interest in it.
Then why didn't you provide a cite, at least where Bush I confirms this?
>> This notion als dismisses how the Democrats fought Bush on setting up
>> (the
>> release funds usuall available after the election) his adminstration for
>> months, claimed he wasn't the president and fought him for months after
> his
>> nomination. And then there was that international crisis with eithr N.
> Korea
>> or China which ate up another month.
>
> The fact that Bush was appointed president even thought he lost the
> election
> is an entirely separate issue.
Except for the facts I cited, adn I suppose you're going to ignore- you know
setting up his cabinet. I recall the endless diatribes from the left about a
selected president... blah... blah.. blah. which equates to know one on the
left doing anything about terrorism either!
> It was his actions after January 20, 2001
> that are at question.
You also are dismissing the
>> So yes, I listened to the interview. I paid also attention to historical
>> events as they unfolded during the Clinton years as I did to the
> subsequent
>> fall-out from the Wallace-Clinton interview by the DNC now. It seems that
>> Clinton & the partisan left are angry when asked tough questions. So be
> it,
>> they prefer a Larry King puff-ball interview.
>
> You mean Republicans prefer the fawning they get at FOX News and would die
> if ever subjected to real questions. Watching Dick Cheney wilt under Tim
> Russert's questions a few weeks ago makes it clear why Republicans rarely
> appear anywhere that they don't deem safe.
You don't know what I mean, so why are you trying to argue by stating my
meaning? I like to watch all sides. The problem here is the left wants only
there side heard.
> Meanwhile Clinton's facts have held up, while Wallace's claims -- those
> that
> weren't shredded on-air by Clinton -- have since proven to be false.
That's your opinion.
I've read enough of media matters to know they are partisans to the left
wing extreme.
>> >> And you attempt to prop up media matters as some objective news source
>> >> though you can't see that everything they print is an attack on
> anything
>> >> Bush.
>> >
>> > Which only proves they've got their heads on straight. Most rational
>> > people
>> > are attacking Bush these days. He's the worst president in US history.
>> > Why
>> > would anyone defend him?
>>
>> I don't agree with the Bush adminstration on a number of issues, but the
> one
>> at hand- that we are discussing is that Clinton tried to lay on Bus
> 8-months
>> of inaction which is pure paristan bunk. In fact, his only defense was a
>> rhetorical ranting offense. It's obvious to anyone objective Clinton's
> doing
>> his damned to protect his legacy whereas most presidents whose legacys
>> are
>> the most noble let the historical chips fall where they may.
>
> Hahahahahahaha!!!!! Bush has been focusing on his "legacy" from the day he
> was appointed to office. It's the only thing he's cared about other than
> getting tax cuts for his parents and himself and his friends.
>
> The facts support Clinton. And it's killing you.
To the contrary. My position is when Wallace's questioned Clinton melded
down, filibuster and attacked Wallace, even personally. It's you who are
upset at Wallace. Eeven Clinto admitted the question was fair, so was he
lying?
>> > You still don't deal with the substance of what they point out about
> FOX's
>> > obvious bias.
>>
>> That's because no one has presented any credible information regarding
>> Wallace's bias.
>
> Actually they have. I've cited it twice now, but you have yet to read it.
I don't care about media matters partisan opinion editorials. I have
beenwatching all sides for some time now and I have my own opinion. So you
citing an opinion which merely coorborates yours doesn't impress me.
>>Remember this post is about the Wallace-Clinton interview
>> and/or Wallace's bias, since you & the partisan left, as a defense of
>> Clinton are wanting to smear him as a partisan. So do be earnest- stay
>> focused and don't try to change the argument.
>
> Wallace was carrying water for FOX News's rightwing agenda. That's beyond
> question. It's been established beyond a doubt by anyone who has examined
> the facts. That's why you have to work so hard to avoid the facts.
Your opinion, one you're entitled to, still just an opinion.
> Once again I urge you to actually READ:
> http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002
>
> Simply screaming "leftist" is only showing you concede the point.
So should I start citing right-wing op-eds which support my opinion? I don't
need to cause I'm comfortable enough in formulating my own opinion myself.
Maybe you aren't.
>> >> And finally, you parrot Clinton's exact words which seems to be the
>> > popular
>> >> DNC talking points on this interview in spit of the facts I laid and
> you
>> > say
>> >> don't exist.
>> >>
>> >> So be it if in your mind that sums up to zero substance!
>> >
>> > Here's a big clue: just because *you* rely on talking points to post
> your
>> > screeds doesn't mean those on the other side do.
>>
>> So this is your best response, because I pointed out that you and other
>> partisan left posters are defending Clinton's rant by mimicing his cliche
>> word-for-word from the interview?
>
> To the contrary,. it's been pointed out repeatedly that YOU -- like
> Wallace -- are deathly afraid of the facts, and have
> nothing but lies and smears to fall back on.
>
> Get you head out of the sand and start thinking for yourself.
I don't care about your opinion nor media matters, for that matter. You
probably don't care about mine either, BFD. This is America and I'm
comfortable with the fact that we agree to disagree. But when you keep
stating that your opinion is supreme, I think it's you who are stuck in the
sand!
>> > Clinton cleaned Wallace's clock. This has been widely noted everywhere
>> > EXCEPT in the rightwing media.
>>
>> That's your opinion. However, I don't agree that by being a bully,
>> stonewalling/filibustering the interviewer along with trying to
>> intimidate
>> him is a sign of a winning statesman nor a collegian debater.
>
> Clinton presented facts and demolished Wallace by showing the facts simply
> didn't support his smears. It's why the public backs Clinton on this, and
> sees *Bush* as the problem vis-a-vis failure to react to Osama bin Laden.
*- months in an adnministration which dealt with one international incident,
plus partisans trying every dirty trick in the book to unseat him, verses
Clinton's 8-years. Plus Clinton even turned down an offer of OBL. It's on
audion in his own words, though I'm sure you won't believe it becaus of the
source. Still, it's Clinton in his own words turing down OBL!
> Your parroting the RNC/FOX News (as if there's a difference) talking
> points
> is simply laughable at this point. You've lost this argument.
That's your opinion, so go ahead and do your victory dance if that makes you
feel superior or something.
Dan Kimmel
"MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
>
> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:jN-dnXKPPeC3g73Y...@rcn.net...
> >
> > "MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:XnSTg.7112$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >>
> >> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> >> news:W8Cdnf2c3IgnT4LY...@rcn.net...
> >> So what does Clinton also say in the interview, he attack the Bush
> >> administration for not getting OBL in 8-months. He even said they
ignored
> > a
> >> plan he developed although Condi Rice said later there was no such
plan.
> >
> > Condi Rice is a congenital liar. She has ZERO credibility. Clarke (the
> > terrorism expert for Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton) confirms that a plan
was
> > indeed left for the Bushies, but they had no interest in it.
>
> Then why didn't you provide a cite, at least where Bush I confirms this?
A.) Clark's books is the cite.
B.) Since we're talking about the Clinton Administration leaving info for
Bush II, why would the idiot W's *father* be in a position to confirm
*anything*?
>
> > It was his actions after January 20, 2001
> > that are at question.
>
> You also are dismissing the
>
> >> So yes, I listened to the interview. I paid also attention to
historical
> >> events as they unfolded during the Clinton years as I did to the
> > subsequent
> >> fall-out from the Wallace-Clinton interview by the DNC now. It seems
that
> >> Clinton & the partisan left are angry when asked tough questions. So be
> > it,
> >> they prefer a Larry King puff-ball interview.
> >
> > You mean Republicans prefer the fawning they get at FOX News and would
die
> > if ever subjected to real questions. Watching Dick Cheney wilt under
Tim
> > Russert's questions a few weeks ago makes it clear why Republicans
rarely
> > appear anywhere that they don't deem safe.
>
> You don't know what I mean, so why are you trying to argue by stating my
> meaning? I like to watch all sides. The problem here is the left wants
only
> there side heard.
To the contrary, it was the far right that made it clear that criticism of
Bush was tantamout to treason and supporting terrorism.
>
> > Meanwhile Clinton's facts have held up, while Wallace's claims -- those
> > that
> > weren't shredded on-air by Clinton -- have since proven to be false.
>
> That's your opinion.
No, those are the facts. You need to get out more.
> >> >
> >> > http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002
> >> >
> >> > Instead of dismissing the link, try reading it. They lay out the
> > numerous
> >> > occassions Wallace and company *failed* to ask Republicans the tough
> >> > questions.
> >>
> >> Of course they would say such. What the partisan left and left think
> >> tanks
> >> like media matters want is conspiracy theory questions like, why did
the
> >> admiisrtatio plant demolition in the WTC, or why did they conspire with
> > OBLs
> >> family in allowing them to escape the USA post 9-11, or why isn't
Cheney
> >> admitting he was drunk when trying to gun down his hunting partner.
> >>
> >> BFD! Those are partisan conspiracy theory BS questions.
> >
> > You still haven't read the actual article. Obviously.
>
> I've read enough of media matters to know they are partisans to the left
> wing extreme.
STILL haven't read the article, eh?
> > The facts support Clinton. And it's killing you.
>
> To the contrary. My position is when Wallace's questioned Clinton melded
> down, filibuster and attacked Wallace, even personally. It's you who are
> upset at Wallace. Eeven Clinto admitted the question was fair, so was he
> lying?
Clinton took apart Wallace point by point with facts that neither he nor you
are able to address. So who's lying, you or Wallace?
>
> >> > You still don't deal with the substance of what they point out about
> > FOX's
> >> > obvious bias.
> >>
> >> That's because no one has presented any credible information regarding
> >> Wallace's bias.
> >
> > Actually they have. I've cited it twice now, but you have yet to read
it.
>
> I don't care about media matters partisan opinion editorials. I have
> beenwatching all sides for some time now and I have my own opinion. So you
> citing an opinion which merely coorborates yours doesn't impress me.
In other words, you've made up your mind, don't confuse you with the facts.
If you READ the cite, you would see that it's not opinion but hard fact.
>
> >>Remember this post is about the Wallace-Clinton interview
> >> and/or Wallace's bias, since you & the partisan left, as a defense of
> >> Clinton are wanting to smear him as a partisan. So do be earnest- stay
> >> focused and don't try to change the argument.
> >
> > Wallace was carrying water for FOX News's rightwing agenda. That's
beyond
> > question. It's been established beyond a doubt by anyone who has
examined
> > the facts. That's why you have to work so hard to avoid the facts.
>
> Your opinion, one you're entitled to, still just an opinion.
And the facts -- which you refuse to answer -- remain the facts.
>
> > Once again I urge you to actually READ:
> > http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002
> >
> > Simply screaming "leftist" is only showing you concede the point.
>
> So should I start citing right-wing op-eds which support my opinion? I
don't
> need to cause I'm comfortable enough in formulating my own opinion myself.
> Maybe you aren't.
Why not look at the article and see that your claims are empty and that it
lists the MULTIPLE times FOX refuses to ask hard questions of the Bush
Administration?
>
> I don't care about your opinion nor media matters, for that matter. You
> probably don't care about mine either, BFD. This is America and I'm
> comfortable with the fact that we agree to disagree. But when you keep
> stating that your opinion is supreme, I think it's you who are stuck in
the
> sand!
Typical rightwing "thinking." Since you are blissfully fact-free, you can
pretend that those who disagree with you merely expressing a "wrong"
opinion, rather than presenting irrefutable facts.
>
> > Your parroting the RNC/FOX News (as if there's a difference) talking
> > points
> > is simply laughable at this point. You've lost this argument.
>
> That's your opinion, so go ahead and do your victory dance if that makes
you
> feel superior or something.
>
> > Even the highly biased FOX poll says this:
> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216299,00.html
> > So you know it's got to be even worse for Bush than they admit.
Even most FOX viewers disagree with you. Doesn't that tell you something?
MioMyo
>
> "MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:ODVTg.18619$Ij.1...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>> news:jN-dnXKPPeC3g73Y...@rcn.net...
>> >
>> > "MioMyo" <USA_P...@Somewhere.com> wrote in message
>> > news:XnSTg.7112$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> >>
>> >> "Dan Kimmel" <daniel...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:W8Cdnf2c3IgnT4LY...@rcn.net...
>> >> So what does Clinton also say in the interview, he attack the Bush
>> >> administration for not getting OBL in 8-months. He even said they
> ignored
>> > a
>> >> plan he developed although Condi Rice said later there was no such
> plan.
>> >
>> > Condi Rice is a congenital liar. She has ZERO credibility. Clarke (the
>> > terrorism expert for Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton) confirms that a plan
> was
>> > indeed left for the Bushies, but they had no interest in it.
>>
>> Then why didn't you provide a cite, at least where Bush I confirms this?
>
> A.) Clark's books is the cite.
>
> B.) Since we're talking about the Clinton Administration leaving info for
> Bush II, why would the idiot W's *father* be in a position to confirm
> *anything*?
So in Clark's book he claims Condi is a congential liar? and/or Bush I makes
this claim.
Without an exact quote, I believe you are exaggerating, but so be it.
Further if you want to say that Bush I called her a liar, you need to
produce where he says so, not when/where someone else says he says so!
That's your interpretation. I suppose you or the left don't want anyone
repondin to & disputing your political attacks. That's politics, so get used
to it.
I SAID, previously I've read enough of media matters to know they are
totally bias. I not the one duped here which is why I wouldn't poise a John
Birch publication as objective or other similar right-leaning organization.
>> > The facts support Clinton. And it's killing you.
>>
>> To the contrary. My position is when Wallace's questioned Clinton melded
>> down, filibuster and attacked Wallace, even personally. It's you who are
>> upset at Wallace. Eeven Clinto admitted the question was fair, so was he
>> lying?
>
> Clinton took apart Wallace point by point with facts that neither he nor
> you
> are able to address. So who's lying, you or Wallace?
After Clinton started, he not only attempted to consume the entire interview
time with his intimidation style rhetoric, but he also personally attacked
Wallace. Agani it's your interpretation that Clinton took apart Wallace's
point; however Wallace DIDN'T make a point. He asked a question BASED on the
Foxsnews Sunday audience polling.
And you asking me who's lying me or Wallace is another amuerish fallacy.
Actually it's a false dichotmy. Whichever, on one hand you were either
disengenuious enough to go ahead and attemtp such a lame argumentative
tactic or you're too ignorant and blind to be congnetive of this debating
fallacy.
So which is it?
>> >> > You still don't deal with the substance of what they point out about
>> > FOX's
>> >> > obvious bias.
>> >>
>> >> That's because no one has presented any credible information regarding
>> >> Wallace's bias.
>> >
>> > Actually they have. I've cited it twice now, but you have yet to read
> it.
>>
>> I don't care about media matters partisan opinion editorials. I have
>> beenwatching all sides for some time now and I have my own opinion. So
>> you
>> citing an opinion which merely coorborates yours doesn't impress me.
>
> In other words, you've made up your mind, don't confuse you with the
> facts.
And there's an extremely weak strawman which you've posed.
I based my opinion on not just this interview with Clinton, but since you &
the left are trying to diminish Wallace's credbility as a tactice to salvage
Clinton's melt down, I also based it on many past interviews Wallace has
conducted with various Bush administration players.
> If you READ the cite, you would see that it's not opinion but hard fact.
I'm not the one trying to camouflage my opinion as a fact. That would be you
though!.
>> >>Remember this post is about the Wallace-Clinton interview
>> >> and/or Wallace's bias, since you & the partisan left, as a defense of
>> >> Clinton are wanting to smear him as a partisan. So do be earnest-
>> >> stay
>> >> focused and don't try to change the argument.
>> >
>> > Wallace was carrying water for FOX News's rightwing agenda. That's
> beyond
>> > question. It's been established beyond a doubt by anyone who has
> examined
>> > the facts. That's why you have to work so hard to avoid the facts.
>>
>> Your opinion, one you're entitled to, still just an opinion.
>
> And the facts -- which you refuse to answer -- remain the facts.
Think what you will.
Now here's a lttle fact for you to chew on, if you choose to accept it's
voracity because of the hosting client of this audio file. In Clinton's own
words, he turned down an offer of OBL. Either you can choose to refute the
audio, thereby you would be asserting the audio file is manipulated or
distorted. Or you can accept that Clinton did have an offer and therefore
realize that Wallace's question polled by his audience was legit. You
choice.
http://www.newsmax.com/clinton2.mp3
>>
>> > Once again I urge you to actually READ:
>> > http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002
>> >
>> > Simply screaming "leftist" is only showing you concede the point.
>>
>> So should I start citing right-wing op-eds which support my opinion? I
> don't
>> need to cause I'm comfortable enough in formulating my own opinion
>> myself.
>> Maybe you aren't.
>
> Why not look at the article and see that your claims are empty and that it
> lists the MULTIPLE times FOX refuses to ask hard questions of the Bush
> Administration?
That's an interpretation. Remeber we're talking SPECIFICALLY about Wallace.
Why do you always try revising the argument? Is that always your style?
>> I don't care about your opinion nor media matters, for that matter. You
>> probably don't care about mine either, BFD. This is America and I'm
>> comfortable with the fact that we agree to disagree. But when you keep
>> stating that your opinion is supreme, I think it's you who are stuck in
> the
>> sand!
>
> Typical rightwing "thinking." Since you are blissfully fact-free, you can
> pretend that those who disagree with you merely expressing a "wrong"
> opinion, rather than presenting irrefutable facts.
Again your interpretation. Me, I choose to realize that people are free to
draw their own conclusions. It's like the lesson most teachers teach early
in childhood education. They show a film or incident or something and ask
all their students to write down what they observed. Amazingly, very few
observe or characterize what they observe exactly as others do.
You on the other hand expect otheres to observe and come to your
conclusions. So again IN MY OPINION, it's you who are closed minded!
>> > Your parroting the RNC/FOX News (as if there's a difference) talking
>> > points
>> > is simply laughable at this point. You've lost this argument.
>>
>> That's your opinion, so go ahead and do your victory dance if that makes
> you
>> feel superior or something.
>>
>> > Even the highly biased FOX poll says this:
>> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216299,00.html
>> > So you know it's got to be even worse for Bush than they admit.
>
> Even most FOX viewers disagree with you. Doesn't that tell you something?
Agree with what, be specific and don't try to harangue the argument again
into some cheesy strawman.