Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Kevin · Sep 23, 2006, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

I'm not without sin and I'm not perfect. I am Christian, however. That you don't appreciate that in the imperfect world of humans bad things happen for the greater good, I can understand.

Yet you don't use the same understanding with others when you belittle their faith and tell them that they aren't Christians.

How odd.

marden · Sep 23, 2006, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yet you don't use the same understanding with others when you belittle their faith and tell them that they aren't Christians.

How odd.

I see where this is going. Kevin, you are a Christian. We all know it. voodoo said you weren't? Well, he was wrong and wanted to get a rise out of you. Don't give him the satisfaction unless you enjoy the

.

voodoo, shame on you for 'casting the first stone' while knowing your own imperfection. Stop being hypocritical at least about Kevin. OK?

goMac · Sep 23, 2006, 10:49 PM

I think this is the Cody freaking out thread.

Buckaroo · Sep 23, 2006, 11:41 PM

Correction:

Bill Clinton is a freak.

marden · Sep 24, 2006, 12:50 AM

President Clinton will never admit to having done anything more or anything less than trying to address the issue of terrorism. For those who support him that's enough. For those who say his actions or inactions helped cause the 9/11 attacks we will have to settle for the information being out there for anyone to see the truth if they wish. We know what happened. Time to get our frustrations out and get ready to move on.

The Democrats are starting to see what we have seen for some time and the need for us to cooperate has never been greater. Let's make it easier for them to join us as we try to do what's best for America and not just our own party, politician or POV.

Kevin · Sep 24, 2006, 02:51 AM

I don't blame Clinton for 9/11
That would be silly.

voodoo · Sep 24, 2006, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

If they are a Christian I rejoice for them because they are going home. If they are not, I mourn in my heart for another soul lost.

Then you mourned for the heretics of Waco.

V

voodoo · Sep 24, 2006, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

How odd.

No not really, everybody sins, even though that is against the teachings of the Church.

V

voodoo · Sep 24, 2006, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by marden

I see where this is going. Kevin, you are a Christian. We all know it. voodoo said you weren't? Well, he was wrong and wanted to get a rise out of you. Don't give him the satisfaction unless you enjoy the

.

voodoo, shame on you for 'casting the first stone' while knowing your own imperfection. Stop being hypocritical at least about Kevin. OK?

I directed not any comment at Kevin. If he takes it personally, I cannot be held accountable.

Thicker skin eh Kev?

V

ebuddy · Sep 24, 2006, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by voodoo

The Waco cult was nothing close to being Christian. They were abominations and heretics. Burning was their fate, in this world or the next.

V

I actually agree with you that this was a cult and was not Christian however, we generally don't make the judgment to burn someone while they're alive on this earth based on their faith. This is not generally how we administer capital punishment in our country.

There is also nothing in the Catholic doctrine that would condone or encourage burning heretics. Besides, Bill Clinton is a Southern Baptist. Doesn't this make him a heretic?

spacefreak · Sep 24, 2006, 09:28 AM

None of our administrations addressed terrorism to the point of wanting to fight it. It's not our fault that Clinton had the most recent 8 years prior to Bush's 8 months.

Same thing with the "Path to 9/11" miniseries. We really can't change the fact that of the 9 years of failure to properly address terrorism prior to 9/11, Clinton was in power for 8 of them.

It's a shame that, instead of simply nodding and saying "Yes, all of us Presidents screwed up a bit", he keeps trying to argue the facts. He's so insecure and preoccupied with his legacy, it's sad.

BlueSky · Sep 24, 2006, 10:42 AM

Part one of the interview.

voodoo · Sep 24, 2006, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I actually agree with you that this was a cult and was not Christian

Of course.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

There is also nothing in the Catholic doctrine that would condone or encourage burning heretics.

I agree.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Besides, Bill Clinton is a Southern Baptist. Doesn't this make him a heretic?

Yes, of course.

V

spacefreak · Sep 24, 2006, 11:06 AM

None of our administrations addressed terrorism to the point of wanting to fight it. It's not our fault that Clinton had the most recent 8 years prior to Bush's 8 months.

Same thing with the "Path to 9/11" miniseries. We really can't change the fact that of the 9 years of failure to properly address terrorism prior to 9/11, Clinton was in power for 8 of them.

It's a shame that, instead of simply nodding and saying "Yes, all of us Presidents screwed up a bit", he keeps trying to argue the facts. He's so insecure and preoccupied with his legacy, it's sad.

voodoo · Sep 24, 2006, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Part one of the interview.

Clinton humiliates that poor interviewer. He's a better speaker and more charismatic than the comb-over interviewer.

V

Jawbone54 · Sep 24, 2006, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by voodoo

Clinton humiliates that poor interviewer. He's a better speaker and more charismatic than the comb-over interviewer.

V

I would disagree. Watching this video, it seems to me that Clinton embarrassed himself. He has never been asked personally about his comments in which he claimed that he was offered bin Laden, but did not take him because he didn't feel the U.S. had sufficient evidence to bring him in.

When he's criticized, he reacts like he does in the FOX interview.

George W. Bush is mocked, criticized, hated, called "the devil" at the U.N., and blamed for everything under the sun. I wonder how Clinton would've handled the level of blatant antagonism that Bush has. Clinton dealt with the Monica scandal, but he was undoubtedly guilty, committed perjury, and somehow came out smelling like roses (at least to liberals). Clinton is used to being given a pass on everything from the media. This is why he is simply unable to handle an aggressive interview.

Big Mac · Sep 24, 2006, 12:26 PM

Yes, Cody's right, Clinton did freak out. He was clearly combative toward Wallace and even accused him of conspiring against the global warming agenda by daring to ask him about Al Qaida. The thing that I thought was humorous was the fact that he said he was powerless to get bin Laden because the miltary wouldn't go along with him. Now I understand there are tactical and political realities that limit presidents in certain respects, but all that aside he was the commander-in-chief, and if he didn't go after bin Laden it was entirely his fault. He blames the CIA and FBI, and while I beleive they deserve a share of blame as well, he again commands those entities and is ultimately responsible for their performance. Besides, many CIA operatives have gone on the record saying that there was no good reason why we failed to get bin Laden during Clinton's term, and I believe them more than I believe the ravings of a liar. The buck supposedly stops with the president, but Clinton clearly doesn't believe that. Except when he assesses Bush, that is.

Cody Dawg · Sep 24, 2006, 12:34 PM

"You've got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever."

He actually says that to the reporter:

You think you're SO clever link.

He's literally frothing at the mouth - watch him lick his lips after he goes on a rant.

voodoo · Sep 24, 2006, 12:46 PM

Wow. Americans are so dumb it is astounding.

V

voodoo · Sep 24, 2006, 12:51 PM

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb..

.. borderline retarded. (How goes that operation btw, retards?)

V

Jawbone54 · Sep 24, 2006, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

Wow. Americans are so dumb it is astounding.

V

We love you too.

Cody Dawg · Sep 24, 2006, 01:07 PM

Uh, didn't the concept of the "internet forum" start in AMERICA? Like the forum you're posting on? Along with the computer/internet revolution? Along with the automobile? Along with the artificial heart? Along with putting the first man on the moon - and having a space shuttle program? Along with about a gazillion other things?

Yeah, we're REALLY retarded.

One of the reasons that we EXCEL in just about everything - which is why people want to come here to live more than ANY other country - is because we DO disagree...

It keeps us trying to be the BEST at EVERYTHING we do.

itai195 · Sep 24, 2006, 01:13 PM

Watching that video, I still wouldn't say he 'freaks out.' That was quite a bumbling approach to a loaded question on Wallace's part and that's what seemed to set Clinton off a bit.

besson3c · Sep 24, 2006, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

"You've got that little smirk on your face and you think you're so clever."

He actually says that to the reporter:

You think you're SO clever link.

He's literally frothing at the mouth - watch him lick his lips after he goes on a rant.

I know that you are incapable of looking at things semi-rationally, but do you really think Fox asked the Republicans the same sorts of questions? Clinton was very clear in saying this is what angered him, I can see how all of the free passes Fox issues to the demonstrated incompetence of those in office would be frustrating.

Not that any of this matters... Yeah, frothing at the mouth... he sucks! He was a bad president... rah rah rah... look at my knees jerk!

This place sucks ass, perhaps it's time for some more time off.

Cody Dawg · Sep 24, 2006, 01:20 PM

Making his "smirk" and "clever" comment was just being an a$$hole, plain and simple.

Anyone who gets that heated and upset and acts the way that Clinton does - someone who should be more seasoned at responding to interviews and questions than 99.9% of the rest of the people in the public eye - seems off balance.

Cody Dawg · Sep 24, 2006, 01:21 PM

I know that you are incapable of looking at things semi-rationally

Wow, what a REALLY nice thing to say to someone that you once had an email-friendly relationship with. I have never insulted you that way, ever.

I may disagree with you politically, but your attack is pretty crappy, besson3c.

I don't like Clinton, plain and simple. He lied about screwing an intern - repeatedly - to not only his wife but the entire country. I think he has zero morals and that puts his ethics in question also. You can call Bush a lot of things, but one thing he's never done is to defile the Oval Office with sexual trysts with young women crawling around underneath his desk - and his wife's nose - and lying about it. How very undignified and base, wouldn't you say?

Yeah, maybe you should take some time off.

itai195 · Sep 24, 2006, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

He blames the CIA and FBI, and while I beleive they deserve a share of blame as well, he again commands those entities and is ultimately responsible for their performance.

Are you talking about Bill Clinton or George W Bush? Just checking, because I thought I heard something recently about blaming problems on intelligence failures...

I think I agree with spacefreak on this one, if I understood what he's saying correctly. This is an issue that the majority of Americans and our government, with the possible exception of Richard Clarke, just did not take seriously for a decade leading up to 9/11.

besson3c · Sep 24, 2006, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Wow, what a REALLY nice thing to say to someone that you once had an email-friendly relationship with. I have never insulted you that way, ever.

I may disagree with you politically, but your attack is pretty crappy, besson3c.

I don't like Clinton, plain and simple. He lied about screwing an intern - repeatedly - to not only his wife but the entire country. I think he has zero morals and that puts his ethics in question also. You can call Bush a lot of things, but one thing he's never done is to defile the Oval Office with sexual trysts with young women crawling around underneath his desk - and his wife's nose - and lying about it. How very undignified and base, wouldn't you say?

Yeah, maybe you should take some time off.

The lying about screwing the intern is really a stopping point for you, isn't it? I'm glad that we have our priorities straight with what is important in leadership. It's sad that I have to lay this disclaimer on people here, but here it is again:

Yes, it was bad of him to lie. Lying bad. Having sex while married bad. Clinton bad. He should keep his dick in his pants. He bad.

How this is still a pressing issue years later is beyond me.

As for your level of rational thought, it is pretty clear that you are not interested in having a rational conversation, but are here to push people's buttons with your knee-jerk reactions and Abe/Marden/Aberdeenwriter/Mojo2 like dismissal of any viewpoint that is counter to yours. At the very least, it would be nice if you could piece together a logical and coherent argument (that didn't center around Clinton getting a blow job and other purely emotional hangups of yours), but so far you haven't. Since you only seem interested in perpetuating the partisan crap around here which I detest so strongly, I responded in kind.

Republicans: the time is over for blaming Clinton and pointing fingers. He's history. You've had control for 6 years, it's your gig now. I'm sorry, but it shouldn't come as a surprise that our patience for your "Clinton bad man, he got his dick sucked. He lie, he bad president. He not fight bad guys" diatribes are wearing thin.

besson3c · Sep 24, 2006, 01:37 PM

If you guys want to criticize Clinton's record on terror, that won't hurt my feelings, I don't really care...

I've yet to see anybody respond directly to Clinton's claims in the interview about CIA/FBI authorization and such. I'm sick of arguments based on distractions and diversions. For once, why can't we debate something based on the merits of what is in front of our faces?

How about we make this thread about the content of the interview, and not "who pwned who", about Clinton's hummer, and which political party is superior right now?

Here is something to get us started:

Please keep the labels about Richard Clarke being a shill at bay unless you can substantiate them, but I never understood why a man who served under several different presidencies ended up being demoted and his ideas scorned?

What beef do you have with his beliefs, other than him being a puppet for the Left and blah blah blah?

Nicko · Sep 24, 2006, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

The lying about screwing the intern is really a stopping point for you, isn't it? I'm glad that we have our priorities straight with what is important in leadership. It's sad that I have to lay this disclaimer on people here, but here it is again:

Yes, it was bad of him to lie. Lying bad. Having sex while married bad. Clinton bad. He should keep his dick in his pants. He bad.

How this is still a pressing issue years later is beyond me.

As for your level of rational thought, it is pretty clear that you are not interested in having a rational conversation, but are here to push people's buttons with your knee-jerk reactions and Abe/Marden/Aberdeenwriter/Mojo2 like dismissal of any viewpoint that is counter to yours. At the very least, it would be nice if you could piece together a logical and coherent argument (that didn't center around Clinton getting a blow job and other purely emotional hangups of yours), but so far you haven't. Since you only seem interested in perpetuating the partisan crap around here which I detest so strongly, I responded in kind.

Republicans: the time is over for blaming Clinton and pointing fingers. He's history. You've had control for 6 years, it's your gig now. I'm sorry, but it shouldn't come as a surprise that our patience for your "Clinton bad man, he got his dick sucked. He lie, he bad president. He not fight bad guys" diatribes are wearing thin.

Well said. Clinton probably got pissed off at the fact that he was ambushed with those questions since he was supposed to talk about his billion dollar (probably soon to be multi-billion) fund for renewable energy.

besson3c · Sep 24, 2006, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Making his "smirk" and "clever" comment was just being an a$$hole, plain and simple.

Anyone who gets that heated and upset and acts the way that Clinton does - someone who should be more seasoned at responding to interviews and questions than 99.9% of the rest of the people in the public eye - seems off balance.

Who cares?

Really. It's not important.

Moving on...

Railroader · Sep 24, 2006, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

Then you mourned for the heretics of Waco.

V

Yes, I did. They needed to hear the Gospel and have a chance to turn to God. Unfortunately a charismatic leader led them astray.

Matthew 6:35-36 NIV

35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Rejoicing in their murder is not being merciful. And certainly not what Jesus taught. Wouldn't you agree?

Railroader · Sep 24, 2006, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

Clinton humiliates that poor interviewer. He's a better speaker and more charismatic than the comb-over interviewer.

V

Does being a "better speaker and more charismatic than the comb-over interviewer" make him correct and accurate in his portrayal of events? Does it make him more intelligent?

It's nice to see you admire a heretic. Now you're getting somewhere. You should learn more about the Christian beliefs of WJ Clinton.

Railroader · Sep 24, 2006, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

Wow. Americans are so dumb it is astounding.

V

Originally Posted by voodoo

Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb..

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/Operation_Enduring_Freedom.jpg[IMG]

.. borderline retarded. (How goes that operation btw, retards?)

V

You certainly are entitled to your opinion.

Do you represent all of Spain? Are we to judge your entire nation's population based upon what you are saying here?

Because you certainly are not doing them justice.

Railroader · Sep 24, 2006, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I know that you are incapable of looking at things semi-rationally,

Oh the irony...

Originally Posted by besson3c

but do you really think Fox asked the Republicans the same sorts of questions? Clinton was very clear in saying this is what angered him, I can see how all of the free passes Fox issues to the demonstrated incompetence of those in office would be frustrating.

Not that any of this matters... Yeah, frothing at the mouth... he sucks! He was a bad president... rah rah rah... look at my knees jerk!

This place sucks ass, perhaps it's time for some more time off.

So, Clinton went to a show that he "knew" was biased and got mad because they asked him questions that the "biased" show didn't ask other people. Sounds like a cop out to me.

Why is his behavior based upon others? Why can't he simply answer the questions or refuse to answer them in a clam manner and move on? WJC is a very vain man and highly insecure as most vain men are. This is simply evidence of it.

See you in a few days.

Big Mac · Sep 24, 2006, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by itai195

Are you talking about Bill Clinton or George W Bush? Just checking, because I thought I heard something recently about blaming problems on intelligence failures...

Clinton, watch the interview...

itai195 · Sep 24, 2006, 03:23 PM

So much for my attempt at being clever

voodoo · Sep 24, 2006, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

You certainly are entitled to your opinion.

That's why I readily dispense it.

Originally Posted by Railroader

Do you represent all of Spain?

No.

Originally Posted by Railroader

Are we to judge your entire nation's population based upon what you are saying here?

You can do whatever you like.

Originally Posted by Railroader

Because you certainly are not doing them justice.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion.

V

voodoo · Sep 24, 2006, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Does being a "better speaker and more charismatic than the comb-over interviewer" make him correct and accurate in his portrayal of events?

Of the two, only Clinton could tell a correct and accurate description on what happened in his adminsistration. The interviewer could never have anything to offer than speculation and bias.

Clinton being a way better speaker just humiliated the interviewer.

Originally Posted by Railroader

Does it make [Clinton] more intelligent?

Of course. Like the very opposite makes Bush dumb.

Originally Posted by Railroader

It's nice to see you admire a heretic.

Not admire, but respect. There are many heretics, atheists or believers in other things than Christianity that I respect. Take Bush for instance; I don't respect him.

Originally Posted by Railroader

You should learn more about the Christian beliefs of WJ Clinton.

I don't care. He never let his personal beliefs mix with his politics. It matters even less because he's not my president and never was.

V

voodoo · Sep 24, 2006, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Clinton, watch the interview...

Borderline retards everywhere. Assuming you read itai's post, of course. If you didn't read it, we still come to the same conclusion because it is retarded to reply to posts one hasn't read.

V

voodoo · Sep 24, 2006, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Yes, I did. They needed to hear the Gospel and have a chance to turn to God. Unfortunately a charismatic leader led them astray.

Charismatic? Right.

Unfortunate indeed, but that is the danger of all heretics. Everywere and that is the reason the Catholic Church protects, conserves and interprets the Gospel. That's why heretics are the most dangerous thing Christianity has ever faced.

Matthew 6:35-36 NIV

35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

These people chose their end. They chose a standoff between the authorities and it resulted in their demise. They could have at any time, surrendered and survived. They chose not to.

I have much sympathy for these lost souls, but I cannot say their death was a tragedy.

Originally Posted by Railroader

Rejoicing in their murder is not being merciful.

What is being merciful between the two of us and the Waco siege? How can you now show these people your mercy?

Originally Posted by Railroader

And certainly not what Jesus taught. Wouldn't you agree?

They were not murdered, they chose their death. Simple as that. Martyrdom -- of heretics. Very dangerous stuff and the only sad thing is how flippantly and without responsibility anyone can call themselves Christian.

Wouldn't you agree?

V

Cody Dawg · Sep 24, 2006, 04:17 PM

Railroader

So, Clinton went to a show that he "knew" was biased and got mad because they asked him questions that the "biased" show didn't ask other people. Sounds like a cop out to me.

Why is his behavior based upon others? Why can't he simply answer the questions or refuse to answer them in a clam manner and move on? WJC is a very vain man and highly insecure as most vain men are. This is simply evidence of it.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is Railroader at the top of his game: Railroading those less...logical.

Big Mac · Sep 24, 2006, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

Borderline retards everywhere.

What an angry little leftist you are.

Cody Dawg · Sep 24, 2006, 04:40 PM

What Bill Clinton needs is probably in honor of our very own Big Mac...a Big Mac. He's been off the fast food too long or something.

Now, want to hear what Chris Wallace says about Bill's tirade?

Here it is:

Chris Wallace

I was delighted to get the chance to interview former President Clinton. This was the first one-on-one sitdown he's ever given "Fox News Sunday" during our 10 years on the air.

The groundrules were simple--15 minutes--to be divided evenly between questions about the Clinton Global Initiative and anything else I wanted to ask.

I intended to keep to the groundrules. In fact--I prepared 10 questions--5 on the CGI and 5 on other issues.

I began the interview with 2 questions about Mr. Clinton's commitment to humanitarian causes. His answers were cogent and good-humored.

Then--I asked him about his Administration's record in fighting terror--fully intending to come back to CGI later (as indeed I did).

I asked what I thought was a non-confrontational question about whether he could have done more to "connect the dots and really go after al Qaeda."

I was utterly surprised by the tidal wave of details--emotion--and political attacks that followed.

The President was clearly stung by any suggestion that he had not done everything he could to get bin Laden. He attacked right-wingers--accused me of a "conservative hit job"--and even spun a theory I still don't understand that somehow Fox was trying to cover up the fact that NewsCorp. chief Rupert Murdoch was supporting his Global Initiative. I still have no idea what set him off.
Former President Clinton is a very big man. As he leaned forward--wagging his finger in my face--and then poking the notes I was holding--I felt as if a mountain was coming down in front of me.

The President said I had a smirk. Actually--it was sheer wonder at what I was witnessing.

I tried repeatedly to adhere to the ground rules--to move the President along--and back to the CGI. But he wanted to keep talking about his record fighting terror.

When it became clear he wanted to throw out the ground rules--then I just went with the flow of the interview.

voodoo · Sep 24, 2006, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

What an angry little leftist you are.

Only a retard American would call a conservative Christian rightwinger 'leftist'.

A retard you are.

V

Nicko · Sep 24, 2006, 04:52 PM

Why the hating for Clinton? He travels the world making speeches earning himself hundreds of thousands of dollars. He has book deals. He runs charities worth billions. He is trying to save the world, and the rest of the world loves him for it. Why don’t you? 

besson3c · Sep 24, 2006, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

Only a retard American would call a conservative Christian rightwinger 'leftist'.

A retard you are.

V

Voodoo, your "approach" is not going to get you very far here... If you are this frustrated, perhaps it's best to simply ignore folks, or the PL in general. You aren't going to change peoples' minds, we are all too emotionally invested.

besson3c · Sep 24, 2006, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Nicko

Why the hating for Clinton? He travels the world making speeches earning himself hundreds of thousands of dollars. He has book deals. He runs charities worth billions. He is trying to save the world, and the rest of the world loves him for it. Why don’t you? 

Because he was not a Republican. Maybe for some because he received a hummer...

Nicko · Sep 24, 2006, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Voodoo, your "approach" is not going to get you very far here... If you are this frustrated, perhaps it's best to simply ignore folks, or the PL in general. You aren't going to change peoples' minds, we are all too emotionally invested.

Not to mention logically divested

BlueSky · Sep 24, 2006, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I don't like Bush, plain and simple. He lied about his reasons for war - repeatedly - to not only his country but the entire world. I think he has zero morals and that puts his ethics in question also. You can call Clinton a lot of things, but one thing he's never done is to defile the Oval Office with needlessly sending American troops to their death - and lying about it. How very undignified and base, wouldn't you say?

I heartily concur. Very undignified and quite base, ma'am.