Bill Clinton rips apart fox news

[Bravo]

this is a lil old, but im still so happy about this i just have to share.

if this doesnt make your week, you dont have a bleeding heart.


clinton was on faux news to talk about the $7B he raised for the environment and global causes. but for the rest of the interview, chris wallace tried to broadside clinton for not going after al qaeda.

here's an excerpt of his response:


CLINTON: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…


WALLACE: [Laughs]


http://thinkprogress.org/clinton-interview

:)


im almost as happy and excited as the time i ate a scoop of ice cream while doing a handstand.

that was amazing.

[TheGaffer]

Clinton was pretty solid, indeed. Good for him.

[Stacia Kane]

Excuse me for asking, but isn't contracting to kill people like that expressly forbidden by the Geneva Convention?

I'm not on any side here, I'm just interested.

[Julie Worth]

Excuse me for asking, but isn't contracting to kill people like that expressly forbidden by the Geneva Convention?

It's the US position that terrorism is not covered by the Convention, and that states have the right to kill terrorists or detain them indefinitely.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Whaa whaa whaa. What a whiner. "Stop picking on me. I did too do something!"

[eldragon]

That interview was great!

We watched it on Fox news online - funny how their take on it is that their newsman really upset President Clinton!

Go Bill! Go Bill! When Hillary is president this country will be good again!!

[Stacia Kane]

It's the US position that terrorism is not covered by the Convention, and that states have the right to kill terrorists or detain them indefinitely.


Thanks!

[eldragon]

Whaa whaa whaa. What a whiner. "Stop picking on me. I did too do something!"


Clinton was not whining, he was defending himself.


And he did a good job.

As he said : he came closer to killing Bin Laden than this administration ever has.

It's a good interview.
And it's about time someone gets pissed. I'm sick of the little smirks, too.

[kikazaru]

I like Bill, he is an incredibly smart and articulate speaker - no matter what the subject. However if he was invited to speak on the subject of of global causes, it was terribly rude (and stupid) of the interviewer to take the opportunity to attack him about a totally different issue.

PS.I saw Clinton on the Daily Show last week and was very impressed (once more) with his wit and intelligence, and with all the good works he and the former Pres Bush have done along with a host of other philanthropists.

[Bravo]

fox news' response:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/picture-1.png


what a bunch of whiners.

its all clinton's fault!


:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:

[Kate Thornton]

LOL at Fox News - the very idea of it is a hoot.

Give me an intelligent, articulate President any time. Bill Clinton continues to use his wit, intelligence and drive to help the world. His Daily Show appearance was a keeper.

[Bravo]

i hate hillary as much as i hate navel lint, but i might vote for her just to have this guy back in the white house.

[TheGaffer]

Is navel lint really that big a deal? Hatred?

[Bravo]

youre right.

sometimes i like playing w it when im bored.

[maestrowork]

Served them right.

What's next? Invite the man to talk about hungry children with AIDS in Africa then proceed to ask him about blowjobs?

[deacon]

chris got smacked and looked like he was about to piss his pants. faux can spin it however they want to.

[SC Harrison]

chris got smacked and looked like he was about to piss his pants. faux can spin it however they want to.

No doubt. I thought Bubba was going to jerk a knot in his a$$ for a minute there.

Oooh! Celebrity Death Match! Wait a minute...hasn't the clay Clinton already died in the ring?

[robeiae]

Self-righteous indignation is always an impressive debating tactic.

[deacon]

Self-righteous indignation is always an impressive debating tactic.

how was clinton being self-righteous? he was defending himself against an underhanded, straight out of left field question that wasn't anywhere near the supposed topic. if anything, wallace was just showing everyone how biased he and faux are. but the one thing i noticed was that unlike bush, clinton didn't have to stutter unitl he could come up with an answer.

[robeiae]

how was clinton being self-righteous?
"I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since."

All it's missing is the "so there!"

he was defending himself against an underhanded, straight out of left field question that wasn't anywhere near the supposed topic. if anything, wallace was just showing everyone how biased he and faux are. but the one thing i noticed was that unlike bush, clinton didn't have to stutter unitl he could come up with an answer.I don't watch Fox News, so I can't speak to the idea that they are biased as a matter of course. Certainly, it seems to have been an ambush kind of question. Are you suggesting that only Fox reporters use such techniques? I find that hard to swallow.

As for Clinton's ability to think on his feet and handle situations like this, I think it's one of his greatest strengths. So what?

[maestrowork]

Self-righteous indignation is always an impressive debating tactic.

Clinton would have been a fool if he had let Wallace have it. Anyone would have been a fool, on national TV -- Fox News, no less. It wasn't even a debate. It was a rude question out to get a rise, a cheap shot, and boy did Wallace get a rise. In fact, I think Clinton was restraint, not sinking to that level by asking "And what have Bush done in the past five or six years?"

Much better than Bush's "So What?"

[deacon]

"I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since."
maybe that was a little harsh, but so was jumping off topic to try to make the lies about clinton not doing anything, during his administration, to catch bin-laden seem credible. i can't really blame him for getting irritated.



Are you suggesting that only Fox reporters use such techniques? I find that hard to swallow.
no, not on open interviews, but this wasn't an open interview. it was suppose to be a set forum. it was kind of unprofessional of wallace to try to ambush clinton, don't you think?

[robeiae]

So all interviews should involve only softball questions and reporters should never be allowed to come out of left field? I'm just asking--I don't really care one way or the other. But having watched a number of interviews, I have noticed that reporters often try to catch people off guard, except for Larry King of course. Sometimes it's even done to...republicans! Shocking, I know.

So if the only take on this that can be offered is "way to go, Bill!...Fox News is so biased," there really isn't anything substansive to say here, from any perspective. It's just a bunch of pointless cheerleading, totally emotional and totally unrelated to anything factual. Where's the fun in that?

From my perspective, Clinton was self-righteous and indignant in his reponse. And I don't think he needs to be. I think the whole idea of laying blame on Clinton for not getting OBL is completely wrong. He didn't "work hard" to get him; it wasn't a priority for him. But why should it have been? 9/11 hadn't happened yet. We focus on OBL in the past because of what we know now. At the time, OBL was one of many possible threats. And as everyone points out now, our international intel ceased to be effective back in the 90's (Clinton does get some blame there). Again, it's dopey to fault Clinton for not getting OBL, and I'm sure Clinton knows this. But he responded politically, not rationally. Big shocker. What politician wouldn't have tried to do the same. Clinton's just better at it than most. And that rates him a "way to go, Bill!"? Please.

[maestrowork]

Of course other reporters use such techniques. It doesn't make it right, though. I would have said the same thing had it been Bush on the chair at MSNBC or CNN. No matter how you cut it, Wallace threw a cheap shot and Clinton responded as best as he could without preparation (presumably). So Wallace: 0. Clinton: 1.

[English Dave]

it was suppose to be a set forum. it was kind of unprofessional of wallace to try to ambush clinton, don't you think?

Hey, if he still wants to be called Mr President then he is fair game. I'd like to see Gerald Ford on Fox being grilled as to why he pardoned Nixon.

Because that's much more interesting than what the present incumbent is doing about anything. Right?

[deacon]

nah, we know why ford pardoned nixon.

when bush does anything interesting in a really good way, point it out.

[Papa'sLiver]

Rock on, Bill! That was great, and Chris deserved a lot more than he got. Little pr**k.

[TheGaffer]

So all interviews should involve only softball questions and reporters should never be allowed to come out of left field? I'm just asking--I don't really care one way or the other. But having watched a number of interviews, I have noticed that reporters often try to catch people off guard, except for Larry King of course. Sometimes it's even done to...republicans! Shocking, I know.
No, of course not. They do involve hard questions. I think the salient point on this one is that Fox -- in Clinton's opinion -- has asked Bush admin officials less on the Cole and on bin Laden than they have of him, or intimated of him. That's the more salient point, I would say. Whether Chris Wallace has done so - asked Bush officials about the Cole incident, which is what Clinton was charging - I don't know the answer to that, but if he hasn't, that does point to a difference in standards. When Wallace backed off and said some mealymouthed thing like "Well, between Iraq and Afghanistan there's a lot to talk about..." it basically validated Clinton's claim. Trying to switch back to the global initiative after he'd gotten Clinton hot also points to how Wallace had gotten uncomfortable with where things had gone.

It's just a bunch of pointless cheerleading, totally emotional and totally unrelated to anything factual. Where's the fun in that?
Clearly you are not a sports fan.

He didn't "work hard" to get him; it wasn't a priority for him.
I think the argument from him, and from others, is that it was a priority for him, albeit not on the level of national crisis the way it is now, and that there's hypocrisy coming from certain GOPers who criticize him now for not getting him and criticized him then for what he wanted to do with certain terror capabilities that some saw as more "government control" and the like. That much isn't in dispute, nor is it in dispute that there were a good lot of publicly elected, powerful Republicans who opposed his every move just because. But agreed on your end -- intelligence capability did degrade during his term, and he didn't do enough to get him. But too often the shorthand: "He did nothing!" isn't right, and that's what passes for analysis now, and he's not incorrect to defend himself in that regard. For his part, he's been relatively muted on criticism of Bush the last 5.5 years (compared with those in his party), with the exception of the 2004 campaign, when you'd expect him to be more vocal.

[English Dave]

nah, we know why ford pardoned nixon.

when bush does anything interesting in a really good way, point it out.

No fair.

Get him on Fox interviewed by Wallace. You'll have all the pointing out you can handle.

/But keep a sick bag handy.

[blacbird]

Certainly, it seems to have been an ambush kind of question. Are you suggesting that only Fox reporters use such techniques? I find that hard to swallow.

Robbie, no one anywhere in the thread said such a thing, and this comment is a feeble attempt to deflect the discussion of this particular incident. You want to bring forth a similar example from another network, feel free to enlighten us.

As for Clinton's ability to think on his feet and handle situations like this, I think it's one of his greatest strengths. So what?

So you still want to do a comparison? Compare with the current denizen of the White House. The ability to think on one's feet is hardly a negligible talent. We'd be a lot better off if the current dude could think perched on any part of his anatomy.

caw.

[robeiae]

No, of course not. They do involve hard questions. I think the salient point on this one is that Fox -- in Clinton's opinion -- has asked Bush admin officials less on the Cole and on bin Laden than they have of him, or intimated of him. That's the more salient point, I would say. Whether Chris Wallace has done so - asked Bush officials about the Cole incident, which is what Clinton was charging - I don't know the answer to that, but if he hasn't, that does point to a difference in standards.That's fair. Of course the standards in question are Wallace's, not Fox News' in general, no? And I bet you could find varrying standards of this type being expressed by many more reporters. The lady that used to be in the front row comes to mind....
When Wallace backed off and said some mealymouthed thing like "Well, between Iraq and Afghanistan there's a lot to talk about..." it basically validated Clinton's claim. Trying to switch back to the global initiative after he'd gotten Clinton hot also points to how Wallace had gotten uncomfortable with where things had gone.Eh, maybe.


Clearly you are not a sports fan.
Sure I am. But cheerleading while watching a game is quite different from cheerleading after the fact on a message board...

[deacon]

No fair.

Get him on Fox interviewed by Wallace. You'll have all the pointing out you can handle.

/But keep a sick bag handy.

no doubt. but then all the guiding, leading, and dancing will make us dizzy.

oh, that's why you suggest a sick bag! :D

[robeiae]

Robbie, no one anywhere in the thread said such a thing, and this comment is a feeble attempt to deflect the discussion of this particular incident. You want to bring forth a similar example from another network, feel free to enlighten us.
Faux as opposed to Fox? Come on, at least accept the consequences of the insuation. All this thread is about is good ol' Clinton givin' it to the evil bastards at Fox. What's feeble is your attempt to toss that aside.
So you still want to do a comparison? Compare with the current denizen of the White House. The ability to think on one's feet is hardly a negligible talent. We'd be a lot better off if the current dude could think perched on any part of his anatomy.Ok. So now the thread is about insulting Bush. And now that I have said that, are you gonna come back with "no one anywhere on this thread said any such thing"?

Did I say word one about Bush?

[TheGaffer]

Sure I am. But cheerleading while watching a game is quite different from cheerleading after the fact on a message board...
No it's not. I've been celebrating the replays of "BEHIND THE BAG! IT GETS BY BUCKNER! AND THE METS WIN!" for 20 years, man.
Of course the standards in question are Wallace's, not Fox News' in general, no?
Yes and no. If its a usual Fox gambit among the vast majority of commentators there to casually say "Clinton did nothing," which many of them have done multiple times, then I think Clinton can speak to it, as Wallace does represent that network.

[English Dave]

no doubt. but then all the guiding, leading, and dancing will make us dizzy.

oh, that's why you suggest a sick bag! :D

I was only thinking that the sycophancy, distortion and bias would make one vomit.

But yours is much better. :D

[robeiae]

No it's not. I've been celebrating the replays of "BEHIND THE BAG! IT GETS BY BUCKNER! AND THE METS WIN!" for 20 years, man.Which can only elicit responses of "M-E-T-S, Mets, Mets, Mets" or "the Mets suck." Again, not much fun--for me, anyway. ;)

Yes and no. If its a usual Fox gambit among the vast majority of commentators there to casually say "Clinton did nothing," which many of them have done multiple times, then I think Clinton can speak to it, as Wallace does represent that network.Obviously, Fox commentators are mostly right-leaning. But they're commentators, no? CNN used to lean the other way--but their move to add more on the right was really about ratings, wasn't it? MSNBC doesn't count--they're morons. But regardless, Clinton "speaking to it" can also be viewed as a political move, since he knows that there are those who love to see Fox get bashed. Why should I act like his reponse was anything else?

[English Dave]

Obviously, Fox commentators are mostly right-leaning. But they're commentators, no? CNN used to lean the other way--but their move to add more on the right was really about ratings, wasn't it? MSNBC doesn't count--they're morons. But regardless, Clinton "speaking to it" can also be viewed as a political move, since he knows that there are those who love to see Fox get bashed. Why should I act like his reponse was anything else?

They ASKED the question Rob. They wanted to go there and they got spanked.

Maybe people 'bash' Fox because......they deserve it? I might be biased. In the UK any TV news channel that was overtly biased left or right would get smacked six ways from Sunday. That even includes SKY.

[TheGaffer]

Obviously, Fox commentators are mostly right-leaning. But they're commentators, no? CNN used to lean the other way--but their move to add more on the right was really about ratings, wasn't it? MSNBC doesn't count--they're morons. But regardless, Clinton "speaking to it" can also be viewed as a political move, since he knows that there are those who love to see Fox get bashed. Why should I act like his reponse was anything else?

Sure. But who are the left-leaning commentators on CNN? It's been taken as a matter of faith that they're left-leaning, but who are they, honestly? (And Larry King, as we both admit, doesn't count in either direction.)

[robeiae]

They ASKED the question Rob. They wanted to go there and they got spanked.Spanked? Eye of the beholder. Though I'm quite certain a majority would accept your conclusion. I guess that's enough evidence. As a rule, people are smart.

Maybe people 'bash' Fox because......they deserve it? I might be biased. In the UK any TV news channel that was overtly biased left or right would get smacked six ways from Sunday. That even includes SKY.Maybe they deserve it. Tell ya what, do me a solid and let me know every instance where news is presented with a slant by any news agency out there. That way, I'll know who I can bash with impunity. :D

[TheGaffer]

Here's a statement from Clinton's spokesperson today:

"CGI is a nonpartisan event, and so we thought it would be fair to do Fox News Sunday… When Wallace hid behind his viewers and attacked President Clinton's record on terror, President Clinton fought back hard, just like any Democrat should when they are attacked with a baseless attack," said Clinton spokesman Jay Carson.

So perhaps this, in part, was a bit of a call to the Democrats, as in, "Hey dummies--maybe don't just sit there twiddling your thumbs and actually try to be an opposition party and such?" I heard James Carville speak once, and he said, "Say what you want about my boy, but he can take a punch."

And that, rob, is what explains some of our cheerleading here. Hidden in there is a bit of a wish that the rest of the party could follow that lead instead of conceding important issues like how to handle our big security issues to the GOP. It explains it for me, anyway.

[robeiae]

Sure. But who are the left-leaning commentators on CNN? It's been taken as a matter of faith that they're left-leaning, but who are they, honestly? (And Larry King, as we both admit, doesn't count in either direction.)Aaron Brown? :roll:

I don't know, to be honest. Are there no liberal commentators left at CNN?

It's gotten to the point for me where all I watch is the crawl--I don't want to hear any of the pundits babble. And Olbermann still makes me sad. Gawd, I wish he and Stuart Scott would switch places.

[English Dave]

Spanked? Eye of the beholder. Though I'm quite certain a majority would accept your conclusion. I guess that's enough evidence. As a rule, people are smart.




You know I have no argument to your irony there after Bush being re-elected. :)

But I do stand by my contention that UK news is amongst the best as far as world news is concerned. I have lived in several countries including the US and the partisan claptrap passing as news on some channels had to be seen to be believed.

When there is no porn available I flick over to Fox News. [no pun intended]. It really does make my skin crawl, and not in a good way.

[robeiae]

And that, rob, is what explains some of our cheerleading here. Hidden in there is a bit of a wish that the rest of the party could follow that lead instead of conceding important issues like how to handle our big security issues to the GOP. It explains it for me, anyway.Well, I stand by my postion that Clinton's record on terror in general and getting OBL in particular is nothing special--and that's not a criticism of Clinton. Bush, Sr's record was just as vaccant. Enough hadn't happened yet to justify more, from a purely political standpoint. And let's face it, few Presidents in history have had the gumption to do any more than was politically expedient. Clinton is not one of these few.

I understand where you're coming from. But honestly, did you really expect me to let this thread just go on and on with blurbs from Clinton panegyrists? :D

[TheGaffer]

Aaron Brown?
If the definition of liberal is "boring-sounding droner," I guess then he's a liberal.
Are there no liberal commentators left at CNN?
Who were they originally? Lou Dobbs never was; he's a centrist, maybe leaning a bit right. Jack Cafferty isn't really liberal, he's more a centrist with a big, big streak of "get off my lawn" in him (he's become very anti-Bush, but we tend to characterize liberal/conservative on ideological views, not on opinion of one person.) Wolf Blitzer is sort of just a mealy-mouthed bozo.

It's a serious question. Were there commentators who are not on anymore who were decidedly liberal? Or was this reputation just based on "it's liberal because all media is liberal and I said," which is sort of what the GOP has been running with for 30 years or so.

And Olbermann still makes me sad.
And we'll respectfully part ways here.

[TheGaffer]

Well, I stand by my postion that Clinton's record on terror in general and getting OBL in particular is nothing special--and that's not a criticism of Clinton. Bush, Sr's record was just as vaccant. Enough hadn't happened yet to justify more, from a purely political standpoint. And let's face it, few Presidents in history have had the gumption to do any more than was politically expedient. Clinton is not one of these few.
Agreed. And I think by now we both agree that what a lot of right-leaning commentators suggest - that Clinton did nothing/caused 9/11/is responsible for bubonic plague-and-anything-else-I-can-think-of style of commentary is off the mark, too, and so some of his effort (and our cheerleading) is perhaps a way of pushing back a bit.

I understand where you're coming from. But honestly, did you really expect me to let this thread just go on and on with blurbs from Clinton panegyrists?
No, because you're boringly unemotional blah blah blah. :)

[English Dave]

I understand where you're coming from. But honestly, did you really expect me to let this thread just go on and on with blurbs from Clinton panegyrists? :D

The usual weasel words. 'I understand where you're coming from' and 'Clinton' in the same sentence. Subliminal advertising of his sexual pecidillos? I think so!

;)

[robeiae]

It's a serious question. Were there commentators who are not on anymore who were decidedly liberal? Or was this reputation just based on "it's liberal because all media is liberal and I said," which is sort of what the GOP has been running with for 30 years or so.
Let me think...

Half of the hosts on crossfire, by definition (and Tucker Carlson is the conservative version of Alan Combes, no?)

Jesse Jackson? :D

Wiki has a list--looks like plenty of liberal commentators to me. But I'm biased.

[TheGaffer]

Half of the hosts on crossfire, by definition (and Tucker Carlson is the conservative version of Alan Combes, no?)

Sure, by definition, but they were balanced by a conservative like Pat Buchanan. (And Tucker = Colmes? Not entirely, but I can see it.)

[dclary]

This is why I don't watch Fox News.

[English Dave]

This is why I don't watch Fox News.

You are so getting it when Billy wakes up.




That didn't come out quite right.





Neither did that.

Damn!

[dclary]

To be fair and balanced, I don't watch CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, or any other 24 hour talking-head network.

The only regular television "news" I watch is ESPN Sports Center.

[English Dave]

To be fair and balanced, I don't watch CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, or any other 24 hour talking-head network.

The only regular television "news" I watch is ESPN Sports Center.

Man I must start watching ESPN. Do they have a link to Breibart?

[dclary]

Is there something I should know about Breibart? That's the second time in a week I've seen you slam them.

[English Dave]

Is there something I should know about Breibart? That's the second time in a week I've seen you slam them.

Slam them? I was still trying to figure out what I should know about them? :)

[billythrilly7th]

It was sad to see a man like Clinton have a conniption fit because of a question that deserved to be asked and could have used a calm, yet forceful answer becoming of an ex-President.

I actually, on the facts, am on Clinton's side.

He tried. I don't know that much about the whole "Bin Laden offered to him" situation. There are conflicting reports, etc.

But generally speaking, Clinton tried to get Bin Laden, he shot a few missiles at him and was engaged in the issue.

Sadly, when a man freaks out like that, it's usually because he's guilty of the accusation he's being accused of and not confident in his position. It's a "tell" like Walken was talking about in True Romance.

The parameters of the interview were 15 minutes. Half on CGI and half on anything else.

Wallace calmly asked about this historically HUGE issue and Clinton blew his stack. It was a sad scene.

Wallace was smirking though. I personally would have calmed him down, explained how it was just a question that deserved an answer.

The man was doing a Fox interview. He should have been prepared for tough questions and what was so tough about...

"Okay, Mr. President, how would you answer the critics who said you didn't do enough about Bin Laden?"

WHOAAAAAA!! What a horrible awful question.

He asked it and if you'd have answered it calmly as the great debater and speaker you are, you wouldn't have come across as a raving lunatic who is guilty of gacking it up.

In Clinton's defense though, he's probably really tired of the blame and TV movies,etc when in his heart he believes he did everything he could and the emotions were right on the surface and Wallace scratched that surface and ERUPTION!

And then he starts attacking Fox News and "hit job."

It was an interview you maniac. I'm sure you'd rather Wallace have asked you about the unity of mankind, dancing bunny rabbits and rainbow sky that accompanied your Presidency.

It's not like he asked you about Lewinsky. He asked you about Bin Laden. Although in asking about Bin Laden you once again disgraced the office of the Presidency.

For shame, Bubba.

www.angercoach.com

[English Dave]

Have you just woken up Billy? This isn't the standard I expect.

[billythrilly7th]

Have you just woken up Billy? This isn't the standard I expect.

Maybe I was writing Dave.

Ever think of that?

Or maybe I generally sleep 4AM-12PM.

Thank you.

[English Dave]

Maybe I was writing Dave.

Ever think of that?

Or maybe I generally sleep 4AM-12PM.

Thank you.

My apologies. Having thought about it I've been up for hours and am posting no better. :)

[SC Harrison]

This is why I don't watch Fox News.

Out of the 24 hour news channels, I watch Fox more than all the rest combined. You know why? First, they seem to show less commercials than the others. I can't get three solid minutes out of CNN or MSNBC before they're off on another six minute round of car commercials (I hate that s#!t). Secondly, Fox seems to hit a broader range of stories, that are mostly straight-up reporting. But...I have to constantly clean my BS filter when prime time rolls around.

[billythrilly7th]

Oh, you were talking about the post quality, Engie D.

I thought you were talking about how late in the day I arrived to fight for truth, justice and the American way.

The post is fantastic. I covered all bases.

'Nuff said.

[eldragon]

I watched the interview and I don't think Clinton freaked out. Far from it.


I think it's about time we get mad. Who is with me and Bill?

[billythrilly7th]

It's funny that Clinton freaked out in a defense of HIMSELF and not the current state of affairs, Iraq war or any other election issues.

Yeah, he threw in a "If I were President we'd have more troops in Afghan" but essentially it was a "I'm as mad as well about what people are saying ABOUT ME and I'm not gonna take it anymore."

Just came off awful, and like I said, I defend him on the facts of the issue, but maybe I should take a closer look. 'Cause that's the behavior of a guilty, guilty man.

Awww, Bubba, why'd ya have to freak out on national TV like that when If you'd just relied on your natural abilities everything would have been fine.

[English Dave]

It's funny that Clinton freaked out in a defense of HIMSELF and not the current state of affairs, Iraq war or any other election issues.



I don't think any right thinking person thought he freaked out.

He answered a 'Why didn't you' question. That may be construed as defending himself.

Thankyou. :)

[billythrilly7th]

I don't think any right thinking person thinked he freaked out.

He answered a 'Why didn't you' question.

Thankyou. :)

He answered it while turning red in the face, snarling his lips, making physical contact with the interviewer, throwing out more right wing conspiracy garbage and a general bad attitude.

Did he overturn tables or take a swing at someone? No.

But using the scale of "Presidential behavior during an interview" this was a freak out of the highest magniture. THAT'S WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT.

Bravo likes to cloak it in "Clinton attacks Fox" which is par for the course for him, but all clear thinking people across media and the world realize this for what it is.

If Clinton was giving a speech somewhere and wanted to launch into a Fox tirade that's one thing.

But Clinton flipped out in a sit down interview because he was trying to defend HIMSELF from accusation that he botched up the Bin Laden thing. The man, after years of criticism that goes with being President and an ex-President, is a loose cannon and we should all think twice before sending him back for his third and fourth terms.
Thank you.

[English Dave]

But Clinton flipped out in a sit down interview because he was trying to defend HIMSELF from accusation that he botched up the Bin Laden thing. The man, after years of criticism that goes with being President and an ex-President, is a loose cannon and we should all think twice before sending him back for his third and fourth terms.
Thank you.

Well I still don't get Clinton flipped out Billy. And if Fox News were worth a damn they'd be grilling Bush on why years after his stated aim was to get Bin Laden, dead or alive, he has failed so miserably.

Dontcha' think?

[billythrilly7th]

Well I still don't get Clinton flipped out Billy. And if Fox News were worth a damn they'd be grilling Bush on why years after his stated aim was to get Bin Laden, dead or alive, he has failed so miserably.

Dontcha' think?

A. You probably don't think he flipped out because you're from England where your politicians have an "anything goes" attitude when it comes to behavior.

If you were an American, you'd see that in the history of Presidential interviews, NEVER has a former President gotten than angry and confrontational. ONCE AGAIN, For Dave.....He flipped out on a Presidential Behavior Scale, not on the average drunk at one of your pubs scale when the bartender cuts him off.

B. Bush has been asked a multitude of times why he hasn't found Bin Laden. He's answered a multitude of times. I don't know what more you'd like to hear from him on the issue. President Clinton is fair game when it comes to this question. And the boy done flipped his Presidential lid.

Hey...it just occurred to me that we're on the Fox News being evil and democrats crying topic again!!

Alright!!

[English Dave]

A. You probably don't think he flipped out because you're from England where your politicians have an "anything goes" attitude when it comes to behavior.

If you were an American, you'd see that in the history of Presidential interviews, NEVER has a former President gotten than angry and confrontational. ONCE AGAIN, For Dave.....He flipped out on a Presidential Behavior Scale, not on the average drunk at one of your pubs scale when the bartender cuts him off.

B. Bush has been asked a multitude of times why he hasn't found Bin Laden. He's answered a multitude of times. I don't know what more you'd like to hear from him on the issue. President Clinton is fair game when it comes to this question. And the boy done flipped his Presidential lid.

Hey...it just occurred to me that we're on the Fox News being evil and democrats crying topic again!!

Alright!!

You may be right Billy. We did have Johnny 'Two Jabs' Prescott knocking sh1t out of someone who egged him.

But you know what? I'd rather someone with a bit of charisma or chutzpah [though not Johnny Two Jabs] as a political leader.

Clinton I liked. I didn't give a crap about Lewinski. Neither did most people outside a select group of powerful Americans, and a bunch of introspective bible bashers.

He was a potential Kennedy. A hope. Bush? Not in the same league.

[billythrilly7th]

Clinton I liked. I didn't give a crap about Lewinski. Neither did most people outside a select group of powerful Americans, and a bunch of introspective bible bashers.


Only hypocritical democrats didn't care about Lewinsky. The same people who almost destroyed Clarence Thomas for a pubic hair on a coke can comment were fine with Clinton's behavior.

The greatest example of political hypocrisy in the history of these United States of America was the behavior of N.O.W. post Lewinsky.

Essentially.....

http://www.danheller.com/images/California/DeathValley/Misc/dv-tumbleweed-1.jpg

Ohhh, but if a Republican had used his power and influence to get sexual favors from AN INTERN at the White House.

Marches on Washington for his resignation!!!!!!!!!!!

If Clinton had any decency he would have resigned and for that I can never fully respect the man.

With that said, I still like Bubba and respect the generally good job he did as President with the help, thank god, of the Republican congress.

[English Dave]

Only hypocritical democrats didn't care about Lewinsky. The same people who almost destroyed Clarence Thomas for a pubic hair on a coke can comment were fine with Clinton's behavior.

The greatest example of political hypocrisy in the history of these United States of America was the behavior of N.O.W. post Lewinsky.

Essentially.....

http://www.danheller.com/images/California/DeathValley/Misc/dv-tumbleweed-1.jpg

Ohhh, but if a Republican had used his power and influence to get sexual favors from AN INTERN at the White House.

Marches on Washington for his resignation!!!!!!!!!!!

If Clinton had any decency he would have resigned and for that I can never fully respect the man.

With that said, I still like Bubba and respect the generally good job he did as President with the help, thank god, of the Republican congress.

I don't know about Clarence Thomas but if I found a pubic hair in a coke can I'd destroy CocaCola.

[billythrilly7th]

I don't know about Clarence Thomas but if I found a pubic hair in a coke can I'd destroy CocaCola.

It's a matter of taste I guess.

[TheGaffer]

Just came off awful, and like I said, I defend him on the facts of the issue, but maybe I should take a closer look. 'Cause that's the behavior of a guilty, guilty man.
Sadly, when a man freaks out like that, it's usually because he's guilty of the accusation he's being accused of and not confident in his position.

That's some amazing psychology 101 there, Billy. By that measure, if I got angered as the suggestion that I was a drunk, even though I never drink and the person said, "Maybe you're not admitting you have a problem," and I get upset, it means I'm a drunk even though I don't drink.

Fact is, he defended himself pretty forcefully, in a way that most other Democrats should. The shorthand in Somalia is that he cut and ran, when the situation was really a lot more complicated, particularly some of the hypocritical responses from GOPers who wanted him to run away immediately, instead of doing things in a more orderly manner.
It's funny that Clinton freaked out in a defense of HIMSELF and not the current state of affairs, Iraq war or any other election issues.

But then the multitude of GOPers would say it was in poor taste to "attack" our president, Dear Leader. He can't win with Republicans, and shouldn't try. He's been fairly muted in criticizing Bush in the past (save the 2004 election period), and I think that's because he doesn't want to undermine the guy, which makes sense.

[Papa'sLiver]

He answered it while turning red in the face, snarling his lips, making physical contact with the interviewer, throwing out more right wing conspiracy garbage and a general bad attitude.

Did he overturn tables or take a swing at someone? No.

But using the scale of "Presidential behavior during an interview" this was a freak out of the highest magniture. THAT'S WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT.

Bravo likes to cloak it in "Clinton attacks Fox" which is par for the course for him, but all clear thinking people across media and the world realize this for what it is.

If Clinton was giving a speech somewhere and wanted to launch into a Fox tirade that's one thing.

But Clinton flipped out in a sit down interview because he was trying to defend HIMSELF from accusation that he botched up the Bin Laden thing. The man, after years of criticism that goes with being President and an ex-President, is a loose cannon and we should all think twice before sending him back for his third and fourth terms.
Thank you.

He didn't do any of that. You're high, and maybe should go back to sleep.

[Bartholomew]

Excuse me for asking, but isn't contracting to kill people like that expressly forbidden by the Geneva Convention?

I'm not on any side here, I'm just interested.

This is me.

This is me giving a **** if Killing Osama Bin Laden is against the Geneve Convention.

See a big difference?

[billythrilly7th]

That's some amazing psychology 101 there, Billy. By that measure, if I got angered as the suggestion that I was a drunk, even though I never drink and the person said, "Maybe you're not admitting you have a problem," and I get upset, it means I'm a drunk even though I don't drink.

Generally speaking, overly defensive or angry people are guilty or not confident in their position. Generally. Some people just have anger management problems.

If someone accused me of being a meth addict, I'd calmly say I've never taken meth in my life. Why would I get angered, like you, at a false accusation that is completely ridiculous?

And let's say they didn't accept me saying "I've never taken meth in my life" and continued with "Well, there are reports that you have taken meth."

I'd say, "Well, I haven't. There's nothing more I can say about it."

Like I mentioned in another thread, I'm not going to debate fact.

And if I KNOW something like I've never taken meth, then I'm going to calmly state the fact. And if you don't want to believe me, I'll give you a an "okay whatever" smile and maybe a shoulder shrug and say "next question."

BUT like I mentioned, Clinton probably got tired of the questions. I SAID THAT. Everyone has their breaking point even when they are in the right. I'm just saying that due to his behavior we all should take a second look at what happened because Clinton's anger and defensiveness are a very important sign that maybe he really did botch it up.

Thank you.

[robeiae]

Don't be defensive, Billy. ;)

[billythrilly7th]

Don't be defensive, Billy. ;)

lol..I knew someone would say that.
:)

There's vigourous defense of a position and then there's flipping out like a crazed loon like Bubba.

Snorting, glaring, and red faced and banging his hand on Wallace's papers and right wing conspiracying and name calling all over again.

It was great TV dat be fo sure.

[deacon]

B. Bush has been asked a multitude of times why he hasn't found Bin Laden. He's answered a multitude of times. I don't know what more you'd like to hear from him on the issue. President Clinton is fair game when it comes to this question. And the boy done flipped his Presidential lid.


what did bush answer? if it was anything but "i'm looking in the wrong place," he has lied once again.
and i want to learn how to post a full page and end up agreeing with both sides on some issues. will you teach me? :)

[English Dave]

lol..I knew someone would say that.
:)

There's vigourous defense of a position and then there's flipping out like a crazed loon like Bubba.

Snorting, glaring, and red faced and banging his hand on Wallace's papers and right wing conspiracying and name calling all over again.

It was great TV dat be fo sure.

Uhhhhh?

Am I missing some Irony here?

It's late.

[billythrilly7th]

what did bush answer? if it was anything but "i'm looking in the wrong place," he has lied once again.
and i want to learn how to post a full page and end up agreeing with both sides on some issues. will you teach me? :)

PM me later on that.


Bush has answered many different ways. I'm sure google can help ya out on that.

Thank you.

[billythrilly7th]

Uhhhhh?

Am I missing some Irony here?

It's late.

No irony.

There's "vigorous debate in a calm controlled manner" and then there's flipping your lid and NAME CALLING screaming "What's wrong with you!!? Why can't you see you're wrong and waaaaaaa!!"
:rant:

...and essentially LOSING YOUR ZEN CENTER.

Bill Clinton lost his zen center.

And it was a sad scene.

[English Dave]

PM me later on that.


Bush has answered many different ways. I'm sure google can help ya out on that.

Thank you.

But not late enough to detect that Billy's password has been stolen by a wannabee white rapper.

Dat be fo sure?

Dead give away!

[billythrilly7th]

But not late enough to detect that Billy's password has been stolen by a wannabee white rapper.

Dat be fo sure?


The real giveaway that I'm a wannabee was that I couldn't figure out what "sure" should be.

I think "sho" but I'm not sho.

[billythrilly7th]

The funny thing is that after I saw this interview last night I spoke to a friend of mine and after saying my piece, he said "You're turning into a f'ing democrat piece of shiite! Keep defending Clinton, you jerk."

I generally was on his side. He got tired of these questions and he flipped his lid. Unbecoming and possibly a sign of more guilt that needs to be looked into, but I generally understood that he'd had enough and that he DID try and get Bin Laden.

So...that's all.

Thank you.

[SC Harrison]

If you were an American, you'd see that in the history of Presidential interviews, NEVER has a former President gotten than angry and confrontational.

I don't know...Reagan was known to get a little "snappish", from time to time.

As far as losing an opportunity to have Bin Laden "handed to him on a plate" by The Sudan, my understanding of that situation is: Clinton tried to convince Saudi Arabia to request extradition and/or accept Bin Laden back into his home country, but they refused, and Bubba couldn't come up with a valid legal reason to bring him here, so...

[English Dave]

The funny thing is that after I saw this interview last night I spoke to a friend of mine and after saying my piece, he said "You're turning into a f'ing democrat piece of shiite! Keep defending Clinton, you jerk."


Thank you.

Dis homey ain't no bro nigga.



Dammit I forgot the lol but it was meant.

Rep points now in minus. lol.

[billythrilly7th]

I don't know...Reagan was known to get a little "snappish", from time to time.

As far as losing an opportunity to have Bin Laden "handed to him on a plate" by The Sudan, my understanding of that situation is: Clinton tried to convince Saudi Arabia to request extradition and/or accept Bin Laden back into his home country, but they refused, and Bubba couldn't come up with a valid legal reason to bring him here, so...

...how about "conspiracy to commit mass murder?"

I'm asking seriously. Like I said, we've all heard about that incident and the words are right from Clinton's mouth and if we can get to the bottom of this specific incident we can know whether he truly botched it or not.

I don't have any recollection of Reagan getting snappish, but I aint saying he didn't. This Clinton debacle wasn't snappish.

But I think the closest thing we have to this is BUSH I and the Rather interview. Bush lost his Zen center. Not at Clinton level, but he did lose it for a bit.

[dclary]

Dis homey ain't no bro nigga.



Dammit I forgot the lol but it was meant.

Rep points now in minus. lol.

Negatory street cred, homie! That ain't right, yo!

[robeiae]

Golly.

[TheGaffer]

BUT like I mentioned, Clinton probably got tired of the questions. I SAID THAT.
Yes, you did. Fair enough. I withdraw.

Everyone has their breaking point even when they are in the right. I'm just saying that due to his behavior we all should take a second look at what happened because Clinton's anger and defensiveness are a very important sign that maybe he really did botch it up.

Here's where we part ways. Perhaps instead of reacting this way, people will look at it and say, "Hmm, maybe the situation isn't quite on the level of, 'Clinton ran out of Somalia and he's a weakling' the way people have been saying. He stayed pretty controlled from what I saw - indeed, he was hot, and he should have been. But you're painting the picture of a man out of control, which just wasn't the case. Zell Miller on CNN and CNBC in 2004, that was a man out of control.

...how about "conspiracy to commit mass murder?"

I'm asking seriously. Like I said, we've all heard about that incident and the words are right from Clinton's mouth and if we can get to the bottom of this specific incident we can know whether he truly botched it or not.

I have to check back. From what I know, this was in 1996 -- prior to the embassy bombings and US Cole. There was no real former offer from the Sudanese government - Sudan's head at the time was a big ally of the guy, and wasn't going to turn him over. They would have indicted him if they'd been able to grab him. In 1998, we had an indictment for Bin Laden after he'd moved already to Afghanistan. We thought about snatching him using the military, but they were a bit cautious on that. That's the basic jist of what I know, but I can't say it's definitive or anything.

[billythrilly7th]

Zell Miller on CNN and CNBC in 2004, that was a man out of control.

Yes.

And no, I don't think Bubba was "out of control" on a human level.

On a Presidential level, which is a different scale for behavior, he flipped his lid.

But on a human behavior level, no where near "out of control" like you see when someone flips out because it's 11:02 and they won't serve him breakfast at the fast food place because breakfast ends at 11:00.

I just hope I can keep my zen center after my Presidency when continually questioned in my underground bunker about why I decided to put the world into a nuclear wasteland.

[English Dave]

Negatory street cred, homie! That ain't right, yo!

**** yo mamma cracker!




/Can I still say cracker?

[TheGaffer]

On a Presidential level, which is a different scale for behavior, he flipped his lid.

He was hot. Indeed, but not flipping out.

Still, we've all had our moments.

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/real/images/BushLookingAngry.jpg

http://www.tvsquad.com/images/2005/09/angry_bush.jpg

http://www.bodybagcatholic.com/images/a/bush%20angry.jpg

[blacbird]

Bush lost his Zen center.

Bush lost his . . . whaaaaat? George W. Bush wouldn't know a Zen center from a shopping center.

caw.

[dclary]

Bush lost his . . . whaaaaat? George W. Bush wouldn't know a Zen center from a shopping center.

caw.

He was talking about George Sr.

[Blackheart]

works for either one

[billythrilly7th]

Still, we've all had our moments.


Yep.

http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/9804/07/wynette.update/link.hillary.clinton.jpg

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/wns/hillary.jpg

http://www.usasurvival.org/images/hillary.jpg

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/images-uploaded/JER-hillary2_7.jpg

[blacbird]

He was talking about George Sr.

Oh, you mean the one who didn't know what that flashy bright red light thingy at the supermarket checkout counter was.

caw.

[dclary]

Yes.

[My-Immortal]

Billy - was that Hill doing a series of Monica impressions....?

;)

[billythrilly7th]

Billy - was that Hill doing a series of Monica impressions....?

;)

lol.... yes, as you can tell by the order of the pictures.

[robeiae]

Billy - was that Hill doing a series of Monica impressions....?

;)Wrong...wrong...wrong...

:ROFL:

[blacbird]

I usually don't pay much attention to candid shots of famous people in unflattering moments, as it happens to everyone who gets photographed a lot, and ultimately doesn't mean squat. But I have to admit the "Monica" comment is damfunny.

caw

[rekirts]

But on a human behavior level, no where near "out of control" like you see when someone flips out because it's 11:02 and they won't serve him breakfast at the fast food place because breakfast ends at 11:00.
Oh. My. God. You've met my father-in-law. Seriously, he called the police once when a restaurant wouldn't serve him breakfast after 11:00 a.m.

Uh, sorry, for going off topic. No, wait, I'm always off topic so, yeah, I'm not really sorry. Back to the fi...er, discussion.

[Christine N.]

Wow, it's good for your FIL that McD's is going to serve breakfast all day long.

[BrianTubbs]

Fox News is biased to the right. No question about that, although is anyone here going to suggest that there's a news agency out there that is NOT biased? NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN all lean to the other side - CBS and CNN especially.

So, I'm not sure what the big deal here is. Of course, sparks are going to fly when Fox News and Clinton get together - just as sparks flew when Dan Rather and George H.W. Bush got together. Remember that?

This is a non-issue.

[TheGaffer]

NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN all lean to the other side

Patently false statement. Falls into the accepted right-wing wisdom that every news organization that does not kiss the President's behind is automatically left-wing. Not saying one or more of those listed above isn't liberal-leaning, but not all of them.

[billythrilly7th]

Patently false statement. Falls into the accepted right-wing wisdom that every news organization that does not kiss the President's behind is automatically left-wing. Not saying one or more of those listed above isn't liberal-leaning, but not all of them.

Patently false statement

They either lean to the right, ARE PERFECTLY PERCHED ON THE ONE INCH BALANCE BEAM of NON-BIAS REPORTING, or lean left.

None of them lean right. I think all clear and fair minded people would agree with that. That balancing act is impossible, which leaves only one conclusion. They lean left. Some more than others. Some, the lean is smidge. Some it's more.

Well said, BTub.

Thank you.

[English Dave]

Patently false statement

They either lean to the right, ARE PERFECTLY PERCHED ON THE ONE INCH BALANCE BEAM of NON-BIAS REPORTING, or lean left.

None of them lean right. I think all clear and fair minded people would agree with that. That balancing act is impossible, which leaves only one conclusion. CONDTRADICTORY STATEMENTS CAN AND DO SOMETIMES APPEAR IN THE SAME POST
Well said, BTub.

Thank you.


Fixed it for ya Billy. :)

[Shadow_Ferret]

Patently false statement. Falls into the accepted right-wing wisdom that every news organization that does not kiss the President's behind is automatically left-wing. Not saying one or more of those listed above isn't liberal-leaning, but not all of them.

So which ones aren't leaning to the left? Which ones are moderate?

Fox news is the only honest one. We know they are kissing the President's butt. :)

ETA: Honest is probably the wrong word since they say "fair and balanced." "Understood to be right-leaning" would be more accurate.

[billythrilly7th]

Fixed it for ya Billy. :)

And lights will guide you home, English Dave.
And ignite your bones.
And, English Dave, I will tryyyy to fix YOU.

[English Dave]

And lights will guide you home, English Dave.
And ignite your bones.
And, English Dave, I will tryyyy to fix YOU.

Why do I get a Wizard of Oz vibe?

You and your little dog...meehhhhheehheh.

[dclary]

So which ones aren't leaning to the left? Which ones are moderate?

Fox news is the only honest one. We know they are kissing the President's butt. :)

ETA: Honest is probably the wrong word since they say "fair and balanced." "Understood to be right-leaning" would be more accurate.

A recent UCLA study said that if you watched Fox News, ABC and CBS News, you'd get an almost perfectly balanced news feed.

[billythrilly7th]

Why do I get a Wizard of Oz vibe?

You and your little dog...meehhhhheehheh.

Think more of a vetenarian situation and you'll get the meaning of "fix" a little better.

[English Dave]

Think more of a vetenarian situation and you'll get the meaning of "fix" a little better.


Ummmmm....I'll try to be less obtuse in future. :)

[billythrilly7th]

Congrats on your 1000th post!!

Now, I can take you off ignore!!!

[English Dave]

Congrats on your 1000th post!!

Now, I can take you off ignore!!!

Jeez. My tenth board milestone and 8 of them have been wasted on replying to you. :tongue

[billythrilly7th]

Jeez. My tenth board milestone and 8 of them have been wasted on replying to you. :tongue

lol..well, I'm glad you got there quickly on this one.

My Jewish New Year's resolution was to put all posters with under 1000 posts on ignore.

During election season I can't be wasting my time with amateur boarders.

They must earn the right to post with me.

I know you'll back me up on my new policy.

And I thank you for that.
:)

[dclary]

19 people between me and page 1.

[English Dave]

lol..well, I'm glad you got there quickly on this one.

My Jewish New Year's resolution was to put all posters with under 1000 posts on ignore.

During election season I can't be wasting my time with amateur boarders.

They must earn the right to post with me.

I know you'll back me up on my new policy.

And I thank you for that.
:)

:D

[TheGaffer]

Yes, there's leaning to the right, left, or perched on the balance beam, as you said, Billy. But often I think it's that over a period of time - let's say several months -- many news organizations exhibit behavior that would lead you to think they're leaning right, and then will have some that shows they lean left, and then back and forth again. ABC of late has seemed to lean right more than not; CNN has exhibited this too with its recent commentariat hires. CBS has been more to the left. That could end up shifting again.

[billythrilly7th]

I'm not saying there isn't shifting, but I believe that even when those organizations lean right, they're still leaning left, just less left then when they started to lean right to right the left leaning ship, right? And that's not right.

[TheGaffer]

I'm not saying there isn't shifting, but I believe that even when those organizations lean right, they're still leaning left, just less left then when they started to lean right to right the left leaning ship, right? And that's not right.

Fair enough. And I'm disagreeing, based on what I've been watching over the last few years.

Most of the time they're just useless in general. Inviting one screaming loon from the left and a similar screaming loon from the right to holler at each other is not "balance." It's just "crap."

[billythrilly7th]

"It's up to the individual to responsibly seek out different sources of news and form an opinion based on that instead of relying on one or even two sources that may be biased in nature or just flat out incompetent."
Edward R. Thrilly
1958

[English Dave]

Fair enough. And I'm disagreeing, based on what I've been watching over the last few years.

Most of the time they're just useless in general. Inviting one screaming loon from the left and a similar screaming loon from the right to holler at each other is not "balance." It's just "crap."

You insult TIO you insult me, mofo! :D

[billythrilly7th]

You insult TIO you insult me, mofo! :D

lol...uh...yeah! Nice looking out, Edave.

Gaffer is a rabid anti-debatite. His true colors have been exposed!

How dare you!!!???

[blacbird]

I'm not saying there isn't shifting, but I believe that even when those organizations lean right, they're still leaning left, just less left then when they started to lean right to right the left leaning ship, right? And that's not right.

You have a fulcrum placement problem, Thrillsy.

caw.

[billythrilly7th]

You have a fulcrum placement problem, Thrillsy.

caw.

Tell me about it. That's why I went back to briefs.

[TheGaffer]

Gaffer is a rabid anti-debatite. His true colors have been exposed!

How dare you!!!???

Thank you.

[dclary]

Tell me about it. That's why I went back to briefs.

:roll:

[blacbird]

Tell me about it. That's why I went back to briefs.

Use a more acutely angled fulcrum.

caw.