[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 28, 2008, at 6:01 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: No, Judy, after 5 years of this bullshit on your part, I won't play your reread what I said or your first get it straight redirect. Answer the fucking question or shut the fuck up. Anyone want to bet on how many posts these two are going to waste on this silliness before they stop beating each *other* up? Sal, it's the result of the devastating effects of spunge-brain syndrome. Those who suffer from this horrible disease can go on like this for YEARS and still not realize that they're making absolute asses of themselves.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 28, 2008, at 6:01 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: No, Judy, after 5 years of this bullshit on your part, I won't play your reread what I said or your first get it straight redirect. Answer the fucking question or shut the fuck up. Get a checking !
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
On Jan 29, 2008, at 2:14 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: On Jan 28, 2008, at 6:01 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: No, Judy, after 5 years of this bullshit on your part, I won't play your reread what I said or your first get it straight redirect. Answer the fucking question or shut the fuck up. Anyone want to bet on how many posts these two are going to waste on this silliness before they stop beating each *other* up? Sal, it's the result of the devastating effects of spunge-brain syndrome. Those who suffer from this horrible disease can go on like this for YEARS and still not realize that they're making absolute asses of themselves. A good glass of wine would do wonders. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote: Anyone want to bet on how many posts these two are going to waste on this silliness before they stop beating each *other* up? Sal, it's the result of the devastating effects of spunge-brain syndrome. Those who suffer from this horrible disease can go on like this for YEARS and still not realize that they're making absolute asses of themselves. A good glass of wine would do wonders. I suspect it would take a whole bottle before either of them ever even *approached* being human. :-) Shut up, Barry. You're irrelevant. Make that two bottles for Judy. :-) :-) :-) Just for fun, replacing the part of my post she so carefully snipped (the part she was pissed about): The gist of this act seems to be, Ok everyone on FFL, watch as I demonstrate how incredibly dumb/ignorant of the facts/lazy/duplicitous my opponent is. Shemp's trying to do this to Judy. Judy's trying to do this to Shemp. Both of them think we in the audience are interested in the results. Hasn't it ever occurred to *either* of them what happens if they win and prove that the other person IS as dumb as they think he/she is? The winner will have proved that the loser is a bit of a retard. And by doing so, the winner will have proved that he or she GETS OFF ON DEBATING WITH RETARDS. Now THAT's a real challenge, right? :-)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
In a message dated 1/29/08 10:05:30 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Some of us aren't at all sure, Robert, that he has the ability to do anything *else*. Exactly. Obama singing Kumbaya with Oprah in the Whitehouse may generate lots of warm fuzzies, but warm fuzzies don't get the job done. Obama is a fantastic orator, but I get no sense of Obama, the effective, well-informed policy wonk. Bingo! And Hillary won't be able to much better either. They will have to have a very liberal Congress to get pushed thru anything they want. Conservatives will tie up most bills just like Newt Gingrich did the first two years of the Clinton administration. **Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp0030002489
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone want to bet on how many posts these two are going to waste on this silliness before they stop beating each *other* up? Sal, it's the result of the devastating effects of spunge-brain syndrome. Those who suffer from this horrible disease can go on like this for YEARS and still not realize that they're making absolute asses of themselves. A good glass of wine would do wonders. I suspect it would take a whole bottle before either of them ever even *approached* being human. :-) The gist of this act seems to be, Ok everyone on FFL, watch as I demonstrate how incredibly dumb/ignorant of the facts/lazy/duplicitous my opponent is. Shemp's trying to do this to Judy. Judy's trying to do this to Shemp. Both of them think we in the audience are interested in the results. Hasn't it ever occurred to *either* of them what happens if they win and prove that the other person IS as dumb as they think he/she is? The winner will have proved that the loser is a bit of a retard. And by doing so, the winner will have proved that he or she GETS OFF ON DEBATING WITH RETARDS. Now THAT's a real challenge, right? :-) However, the difference between you and me, Turquoise, is that whereas you will continue to goad and exchange with Judy for days and days and days and post after post after post, I actually retire after about 4 or 5 exchanges. I even ignore her running dog lacky, Bongo Brazil, when, as usual, he comes nipping at my heels and shitting on my carpet.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: In a message dated 1/29/08 10:05:30 A.M. Central Standard Time, j_alexander_stanley@ writes: Some of us aren't at all sure, Robert, that he has the ability to do anything *else*. Exactly. Obama singing Kumbaya with Oprah in the Whitehouse may generate lots of warm fuzzies, but warm fuzzies don't get the job done. Obama is a fantastic orator, but I get no sense of Obama, the effective, well-informed policy wonk. Bingo! And Hillary won't be able to much better either. They will have to have a very liberal Congress to get pushed thru anything they want. Conservatives will tie up most bills just like Newt Gingrich did the first two years of the Clinton administration. Thing is, Obama has *no* idea of what he'll be facing if he gets elected. Hillary has a much clearer idea of what the score will be and what she'll have to do to get things done. The opposition will be overwhelming, but forewarned is forearmed. She'll at least have more of a chance. The conservatives will eat Obama and his warm fuzzies for breakfast; Hillary will give them enough indigestion to slow them down a bit. ...you mean the way her husband slowed down the Conservatives during his 8 years in office? You mean the way he signed NAFTA, the Welfare Reform Act, balanced the budget, supported the death penalty, the Defense of Marriage Act, etc.? Yup, bring on Hillary and Bill, the most conservative president of the last 50 years. It's wonderful, isn't it, when your political opposities do all your work for you! Oh, it just warms my heart that Judy supports the Clintons...
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip Thing is, Obama has *no* idea of what he'll be facing if he gets elected. Hillary has a much clearer idea of what the score will be and what she'll have to do to get things done. The opposition will be overwhelming, but forewarned is forearmed. She'll at least have more of a chance. The conservatives will eat Obama and his warm fuzzies for breakfast; Hillary will give them enough indigestion to slow them down a bit. ...you mean the way her husband slowed down the Conservatives during his 8 years in office? I think she'd be a lot tougher for them to steamroll than Bill was. She's tougher all the way around than Bill and more committed to change.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Roberto babajii_99@ wrote: snip Hillary had most of the Black vote, only a few months ago... This whole thing happened recently. Actually I believe it started when Barack spoke at the Des Moines event, back in December... For me, that's when I felt the electricity that he seemed to tap into. Since that time, this has only increased. He clearly has the ability to inspire, and to bring people together. Some of us aren't at all sure, Robert, that he has the ability to do anything *else*. Exactly. Obama singing Kumbaya with Oprah in the Whitehouse may generate lots of warm fuzzies, but warm fuzzies don't get the job done. Obama is a fantastic orator, but I get no sense of Obama, the effective, well-informed policy wonk.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/29/08 10:05:30 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Some of us aren't at all sure, Robert, that he has the ability to do anything *else*. Exactly. Obama singing Kumbaya with Oprah in the Whitehouse may generate lots of warm fuzzies, but warm fuzzies don't get the job done. Obama is a fantastic orator, but I get no sense of Obama, the effective, well-informed policy wonk. Bingo! And Hillary won't be able to much better either. They will have to have a very liberal Congress to get pushed thru anything they want. Conservatives will tie up most bills just like Newt Gingrich did the first two years of the Clinton administration. Thing is, Obama has *no* idea of what he'll be facing if he gets elected. Hillary has a much clearer idea of what the score will be and what she'll have to do to get things done. The opposition will be overwhelming, but forewarned is forearmed. She'll at least have more of a chance. The conservatives will eat Obama and his warm fuzzies for breakfast; Hillary will give them enough indigestion to slow them down a bit.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/29/08 10:05:30 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Some of us aren't at all sure, Robert, that he has the ability to do anything *else*. Exactly. Obama singing Kumbaya with Oprah in the Whitehouse may generate lots of warm fuzzies, but warm fuzzies don't get the job done. Obama is a fantastic orator, but I get no sense of Obama, the effective, well-informed policy wonk. Bingo! And Hillary won't be able to much better either. They will have to have a very liberal Congress to get pushed thru anything they want. Conservatives will tie up most bills just like Newt Gingrich did the first two years of the Clinton administration. I think Obama's recent ad about Hilary says it all: She'll say anything...and change nothing. She sold her soul and her votes to the highest bidder decades ago, and would do the same as President. In the world of politics, not having as much experience as Hilary does is a GOOD thing. It means he hasn't sold his soul as often yet, or as completely.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Roberto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Hillary had most of the Black vote, only a few months ago... This whole thing happened recently. Actually I believe it started when Barack spoke at the Des Moines event, back in December... For me, that's when I felt the electricity that he seemed to tap into. Since that time, this has only increased. He clearly has the ability to inspire, and to bring people together. Some of us aren't at all sure, Robert, that he has the ability to do anything *else*.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 29, 2008, at 2:14 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: On Jan 28, 2008, at 6:01 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: No, Judy, after 5 years of this bullshit on your part, I won't play your reread what I said or your first get it straight redirect. Answer the fucking question or shut the fuck up. Anyone want to bet on how many posts these two are going to waste on this silliness before they stop beating each *other* up? Sal, it's the result of the devastating effects of spunge-brain syndrome. Those who suffer from this horrible disease can go on like this for YEARS and still not realize that they're making absolute asses of themselves. A good glass of wine would do wonders. Sal And getting laid, of course in the correct vastu with the appropriate ayurvedic unguents. Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/28/08 6:20:20 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And nothing gives me more pleasure than to see an extreme liberal like Judy continually endorse the Clintons and defend Bill Clinton, a man who headed the most conservative administration of the past 50 years Yes, Clinton's eight years saw even MORE conservative legislation passed into law than under Ronald Reagan: - Defense of Marriage Act - NAFTA - Balanced the budget - Welfare Reform - Support for the death penalty (indeed, Clinton went out of his way to return to Arkansas during his presidential campaign to make sure a retarded Black Man was put to death). So, I laugh and snicker with glee to see Judy defend Bill Clinton! Go for it, Judy! Thank God Clinton had to deal with a conservative congress that wouldn't send him the kind of legislation he really would like to have signed. Too bad G.W. Bush's Congress wasn't anything like that for the first six years.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
(snip) You're a terrible mind-reader. No, that wasn't innocent. On the other hand, Obama's no innocent either. The notion that he's not running as an African American, and that therefore any acknowledgment of his race is playing the race card, is ludicrous. He wants to have it both ways. (snip) Hillary had most of the Black vote, only a few months ago... This whole thing happened recently. Actually I believe it started when Barack spoke at the Des Moines event, back in December... For me, that's when I felt the electricity that he seemed to tap into. Since that time, this has only increased. He clearly has the ability to inspire, and to bring people together. Hillary and Bill have been polarizing figures, now and in the past. I don't see why they would deserve another stint in the WH. Why not give a new generation a chance to experience an inspirational leader who very much reminds people of the idealism and the inspiration political/spiritual leaders of the sixties. The Clintons, like the Bush's are political leaders. Obama, like the Kennedy's transcend politics somewhat and become spiritual inspirational leaders- which are certainly more rare. It's a tough world for sure, and a cynical world at that. So, it's hard to except that things could really change. The choice isn't between black or white or man or woman. It's deeper than that.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Roberto babajii_99@ wrote: snip He clearly has the ability to inspire, and to bring people together. Some of us aren't at all sure, Robert, that he has the ability to do anything *else*. Exactly. Obama singing Kumbaya with Oprah in the Whitehouse may generate lots of warm fuzzies, but warm fuzzies don't get the job done. Obama is a fantastic orator, but I get no sense of Obama, the effective, well-informed policy wonk. Even the Kumbaya bit may be something of a sham, given his pointed snub of Hillary Clinton last night at the SOTU when she came over to shake Teddy Kennedy's hand.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone want to bet on how many posts these two are going to waste on this silliness before they stop beating each *other* up? Sal, it's the result of the devastating effects of spunge-brain syndrome. Those who suffer from this horrible disease can go on like this for YEARS and still not realize that they're making absolute asses of themselves. A good glass of wine would do wonders. I suspect it would take a whole bottle before either of them ever even *approached* being human. :-) Shut up, Barry. You're irrelevant.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
On Jan 29, 2008, at 11:30 AM, authfriend wrote: I think she'd be a lot tougher for them to steamroll than Bill was. She's tougher all the way around than Bill and more committed to change. Then why hasn't any of that been obvious during her 7 years in office so far? She's gone along with the worst excesses of the Bush/Cheney cabal, as far as I can tell. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
Anyone want to bet on how many posts these two are going to waste on this silliness before they stop beating each *other* up? Sal, it's the result of the devastating effects of spunge-brain syndrome. Those who suffer from this horrible disease can go on like this for YEARS and still not realize that they're making absolute asses of themselves. A good glass of wine would do wonders. I suspect it would take a whole bottle before either of them ever even *approached* being human. :-) The gist of this act seems to be, Ok everyone on FFL, watch as I demonstrate how incredibly dumb/ignorant of the facts/lazy/duplicitous my opponent is. Shemp's trying to do this to Judy. Judy's trying to do this to Shemp. Both of them think we in the audience are interested in the results. Hasn't it ever occurred to *either* of them what happens if they win and prove that the other person IS as dumb as they think he/she is? The winner will have proved that the loser is a bit of a retard. And by doing so, the winner will have proved that he or she GETS OFF ON DEBATING WITH RETARDS. Now THAT's a real challenge, right? :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip If you're not willing to go to the trouble to find out what each of them really said, why should anybody take your opinion seriously? This is why Judy has never, ever been wrong in a debate. Actually, it's why you've never, ever been right in a debate with me--because you simply refuse to do your homework, and then you crap out. It's just sheer intellectual sloth. Why should I--why should anybody--waste time debating somebody who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about? And I'm hardly the first person to point this out to you, Shemp. Amen!
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And getting laid, of course in the correct vastu with the appropriate ayurvedic unguents. May I ask, what is the correct vastu for getting laid? Close your eyes and think of the Maharishi?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
On Jan 29, 2008, at 11:44 AM, ruthsimplicity wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And getting laid, of course in the correct vastu with the appropriate ayurvedic unguents. May I ask, what is the correct vastu for getting laid? Close your eyes and think of the Maharishi? While facing east. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...you mean the way her husband slowed down the Conservatives during his 8 years in office? You mean the way he signed NAFTA, the Welfare Reform Act, balanced the budget, supported the death penalty, the Defense of Marriage Act, etc.? Yup, bring on Hillary and Bill, the most conservative president of the last 50 years. Welfare reform was vetoed at least twice before he finally signed it. Family Medical Leave Act passed under his watch. Expansion of the earned income credit was a significant piece of legislation. The Brady bill passed. Even though health care reform did not pass, very significant protections were obtained for consumers through health insurance portability legislation. I can't recall what the trades were for the defense of marriage act. He and Hillary worked hard on health care reform. Those against the reform were well financed and aggressive. The final plan ended up with too many compromises, which made it difficult to sell in a sound bite. Interestingly, much has changed since that time and many of those who lobbied against the efforts are now supportive of some version of guaranteed health care. As a lobbyist on this issue, the whole exercise was probably a necessary step. Hillary is much more in tune with this issue, my issue, than is Obama. However, at least Obama and the other democrats see that there are significant problems in the health care and health insurance industries that need work. Unlike the republicans who think that the market and health savings accounts will take care of the issue.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Questions for the Clintons By BOB HERBERT Published: January 26, 2008 snip Bill Clinton, in his over-the-top advocacy of his wife's candidacy, has at times sounded like a man who's gone off his medication. And some of the Clinton surrogates have been flat-out reprehensible. snip And then there was Bob Kerrey, the former senator and another Clinton supporter, who slimed up the campaign with the following comments: It's probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There's a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal. Pressing the point, Mr. Kerrey told CNN's John King: I've watched the blogs try to say that you can't trust him because he spent a little bit of time in a secular madrassa. I feel quite the opposite. Get it? Yes. Sounds to me like Kerrey is trying to counter the false rumor that Obama is a Muslim. How that could be considered a slime is rather strange; to call it a slime appears to be an attempt to slime the Clinton campaign. Let's start with the fact that Mr. Obama never attended a madrassa, and that there is no such thing as a secular madrassa. A madrassa is a religious school. Madrassa is the Arabic word for school--any kind of school, secular or religious. So we're not starting with a fact at all. snip The Clinton camp knows what it's doing, and its slimy maneuvers have been working. Bob Kerrey apologized and Andrew Young said at the time of his comment that he was just fooling around. But the damage to Senator Obama has been real, and so have the benefits to Senator Clinton of these and other lowlife tactics. Consider, for example, the following Web posting (misspellings and all) from a mainstream news blog on Jan. 13: omg people get a grip. Can you imagine calling our president barak hussien obama ... I cant, I pray no one would be disrespectful enough to put this man in our whitehouse. Cherry-picking one nasty *comment* (not a posting) on a blog as if it were somehow representative of the purported damage the Clinton campaign is doing to Obama is really beneath contempt. Herbert knows better, but he knows many of his readers will not. snip Still, it's legitimate to ask, given the destructive developments of the last few weeks, whether the Clintons are capable of being anything but divisive. The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively gleeful in that atmosphere. I see no glee coming out of the Clinton campaign. What I do see is a relentless attempt by the media and the Obama campaign to paint the Clintons as divisive, including deliberately quoting perfectly reasonable remarks by the campaign misleadingly out of context.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
In a message dated 1/28/08 9:11:41 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not to worry! The Kennedy's have endorsed Barack Hussein Obama, or is that a kiss of *death*, politically speaking? Hardly. Only those who would never vote for a Democrat in the first place would even think of posing such a question. (And for the record, some of the Kennedy's [sic] have endorsed Clinton.) Not necessarily true Judy. Ted Kennedy is a very big turn off to a lot of independents and the more conservative element of the Democrats. It will be interesting to see if any other Kennedy's come out for Hillary or see if they speak with one voice. **Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp0030002489
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
In a message dated 1/28/08 10:05:46 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I see no glee coming out of the Clinton campaign. What I do see is a relentless attempt by the media and the Obama campaign to paint the Clintons as divisive, including deliberately quoting perfectly reasonable remarks by the campaign misleadingly out of context. Oh Judy, please. You are truly a loyal dyed in the wool Clintonista. And you'll defend anything they say or do. Just this past week Bill compared Obama to Jesse Jackson by saying Jesse had won the SC primary twice. You take that as something innocent but everybody else knows that is code to scare more white voters to Hillary . And that is not just my perception but of most blacks and Democrats. Nothing coming out of the mouths of the Clinton's is innocent, it's very calculated and subtle. And whenever they or their surrogates are called on the carpet to explain what they said, they are prepared with an innocent explanation from how something was originally taken. Case in point, Bob Kerry,a Hillary supporter, talking about Barack Hussein Obama's Muslim roots at a time when the Internet was full of rumors about him really being a radical Muslim. There was no other reason for him to bring that up than to feed into that rumor and when called on that, he says he just thought it was a great asset and was meant as a complement. Please give me a break! **Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp0030002489
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip I see no glee coming out of the Clinton campaign. What I do see is a relentless attempt by the media and the Obama campaign to paint the Clintons as divisive, including deliberately quoting perfectly reasonable remarks by the campaign misleadingly out of context. I can't believe you feel that way about the now infamous Ronald Reagan remarks about Obama by Bill Clinton, Judy. Do you really feel that that was a perfectly reasonable remark by the campaign misleadingly out of context? Have you stopped beating your wife, Shemp? See if you can just answer the fucking question, Judy. Or are you doing the same thing you always do when someone points out a consistency on your part, which is to NOT address the matter at hand?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip I see no glee coming out of the Clinton campaign. What I do see is a relentless attempt by the media and the Obama campaign to paint the Clintons as divisive, including deliberately quoting perfectly reasonable remarks by the campaign misleadingly out of context. I can't believe you feel that way about the now infamous Ronald Reagan remarks about Obama by Bill Clinton, Judy. Do you really feel that that was a perfectly reasonable remark by the campaign misleadingly out of context? Have you stopped beating your wife, Shemp?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/28/08 9:11:41 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not to worry! The Kennedy's have endorsed Barack Hussein Obama, or is that a kiss of *death*, politically speaking? Hardly. Only those who would never vote for a Democrat in the first place would even think of posing such a question. (And for the record, some of the Kennedy's [sic] have endorsed Clinton.) Not necessarily true Judy. Ted Kennedy is a very big turn off to a lot of independents and the more conservative element of the Democrats. Who wouldn't vote for Obama in the first place. It will be interesting to see if any other Kennedy's come out for Hillary or see if they speak with one voice. They have, and they don't, as I just noted.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/28/08 10:05:46 A.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I see no glee coming out of the Clinton campaign. What I do see is a relentless attempt by the media and the Obama campaign to paint the Clintons as divisive, including deliberately quoting perfectly reasonable remarks by the campaign misleadingly out of context. Oh Judy, please. You are truly a loyal dyed in the wool Clintonista. And you'll defend anything they say or do. Just this past week Bill compared Obama to Jesse Jackson by saying Jesse had won the SC primary twice. You take that as something innocent You're a terrible mind-reader. No, that wasn't innocent. On the other hand, Obama's no innocent either. The notion that he's not running as an African American, and that therefore any acknowledgment of his race is playing the race card, is ludicrous. He wants to have it both ways. but everybody else knows that is code to scare more white voters to Hillary. And that is not just my perception but of most blacks and Democrats. Nothing coming out of the mouths of the Clinton's is innocent, it's very calculated and subtle. At least, Obama's campaign, the media, and Clinton-hating right-wingers will do their damndest to portray it that way--the latter because they think Obama will be easier to beat (and they're probably right). And whenever they or their surrogates are called on the carpet to explain what they said, they are prepared with an innocent explanation from how something was originally taken. Again, I'm not saying the Clintons are cleaner than whistles. I'm saying they're not anywhere *near* as dirty as they're portrayed. Case in point, Bob Kerry,a Hillary supporter, talking about Barack Hussein Obama's Muslim roots at a time when the Internet was full of rumors about him really being a radical Muslim. There was no other reason for him to bring that up than to feed into that rumor and when called on that, he says he just thought it was a great asset and was meant as a complement. Please give me a break! Seems to me that's exactly what it was. But Kerrey should have known better than to try to say something positive about Obama in this poisonous anti-Clinton atmosphere.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@ wrote: Nothing coming out of the mouths of the Clinton's is innocent, it's very calculated and subtle. And whenever they or their surrogates are called on the carpet to explain what they said, they are prepared with an innocent explanation from how something was originally taken. So, every politician is expected to speak carefully and never make a statement that could be interpreted as racist, sexist, or any other ist. Which means, effectively, that whichever candidate the media most dislikes literally can't say *anything* that cannot interpreted as some kind of ist. Regarding Obama's appalling comments about Reagan, I wrote my sister that Hillary should forget the truce and string him up for them. Ten minutes after sending the email, I realized that if I'd been speaking to the media, I'd have been immediately branded as a racist. In an email to a blogger, I referred to Obama's noble pose. Then I realized I couldn't say that either, because it could be interpreted as a reference to the noble savage stereotype. Another anti-Clinton blogger actually accused Bill Clinton of racism for saying Obama had put out a hit job on him--because the hit job metaphor had connotations of violence. snip As someone who spends her time with politicians, I know that the press plays a large part in setting the divisive tone. Everything is the horse race. Everything you say will get repeated, context be damned. Absolutely. And worse, it's a horse race in which the media pick favorites and do whatever they can to help them win. Bob Somerby's blog dailyhowler.com does a terrific job of chronicling this sort of thing almost every day, if anyone is interested in seeing examples.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip I see no glee coming out of the Clinton campaign. What I do see is a relentless attempt by the media and the Obama campaign to paint the Clintons as divisive, including deliberately quoting perfectly reasonable remarks by the campaign misleadingly out of context. I can't believe you feel that way about the now infamous Ronald Reagan remarks about Obama by Bill Clinton, Judy. Do you really feel that that was a perfectly reasonable remark by the campaign misleadingly out of context? Have you stopped beating your wife, Shemp? See if you can just answer the fucking question, Judy. I can't answer your question any more than you can answer mine, and for the same reason. Read what I wrote again, please. Or are you doing the same thing you always do when someone points out a consistency on your part, which is to NOT address the matter at hand? Have you stopped beating your wife? Hint: I'm schooling you in how to ask a fair question that reflects what the person you're asking actually said.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip I see no glee coming out of the Clinton campaign. What I do see is a relentless attempt by the media and the Obama campaign to paint the Clintons as divisive, including deliberately quoting perfectly reasonable remarks by the campaign misleadingly out of context. I can't believe you feel that way about the now infamous Ronald Reagan remarks about Obama by Bill Clinton, Judy. Do you really feel that that was a perfectly reasonable remark by the campaign misleadingly out of context? Have you stopped beating your wife, Shemp? Come again?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert babajii_99@ wrote: Questions for the Clintons By BOB HERBERT Published: January 26, 2008 snip Bill Clinton, in his over-the-top advocacy of his wife's candidacy, has at times sounded like a man who's gone off his medication. And some of the Clinton surrogates have been flat-out reprehensible. snip And then there was Bob Kerrey, the former senator and another Clinton supporter, who slimed up the campaign with the following comments: It's probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There's a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal. Pressing the point, Mr. Kerrey told CNN's John King: I've watched the blogs try to say that you can't trust him because he spent a little bit of time in a secular madrassa. I feel quite the opposite. Get it? Yes. Sounds to me like Kerrey is trying to counter the false rumor that Obama is a Muslim. How that could be considered a slime is rather strange; to call it a slime appears to be an attempt to slime the Clinton campaign. Let's start with the fact that Mr. Obama never attended a madrassa, and that there is no such thing as a secular madrassa. A madrassa is a religious school. Madrassa is the Arabic word for school--any kind of school, secular or religious. So we're not starting with a fact at all. snip The Clinton camp knows what it's doing, and its slimy maneuvers have been working. Bob Kerrey apologized and Andrew Young said at the time of his comment that he was just fooling around. But the damage to Senator Obama has been real, and so have the benefits to Senator Clinton of these and other lowlife tactics. Consider, for example, the following Web posting (misspellings and all) from a mainstream news blog on Jan. 13: omg people get a grip. Can you imagine calling our president barak hussien obama ... I cant, I pray no one would be disrespectful enough to put this man in our whitehouse. Cherry-picking one nasty *comment* (not a posting) on a blog as if it were somehow representative of the purported damage the Clinton campaign is doing to Obama is really beneath contempt. Herbert knows better, but he knows many of his readers will not. snip Still, it's legitimate to ask, given the destructive developments of the last few weeks, whether the Clintons are capable of being anything but divisive. The electorate seems more polarized now than it was just a few weeks ago, and the Clintons have seemed positively gleeful in that atmosphere. I see no glee coming out of the Clinton campaign. What I do see is a relentless attempt by the media and the Obama campaign to paint the Clintons as divisive, including deliberately quoting perfectly reasonable remarks by the campaign misleadingly out of context. I can't believe you feel that way about the now infamous Ronald Reagan remarks about Obama by Bill Clinton, Judy. Do you really feel that that was a perfectly reasonable remark by the campaign misleadingly out of context?
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nothing coming out of the mouths of the Clinton's is innocent, it's very calculated and subtle. And whenever they or their surrogates are called on the carpet to explain what they said, they are prepared with an innocent explanation from how something was originally taken. So, every politician is expected to speak carefully and never make a statement that could be interpreted as racist, sexist, or any other ist. But when they attempt to speak carefully, they are called calculating. Or if they didn't speak carefully, the mistake was calculating. Everything gets interpreted by the listener in a way that reinforces their own positions. As someone who spends her time with politicians, I know that the press plays a large part in setting the divisive tone. Everything is the horse race. Everything you say will get repeated, context be damned. Because Clnton, Obama, and Edwards are not very far apart on the issues, I think this can lead to manufactured disputes, whether manufactured by the press or or the candidates. I hope they do not go too far as they need to all come together in the end. Charisma plays a huge role in this country. Reagan had it. Bill Clinton had it. Even Bush had a fair amount of it. Remember people saying how they liked the guy, but not his policies? Of the democratic candidates, Obama seems to have the most charismatic appeal.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not to worry! The Kennedy's have endorsed Barack Hussein Obama, or is that a kiss of *death*, politically speaking? Well, I'm not sure... Barack's middle name could be a problem for some people, although it's really not his fault, right? But some people will use this to push people's buttons- quite common in some decietful political circles. Could be Kennedy's endorsement will be the 'kiss of death' for the Clinton campaign, which had been begging for his endorsement; All I know is: the Clintons have definitely been knocked down a few pegs, and some light has been shed on the way they operate, pitting one against the other.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not to worry! The Kennedy's have endorsed Barack Hussein Obama, or is that a kiss of *death*, politically speaking? Hardly. Only those who would never vote for a Democrat in the first place would even think of posing such a question. (And for the record, some of the Kennedy's [sic] have endorsed Clinton.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
In a message dated 1/28/08 12:56:13 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: snip As someone who spends her time with politicians, I know that the press plays a large part in setting the divisive tone. Everything is the horse race. Everything you say will get repeated, context be damned. Absolutely. And worse, it's a horse race in which the media pick favorites and do whatever they can to help them win. Hey, I've said for years that the media loves to build somebody up so they can tear them down when they feel like it. **Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp0030002489
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip I see no glee coming out of the Clinton campaign. What I do see is a relentless attempt by the media and the Obama campaign to paint the Clintons as divisive, including deliberately quoting perfectly reasonable remarks by the campaign misleadingly out of context. I can't believe you feel that way about the now infamous Ronald Reagan remarks about Obama by Bill Clinton, Judy. Do you really feel that that was a perfectly reasonable remark by the campaign misleadingly out of context? Have you stopped beating your wife, Shemp? See if you can just answer the fucking question, Judy. I can't answer your question any more than you can answer mine, and for the same reason. Read what I wrote again, please. Or are you doing the same thing you always do when someone points out a consistency on your part, which is to NOT address the matter at hand? Have you stopped beating your wife? Hint: I'm schooling you in how to ask a fair question that reflects what the person you're asking actually said. (sigh) Okay, let's try it this way. Yes or no, Judy: do you feel that Hillary Clinton saying that Obama supported Republican ideas in light of his statement about Ronald Reagan was a perfectly reasonable remark for Hillary to make? Real simple, Judy: yes or no.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip I see no glee coming out of the Clinton campaign. What I do see is a relentless attempt by the media and the Obama campaign to paint the Clintons as divisive, including deliberately quoting perfectly reasonable remarks by the campaign misleadingly out of context. I can't believe you feel that way about the now infamous Ronald Reagan remarks about Obama by Bill Clinton, Judy. Do you really feel that that was a perfectly reasonable remark by the campaign misleadingly out of context? Have you stopped beating your wife, Shemp? See if you can just answer the fucking question, Judy. I can't answer your question any more than you can answer mine, and for the same reason. Read what I wrote again, please. Or are you doing the same thing you always do when someone points out a consistency on your part, which is to NOT address the matter at hand? Have you stopped beating your wife? Hint: I'm schooling you in how to ask a fair question that reflects what the person you're asking actually said. (sigh) Okay, let's try it this way. Yes or no, Judy: do you feel that Hillary Clinton saying that Obama supported Republican ideas in light of his statement about Ronald Reagan was a perfectly reasonable remark for Hillary to make? Nope, you've still got it screwed up. Go look at the quote and see if you can figure out why. Also, it's a different question. At first you were asking about Bill's statement; now you're asking about Hillary's statement--but you didn't mention that you'd pulled that switch. I'll be happy to answer either question, but first you've got to get it *straight*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 28, 2008, at 6:01 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: No, Judy, after 5 years of this bullshit on your part, I won't play your reread what I said or your first get it straight redirect. Answer the fucking question or shut the fuck up. Anyone want to bet on how many posts these two are going to waste on this silliness before they stop beating each *other* up? Sal You're mistaking me for Turdquoise and Judy. I tire with her very quickly. That's why I cut to the chase right away.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip I see no glee coming out of the Clinton campaign. What I do see is a relentless attempt by the media and the Obama campaign to paint the Clintons as divisive, including deliberately quoting perfectly reasonable remarks by the campaign misleadingly out of context. I can't believe you feel that way about the now infamous Ronald Reagan remarks about Obama by Bill Clinton, Judy. Do you really feel that that was a perfectly reasonable remark by the campaign misleadingly out of context? Have you stopped beating your wife, Shemp? See if you can just answer the fucking question, Judy. I can't answer your question any more than you can answer mine, and for the same reason. Read what I wrote again, please. Or are you doing the same thing you always do when someone points out a consistency on your part, which is to NOT address the matter at hand? Have you stopped beating your wife? Hint: I'm schooling you in how to ask a fair question that reflects what the person you're asking actually said. (sigh) Okay, let's try it this way. Yes or no, Judy: do you feel that Hillary Clinton saying that Obama supported Republican ideas in light of his statement about Ronald Reagan was a perfectly reasonable remark for Hillary to make? Nope, you've still got it screwed up. Go look at the quote and see if you can figure out why. Also, it's a different question. At first you were asking about Bill's statement; now you're asking about Hillary's statement--but you didn't mention that you'd pulled that switch. I didn't have to; I said Okay, let's try it this way. I'll be happy to answer either question, but first you've got to get it *straight*. No, Judy, after 5 years of this bullshit on your part, I won't play your reread what I said or your first get it straight redirect. Answer the fucking question or shut the fuck up.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
On Jan 28, 2008, at 6:01 PM, shempmcgurk wrote: No, Judy, after 5 years of this bullshit on your part, I won't play your reread what I said or your first get it straight redirect. Answer the fucking question or shut the fuck up. Anyone want to bet on how many posts these two are going to waste on this silliness before they stop beating each *other* up? Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] Oh Judy, please. You are truly a loyal dyed in the wool Clintonista. [snip] Yes, she is. And nothing gives me more pleasure than to see an extreme liberal like Judy continually endorse the Clintons and defend Bill Clinton, a man who headed the most conservative administration of the past 50 years Yes, Clinton's eight years saw even MORE conservative legislation passed into law than under Ronald Reagan: - Defense of Marriage Act - NAFTA - Balanced the budget - Welfare Reform - Support for the death penalty (indeed, Clinton went out of his way to return to Arkansas during his presidential campaign to make sure a retarded Black Man was put to death). So, I laugh and snicker with glee to see Judy defend Bill Clinton! Go for it, Judy!
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: snip Okay, let's try it this way. Yes or no, Judy: do you feel that Hillary Clinton saying that Obama supported Republican ideas in light of his statement about Ronald Reagan was a perfectly reasonable remark for Hillary to make? Nope, you've still got it screwed up. Go look at the quote and see if you can figure out why. Also, it's a different question. At first you were asking about Bill's statement; now you're asking about Hillary's statement--but you didn't mention that you'd pulled that switch. I didn't have to; I said Okay, let's try it this way. It would have been courteous to do so. I thought at first you were referring just to rephrasing the question, not asking an entirely different one. I'll be happy to answer either question, but first you've got to get it *straight*. No, Judy, after 5 years of this bullshit on your part, I won't play your reread what I said or your first get it straight redirect. The bullshit's entirely on your part, Shemp. Answer the fucking question or shut the fuck up. I beg your pardon. You asked *me* a question. If you can't be bothered to fix it so it makes sense, *you* shut the fuck up. Got it? Go look at the quotes again, both Hillary's and Obama's. Find a story on the Web that gives both of them in their entirety. The reason you got it wrong is because of what I've been talking about, the media's tendency not to provide context. That's also why you think what she said was unreasonable. If you're not willing to go to the trouble to find out what each of them really said, why should anybody take your opinion seriously?
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
In a message dated 1/28/08 6:20:20 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And nothing gives me more pleasure than to see an extreme liberal like Judy continually endorse the Clintons and defend Bill Clinton, a man who headed the most conservative administration of the past 50 years Yes, Clinton's eight years saw even MORE conservative legislation passed into law than under Ronald Reagan: - Defense of Marriage Act - NAFTA - Balanced the budget - Welfare Reform - Support for the death penalty (indeed, Clinton went out of his way to return to Arkansas during his presidential campaign to make sure a retarded Black Man was put to death). So, I laugh and snicker with glee to see Judy defend Bill Clinton! Go for it, Judy! Thank God Clinton had to deal with a conservative congress that wouldn't send him the kind of legislation he really would like to have signed. **Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp0030002489
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: snip Okay, let's try it this way. Yes or no, Judy: do you feel that Hillary Clinton saying that Obama supported Republican ideas in light of his statement about Ronald Reagan was a perfectly reasonable remark for Hillary to make? Nope, you've still got it screwed up. Go look at the quote and see if you can figure out why. Also, it's a different question. At first you were asking about Bill's statement; now you're asking about Hillary's statement--but you didn't mention that you'd pulled that switch. I didn't have to; I said Okay, let's try it this way. It would have been courteous to do so. I thought at first you were referring just to rephrasing the question, not asking an entirely different one. I'll be happy to answer either question, but first you've got to get it *straight*. No, Judy, after 5 years of this bullshit on your part, I won't play your reread what I said or your first get it straight redirect. The bullshit's entirely on your part, Shemp. Answer the fucking question or shut the fuck up. I beg your pardon. You asked *me* a question. If you can't be bothered to fix it so it makes sense, *you* shut the fuck up. Got it? Go look at the quotes again, both Hillary's and Obama's. Find a story on the Web that gives both of them in their entirety. The reason you got it wrong is because of what I've been talking about, the media's tendency not to provide context. That's also why you think what she said was unreasonable. If you're not willing to go to the trouble to find out what each of them really said, why should anybody take your opinion seriously? This is why Judy has never, ever been wrong in a debate.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/28/08 6:20:20 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And nothing gives me more pleasure than to see an extreme liberal like Judy continually endorse the Clintons and defend Bill Clinton, a man who headed the most conservative administration of the past 50 years Yes, Clinton's eight years saw even MORE conservative legislation passed into law than under Ronald Reagan: - Defense of Marriage Act - NAFTA - Balanced the budget - Welfare Reform - Support for the death penalty (indeed, Clinton went out of his way to return to Arkansas during his presidential campaign to make sure a retarded Black Man was put to death). So, I laugh and snicker with glee to see Judy defend Bill Clinton! Go for it, Judy! Thank God Clinton had to deal with a conservative congress that wouldn't send him the kind of legislation he really would like to have signed. **Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise? NCID=aolcmp0030002489 That my be true, MDixon, but he did sign it. And for that, he gets credit. Al Gore recently praised Richard Nixon's administration for overseeing the legislation that created the EPA. Nixon signed it, he gets credit for it. And Al Gore gave him credit. That's the way it works. I'd rather have a Bill Clinton in office with a Republican Congress than the disaster of the last 7 years which saw -- for at least 4 years -- a Republican Senate, a Republican House, and a Republican President and a 50% increase in spending since Clinton left office.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip If you're not willing to go to the trouble to find out what each of them really said, why should anybody take your opinion seriously? This is why Judy has never, ever been wrong in a debate. Actually, it's why you've never, ever been right in a debate with me--because you simply refuse to do your homework, and then you crap out. It's just sheer intellectual sloth. Why should I--why should anybody--waste time debating somebody who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about? And I'm hardly the first person to point this out to you, Shemp.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip If you're not willing to go to the trouble to find out what each of them really said, why should anybody take your opinion seriously? This is why Judy has never, ever been wrong in a debate. Actually, it's why you've never, ever been right in a debate with me--because you simply refuse to do your homework, and then you crap out. It's just sheer intellectual sloth. Why should I--why should anybody--waste time debating somebody who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about? And I'm hardly the first person to point this out to you, Shemp. Dearest Judy, I'm stupid. You're smart. You win.
[FairfieldLife] Re: 'What Kind of People are the Clintons?'
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: snip If you're not willing to go to the trouble to find out what each of them really said, why should anybody take your opinion seriously? This is why Judy has never, ever been wrong in a debate. Actually, it's why you've never, ever been right in a debate with me--because you simply refuse to do your homework, and then you crap out. It's just sheer intellectual sloth. Why should I--why should anybody--waste time debating somebody who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about? And I'm hardly the first person to point this out to you, Shemp. Dearest Judy, I'm stupid. You're smart. You win. No, Shemp, that's exactly *not* the problem. You're plenty smart--you're just lazy.
