CBS: No Anti-War speeches @ Grammys

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Of course, Clinton hit 57% HOW often in 8 years?

 

Source

 

That was while the Monica scandal was still allegations and no admission had been made. Then after the impeachment vote....

 

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...peachment.poll/

 

In the wake of the House of Representatives' approval of two articles of impeachment, Bill Clinton's approval rating has jumped 10 points to 73 percent, the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows.

 

 

Of course, you glossed over that whole "none of his earlier performance measurements taken between 1994 and 1997 had been higher than 57%" thing.

 

I could ALSO state that Bush likely has higher personal approval ratings ... but that would just be piling it on.

-=Mike --- Who figured that this past election showed Bill's irrelevance historically.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Wow, that's pretty surprising that it skyrocketed after the impeachment.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Wow, that's pretty surprising that it skyrocketed after the impeachment.

Incredibly surprising --- since he didn't actually DO anything during that time.

 

It was simply the "lowest common denominator" speaking up and saying "Howdy"

-=Mike

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Of course, you glossed over that whole "none of his earlier performance measurements taken between 1994 and 1997 had been higher than 57%" thing.

No I didn't. I intentionally included that in the image. I figured I should include that up until the end, 57 was a high point for Clinton.

 

 

 

I could ALSO state that Bush likely has higher personal approval ratings ... but that would just be piling it on.

 

True. But not by much.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...24/MN188382.DTL

 

 

The poll, taken at the midpoint of Bush's term as he prepares to deliver his second State of the Union Address on Tuesday, found that 59 percent of Americans approve the way he is performing his job. That figure is the lowest it has been since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center but, by historical standards, remains strong today.

 

That was about a month ago, although I don't think the protests (or, for that matter, the Powell speeches) did anything to change anyone's mind more than a point or two.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Regardless.

 

You're also discounting the forced patriotism after 9/11, which resulted in high ratings for Bush.

 

In effect, he's been rather average and his trickle-down economics beliefs are going to run our country into more economic trouble down the road, in all likelyhood.

 

IMO, Domestically he's rather weak. With regard to foreign policy, he's been solid... but I would personally throw that down to inadequate or even deplorable if we go to war with Iraq. Right now, I am hoping this whole thing is a beautiful threat/ploy to force Iraq to disarm and conjur up a coup to eliminate Saddam from office.

 

A man can dream, after all.

[Guest JMA]

I know Dennis Miller is a big Bush fan.

 

Miller > Garaffalo

Not me.

 

Garaffalo > Miller

[Guest bob_barron]

Dennis Miller is a Weekend Update legend.

 

Janeane Garafalo tarnished SNL's image and left after half a year.

 

Dennis Miller may've done shiitty films but he didnt do Truth About Cats and Dogs.

 

Miller>Garafalo

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Dennis Miller is also probably the worst color man in MNF's history.

 

Al Michaels > Miller

[cawthon777 0]

Dennis Miller is also probably the worst color man in MNF's history.

 

Al Michaels > Miller

Not big on MNF but I'll go along with that. Miller is too intelligent and high brow to really fit in there (not that I'm saying everyone else there is a retard).

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Agreed, considering the average MNF viewer has the IQ of a retarded chimpanzee.

 

Although, I watch it.

 

*goes back into his hole*

[Guest JMA]

Republican or conservative celebs are tolerated more for a number of reasons:

 

1. They rarely speak out, so when they do, it carries more weight and is a refreshing break from the Hollywood monotony.

 

2. They are respected for having the balls to stick with their stances despite Hollywood's fierce anti-conservative position.

 

3. They usually make more sense. And it's easy, when compared to the "Shakespeare" quoting Streisand. Or Sheryl "the-secret-is-to-not-have-enemies" Crow.

I may agree with points one and two, but not three. I'd say liberals usually have more sense (but keep in mind I am a liberal sympathizer). Also, I REALLY wish people would stop grouping Republicans and conservatives in the same category.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Regardless.

 

You're also discounting the forced patriotism after 9/11, which resulted in high ratings for Bush.

 

In effect, he's been rather average and his trickle-down economics beliefs are going to run our country into more economic trouble down the road, in all likelyhood.

 

IMO, Domestically he's rather weak. With regard to foreign policy, he's been solid... but I would personally throw that down to inadequate or even deplorable if we go to war with Iraq. Right now, I am hoping this whole thing is a beautiful threat/ploy to force Iraq to disarm and conjur up a coup to eliminate Saddam from office.

 

A man can dream, after all.

Let's get ONE little myth out of the way here ---

 

Bush INHERITED this whole economic mess.

 

The stock market was insanely overvalued. Where it is now is a bit lower than it should be --- but it's FAR closer to economic reality than the 5,000 NASDAQ level and 10,000 Dow Jones average. It was GOING to crash eventually.

 

The econony was in FULL slow-down during 2000. 9/11 only made things that much worse. And, yes, we're running deficits. We do have different problems now and, unfortunately, you have to spend some money to fix it.

 

So, let's not blame "trickle-down" for this. Put the blame on idiotic venture capitalists putting insane money in internet companies with no concept on turning the occasional profit.

 

 

As for his foreign policy being bad if we go to war --- at what point would we have given Saddam enough chances to do what he vowed to do back in 1991?

-=Mike --- "Yeah, Hitler invaded all of these countries. I'm sure we can still talk to him, though"

[Guest JMA]

Dennis Miller is also probably the worst color man in MNF's history.

 

Al Michaels > Miller

Oh, TAG~!

[Guest Powerplay]

I know Dennis Miller is a big Bush fan.

 

Miller > Garaffalo

Not me.

 

Garaffalo > Miller

... You are kidding, right? Miller >>>>>>>>> Garaffalo. Like Bob said earlier, plus his comedy act is better.

[Guest JMA]

Let's get ONE little myth out of the way here ---

 

Bush INHERITED this whole economic mess.

Sorry, Mike. Have to disagree there. We had one of the greatest economic surpluses under the Clinton administration. The bad economy was caused by the deaths of 5,000+ people in the WTC attacks and Bush's policies on money. When that many people die it tends to stop the buying of stuff (you can't buy if you're dead). Of course, Bush's policies didn't help us either. So, in conclusion, some of it is the fault of 9/11 and some is caused by the Bush administration.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Let's get one point about my post down the way.

 

down the road

 

Thanks. Read closer next time. I know he inherited a lot of it, but I also know that trickle down economics is not the solution.

 

As far as the "giving Saddam chances" statement, I am avowedly anti-war and frankly, I don't buy into the "eye for an eye" theory.

 

Killing is wrong no matter what the circumstances; not everyone killed in this war is going to be a soldier or a terrorist, there are going to be civilians, women, and children annihilated by carpet bombing as well. I don't understand how we can value our own civilians' lives so much higher than anyone else's; we virtually ignore when they die, but we cause a huge fucking shit when ours do. Therefore, I believe war should be avoided at all costs, only used in the most dire of circumstances. As far as your inflammitory tagline goes, that would be the most dire of circumstances, wouldn't it?

 

- TM

Yes, I notice condescending posts and respond accordingly

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Let's get one point about my post down the way.

 

down the road

 

Thanks. Read closer next time. I know he inherited a lot of it, but I also know that trickle down economics is not the solution.>>>

 

 

Ah, choosing to abandon adult debating after one post?

 

Quicker than I expected, honestly.

 

 

<<<As far as the "giving Saddam chances" statement, I am avowedly anti-war and frankly, I don't buy into the "eye for an eye" theory.>>>

 

 

As opposed to the contingent of us who are PRO-war?

 

You honestly think anybody here WANTS war?

 

Time for a sad fact of life --- some people AREN'T nice, WON'T listen to reason and HAVE to be dealt with harshly.

 

 

<<<Killing is wrong no matter what the circumstances>>>

 

 

Oh, you cannot be serious.

 

 

<<<; not everyone killed in this war is going to be a soldier or a terrorist, there are going to be civilians, women, and children annihilated by carpet bombing as well.>>>

 

 

And since we carpet bomb SO frequently...

 

Heck, thousands could die if we drop a nuke.

 

The fact that we WON'T shouldn't really matter here, though.

 

 

<<<I don't understand how we can value our own civilians' lives so much higher than anyone else's>>>

 

 

1) We hold IRAQI civilian lives much higher than Saddam does.

 

2) Human nature is to consider your own people more important to you than others. It's the way --- well, EVERY country in the history of man has operated.

 

3) We actually ATTEMPT to MINIMIZE civilian casualties --- Hussein will happily use his own people as shields.

 

 

<<<; we virtually ignore when they die, but we cause a huge fucking shit when ours do.>>>

 

 

Curse us to heck.

 

Of course, when other countries have earthquakes, famines, et al --- we tend to send aid.

 

I don't hear about a heck of a lot of aid heading OUR way after WE have problems.

 

But WE are the selfish pricks of the world.

 

 

<<<Therefore, I believe war should be avoided at all costs, only used in the most dire of circumstances. As far as your inflammitory tagline goes, that would be the most dire of circumstances, wouldn't it?>>>

 

 

But at WHAT point would it have become dire?

 

When he took over the Sudetenland?

 

How about when we took over Czechslovakia?

 

I will guarantee that you would not have supported action against Hitler until the bitter, bitter end.

 

 

- TM

Yes, I notice condescending posts and respond accordingly >>>

 

 

If you wish to take everything as a personal assault, feel free.

 

You took it personally because you knew it was true.

-=Mike --- Who laughs at you "responding accordingly"

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Let's get ONE little myth out of the way here ---

 

Bush INHERITED this whole economic mess.

Sorry, Mike. Have to disagree there. We had one of the greatest economic surpluses under the Clinton administration. The bad economy was caused by the deaths of 5,000+ people in the WTC attacks and Bush's policies on money. When that many people die it tends to stop the buying of stuff (you can't buy if you're dead). Of course, Bush's policies didn't help us either. So, in conclusion, some of it is the fault of 9/11 and some is caused by the Bush administration.

The economy was in free fall during 2000. The stock market was dropping like a rock.

 

Clinton's great economy was identical to the 1920's economy. Absurd speculation driving stocks to absurd and unrealistic heights while legitimate problems in the economy were overlooked.

-=Mike

[Guest Vern Gagne]

What I wonder about are the people who insist Bush get a UN resolution before attacking Iraq. I never heard anyone complaining when Clinton attacked Kosovo and Baghdad without a U.N. resolution.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

What I wonder about are the people who insist Bush get a UN resolution before attacking Iraq. I never heard anyone complaining when Clinton attacked Kosovo and Baghdad without a U.N. resolution.

We've already had 16 or so resolutions. How many more are needed?

-=Mike --- even Steve Howe thinks the U.N is too forgiving.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Ah, choosing to abandon adult debating after one post?

 

Quicker than I expected, honestly.

 

Cute. Respond to the point.

 

As opposed to the contingent of us who are PRO-war?

 

If you aren't pro-war, why don't you wish to explore all means necessary to avoid it, including letting the inspectors do their fucking jobs (as they said, they expect that they will need over a year to thoroughly investigate the country). I agree with pressing for true compliance via military threat, and I even agree with sending in troops to enforce this... but I do not agree with waging a fucking war to do it.

 

And since we carpet bomb SO frequently...

 

No, but we love to fire those "smart bombs" that are so "smart", they miss completely and hit schools.

 

Not even the human shield argument can deny the fact that we sometimes fuck up gravely, and it's often forgotten within two days because they were raghead children and not American ones.

 

2) Human nature is to consider your own people more important to you than others. It's the way --- well, EVERY country in the history of man has operated.

 

So, your argument for devaluing the lives of any civilian human being is simply that it's "human nature"?

 

Wonderful logic.

 

It's wrong, but since it's "human nature", we can simply ignore the fact that it's wrong. Well, shit, why didn't you just say that in the first place?

 

3) We actually ATTEMPT to MINIMIZE civilian casualties --- Hussein will happily use his own people as shields.

 

Yes, but when we fuck up, we make no big deal about it.

 

Of course, when other countries have earthquakes, famines, et al --- we tend to send aid.

 

I don't hear about a heck of a lot of aid heading OUR way after WE have problems.

 

But WE are the selfish pricks of the world.

 

Never said we didn't, but when we launch a Patriot missile up some random family's asses, we don't say a word about it. I guess all that aid makes it right though, doesn't it?

 

But at WHAT point would it have become dire?

 

When he took over the Sudetenland?

 

How about when we took over Czechslovakia?

 

I will guarantee that you would not have supported action against Hitler until the bitter, bitter end.

 

When someone invades another country, disturbing the stability of an entire nation and threatening to spread a war even more widely, war becomes necessary. I didn't say we shouldn't have gone into Desert Storm I (although, I disagree with our triumphant exit immediately afterwards, leaving the civilians to be crushed), because they DID invade another country. I consider helping a country under invasion a dire need, personally, but I still would rather mediate than go to war in that situation. However, with the Hitler example, mediation OBVIOUSLY wasn't working. Therefore, war was necessary.

 

There are other reasons which constitute a dire need to engage in warfare, I acknowledge that as well. Genocide is one of them. (I supported intervention with Kosovo).

 

If you wish to take everything as a personal assault, feel free.

 

You took it personally because you knew it was true.

-=Mike --- Who laughs at you "responding accordingly"

 

Mature.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<<Ah, choosing to abandon adult debating after one post?

 

Quicker than I expected, honestly.

 

 

Cute. Respond to the point.>>

 

 

There was one?

 

Shocking.

 

 

<<<As opposed to the contingent of us who are PRO-war?

 

 

If you aren't pro-war, why don't you wish to explore all means necessary to avoid it, including letting the inspectors do their fucking jobs (as they said, they expect that they will need over a year to thoroughly investigate the country).>>>

 

 

Because he's had 12 YEARS to do it and has refused.

 

And he isn't being 100% co-operative NOW.

 

He HAD his chance.

 

He's HAD numerous chances.

 

If he blew them --- it's HIS fault.

 

 

<<I agree with pressing for true compliance via military threat, and I even agree with sending in troops to enforce this... but I do not agree with waging a fucking war to do it.>>>

 

 

So, send troops --- but don't have them actually DO anything?

 

That would be quite non-productive.

 

 

<<<And since we carpet bomb SO frequently...

 

 

No, but we love to fire those "smart bombs" that are so "smart", they miss completely and hit schools.>>>

 

 

Again, such a FREQUENT occurence.

 

Guess what --- military action isn't pretty.

 

And there is ONE MAN who can stop ALL of this.

 

Any deaths are SOLELY Saddam's fault.

 

 

<<<Not even the human shield argument can deny the fact that we sometimes fuck up gravely, and it's often forgotten within two days because they were raghead children and not American ones.>>>

 

 

No, it's because we tried to avoid it and accidents happen.

 

 

<<<2) Human nature is to consider your own people more important to you than others. It's the way --- well, EVERY country in the history of man has operated.

 

 

So, your argument for devaluing the lives of any civilian human being is simply that it's "human nature"?>>>

 

 

Yes.

 

If you wish to attempt to undo millions of years of human evolution, feel free.

 

 

 

<<<Wonderful logic.>>>

 

 

Yes, it is.

 

 

<<<It's wrong, but since it's "human nature", we can simply ignore the fact that it's wrong.>>>

 

 

Why is it wrong?

 

Why is it wrong for Americans to worry about other Americans more than others?

 

Because it offends your ideals of human behavior?

 

 

<<<Well, shit, why didn't you just say that in the first place?>>>

 

 

Ah, when no point is to be made, use profanity.

 

 

 

<<<3) We actually ATTEMPT to MINIMIZE civilian casualties --- Hussein will happily use his own people as shields.

 

 

Yes, but when we fuck up, we make no big deal about it.>>>

 

 

What do you WANT us to do?

 

Build monuments?

 

 

 

<<<Of course, when other countries have earthquakes, famines, et al --- we tend to send aid.

 

I don't hear about a heck of a lot of aid heading OUR way after WE have problems.

 

But WE are the selfish pricks of the world.

 

 

Never said we didn't, but when we launch a Patriot missile up some random family's asses, we don't say a word about it. I guess all that aid makes it right though, doesn't it?>>>

 

 

Why, yes, yes it does.

 

How many countries in the history of the world tried to re-build any country they bested in a conflict?

 

 

<<<But at WHAT point would it have become dire?

 

When he took over the Sudetenland?

 

How about when we took over Czechslovakia?

 

I will guarantee that you would not have supported action against Hitler until the bitter, bitter end.

 

 

When someone invades another country, disturbing the stability of an entire nation and threatening to spread a war even more widely, war becomes necessary. I didn't say we shouldn't have gone into Desert Storm I (although, I disagree with our triumphant exit immediately afterwards, leaving the civilians to be crushed), because they DID invade another country. I consider helping a country under invasion a dire need, personally, but I still would rather mediate than go to war in that situation. However, with the Hitler example, mediation OBVIOUSLY wasn't working. Therefore, war was necessary.>>>

 

 

And in THIS case, Saddam had 12 years and numerous U.N resolutions as a chance to live up to his word.

 

He isn't doing it.

 

 

 

<<<There are other reasons which constitute a dire need to engage in warfare, I acknowledge that as well. Genocide is one of them. (I supported intervention with Kosovo).>>>

 

 

Shall we discuss the treatment of the Kurds? Or any non-Ba'athists in Iraq?

 

 

<<<If you wish to take everything as a personal assault, feel free.

 

You took it personally because you knew it was true.

-=Mike --- Who laughs at you "responding accordingly"

 

 

Mature.>>>

 

 

Yes, I know.

-=Mike

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I need to do some work real fast, I'll respond in about two hours. I'm not dodging you.

 

- TM

Is not dodging ignorance

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I need to do some work real fast, I'll respond in about two hours. I'm not dodging you.

 

- TM

Is not doding ignorance

"Is not dodging ignorance"?

 

You can say THAT again.

-=Mike --- you made that one easy

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Ah yes, typos. Everyone makes them at the wrong times.

 

Now I really DO have to go, I'll be back.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Heck, thousands could die if we drop a nuke.

 

The fact that we WON'T shouldn't really matter here, though.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../15/MN79475.DTL

 

Policymakers in the Department of Defense, the armed services and the nuclear weapons design labs are moving forward rapidly in planning for the possible production of a new generation of smaller nuclear bombs and a resumption of nuclear testing, a leaked Bush administration document shows.

 

(...)

 

House Republicans issued a policy paper on Thursday which calls for some of the changes discussed in the Pentagon memo. These include the repeal of a decade-old law that prohibits the development of small, low-yield nuclear weapons, and steps that would make it easier to resume nuclear testing, which was halted ten years ago.

 

The GOP paper also proposed a new doctrine under which the country would be able to launch nuclear attacks not just in response to a nuclear attack, or the threat of one, but to pre-emptively destroy stockpiles of other weapons, such as chemical or biological weapons, in the hands of hostile countries.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"-=Mike --- who wonders why the '90's aren't called the decade of greed"

 

I've wondered this quite a few times myself, seeing how the rich got richer and the poor got poorer during this time.

 

As much as I hate Miller on MNF, I have to give him props for his weekend update stint.

 

Seeing how all the Iraq militia/Army/etc will probably surrender upon first sight of the U.S. military, I think I'm realizing why the French are so buddy-buddy with them...

[cawthon777 0]

Seeing how all the Iraq militia/Army/etc will probably surrender upon first sight of the U.S. military, I think I'm realizing why the French are so buddy-buddy with them...

Well, it's good to have things in common. Maybe later they can go out to eat at an American fast food restaurant and then watch an American TV sit-com.

[Guest JMA]

I don't think people should generalize the citizens of France as all disliking America. After all, we inspired them (with the Declaration of Independance) to get freedom for themselves. Though, their methods were a little more extreme in attaining freedom than ours to say the least. The US has always said that it supports freedom everywhere, but won't force goverments to change. Well, the TRADITIONAL US has. Anyways, not everyone in France hates us, so we shouldn't hate all of them.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Anyone wanna bet the French try to leech onto the post Hussien Iraq and act like they contributed to the liberation of the Iraqi people.