"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." - Bill Clinton in an August 12, 1993 speech Rating in Democrats Say Stupid Things Too by SilverFox

EschewObfuscation commented 282 days ago.

First of all, would it really surprise any liberal that Clinton might articulate their modus operandi so succinctly early in his first term? Would it surprise anyone that the liberal media would fail (or refuse) to cover (print) it? And, would the well-known conservative rag "Field & Stream" just make it up? Sorry, Fox, that's a long way to go.

SilverFox commented 282 days ago.

A simple URL would have sufficed for anyone else but you. As usual, you can't pass up any opportunity to turn a comment into a diatribe against liberals. If you found the quote in Field & Stream, why not pass it along and prove what a wonderful researcher you are?

EschewObfuscation commented 282 days ago.

Diatribe? You haven't read many of my diatribes, obviously. Because I'm not a great researcher. It was the first item on the first page of a google search. I'd love to brag out it but it was pretty elementary. a child really could have found it. But, not a liberal.

numbah16tdhaha commented 282 days ago.

Nice to see the one-armed man has shown up. Apparently he's a partisan Republican?

abichara commented 282 days ago.

Bill Clinton did make the above stated quote. Here's the confirming link:

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/if_the_personal_fre edoms_guaranteed_by_the/337054.html

numbah16tdhaha commented 282 days ago.

I'd assume have video for a real smoking gun, but thanks.

SilverFox commented 282 days ago.

EO, the first item on the first page of a google search references conservativeforum.org, not Field & Stream. I did find your reference to Field & Stream, but it wasn't published in the magazine. It was in the form of a question sent in by someone, which wasn't answered, by the way. So that's not authority for anything.

SilverFox commented 282 days ago.

By the way, EO, you were wrong to say "would the well-known conservative rag "Field & Stream" just make it up?" As I noted above, they didn't make it up, they never published it in the first place. Quite an amazing job of research you did.

SilverFox commented 282 days ago.

Sorry, Abichara, but a quotation on some website that cites no authority for it doesn't do it for me. That's the same thing that's on the conservative blogs -- a purported quote with no citation of authority or attribution of source. A raw quote like that doesn't make it true. Can anyone do better with a citation to some reputable source that gives some attribution? If you ask EO, it's all a liberal conspiracy -- the liberal media failed (or refused) to cover (print) it, in his words.

EschewObfuscation commented 282 days ago.

Doesn't do it for you? I think your problem is ideologcal, not related to actual events. And if you have a credibility problem, it is with thinkexist.com. Thanks, abi, but there is none so blind as he who will not see. It does no good to assist Foxy in his research for something he doesn't want to know exists.

SilverFox commented 282 days ago.

Well, EO, if you're satisfied with thinkexist.com and your supposed Field & Stream authority that doesn't exist, you're very easily satisfied. My problem is not in any way ideological, since I've already said I'd change my rating if someone can prove through some reputable authority that the quote was actually made. A reputable authority, as I already said but you ignored, is one that attributes the source, and the source can be tracked down. A raw quotation can be true or can be false. I'm open to either. You're willing to assume, without proof, that the quote was made, and I'm not. I worked for many years as a legal writer/editor who had to back up statements with proper authority, so I'm not willing to take something at face value unless it's backed up by something authoritative. If you are, that's your problem, not mine. Being the rabid partisan you are, you've proved time and again that you're always willing to assume the worst about anything that's liberal, and proof be damned. That's one of the reasons why you have absolutely no credibility with me and never will have.

SilverFox commented 282 days ago.

Well, EO, if you're satisfied with thinkexist.com and your supposed Field & Stream authority that doesn't exist, you're very easily satisfied. My problem is not in any way ideological, since I've already said I'd change my rating if someone can prove through some reputable authority that the quote was actually made. A reputable authority, as I already said but you ignored, is one that attributes the source, and the source can be tracked down. A raw quotation can be true or can be false. I'm open to either. You're willing to assume, without proof, that the quote was made, and I'm not. I worked for many years as a legal writer/editor who had to back up statements with proper authority, so I'm not willing to take something at face value unless it's backed up by something authoritative. If you are, that's your problem, not mine. Being the rabid partisan you are, you've proved time and again that you're always willing to assume the worst about anything that's liberal, and proof be damned. That's one of the reasons why you have absolutely no credibility with me and never will have.

Wiseguy commented 282 days ago.

Having credibility with you don't mean dick. Your a hack like the rest of us, get over yourself.

EschewObfuscation commented 282 days ago.

Foxy, whew, it would really have meant so much to have credibility to you as you seem to be such a champion of non-partisan viewpoints and objective, incisive analysis. Look, you're as partisan as you deride me for being. All the democrats are the good guys in your world and all the republicans are bad. The only difference for me is that there are no good guys, just people in power who need to be watched and remain suspicious of. If I'm predictable, why does it motivate you so to offer your weak defenses and criticisms? You are a fan of the neo-socialist takeover going on in Washington and criticism of it irks you, it isn't so hard to figure out. Enjoy the bankruptcy dance and the pom-pom pumping of the press. But, to direct the term rabid partisan at anyone here is a little silly after one reads your own rabid partisanship. Rather, as numbah says, like the pot calling the kettle black. Or is that offensive, too?

SilverFox commented 282 days ago.

A hack, Wiseguy? Too bad you don't know the meaning of the word, as you just proved. You should look it up. You're another one who has no credibility with me, as you've well known for quite some time now. If you don't care, it's fine with me. Like your opinion really matters to me.

Lena commented 282 days ago.

I was kinda curious about this one, too, so i did a little digging. Still can't verify this quote anywhere but trueexist.com (who openly acknowledge that their database lacks citations), so I'm also calling bullshit on that as a valid resource.

Interestingly, however, I did discover that Clinton made a speech (and other remarks) on that particular day to an audience who may have been amenable to the expressed viewpoint.

If anyone wants to dig deeper than I just did (spent 5 mins, most of which was downloading a pdf): according to Clinton's official daily schedule (available here: http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/WJCSchedules.htm) he did give a speech at Alameda Naval Air Force Station on August 12, 1993, and proceeded to do a public (open press at least), bill signing on the same day on the tarmac. He also was scheduled to conduct an interview on Air Force One en route to Alameda with Haynes Johnson of the Washington Post. Additionally, photos that were attributed to that date show him meeting Pope John Paul II (not on the schedule, link here: http://www.buyoutfootage.com/pages/titles/pd_na_151 .html)

There were certainly plenty of opportunities for the aforementioned quote, but the fact that I'm having difficulty finding it anywhere raises the issue of credibility :)

SilverFox commented 282 days ago.

EO, I admit to liberal partisanship. I've never claimed not to be, and you're certainly not alone in being partisan. But you are in fact a knee-jerk reactionary who will say just about anything as long as it's critical of anything and anyone liberal. Contrary to your claim that you believe "there are no good guys, just people in power who need to be watched and remain suspicious of" (which I would agree with if you meant it), you don't really believe that. Those are just empty words you use. You've proven over time that you have an intense dislike for anything that smacks of liberalism and a strong favoritism for anyone and anything that's ultra-conservative, as you are. You're not fooling anyone with that empty b.s., unless it's yourself. You're just as wrong when you say that "All the democrats are the good guys in your [my] world and all the republicans are bad." You seem to have ignored my previous reviews in which I lauded the intelligent conservatives on this site with whom it's possible to have a reasonable discussion, distinguishing them from the "frothing at the mouth" conservatives with whom that's not possible. I stand by those reviews, and there are as many Republicans who have my admiration as those who don't. I think you know which of my categories I place you in.

numbah16tdhaha commented 282 days ago.

I like Lena's research, I must say. Like I mentioned before, I'd have more confidence in the legit factor if I could get a video, but its nice to see a little effort rather than just accepting it because its on the internet or rejecting it because you are of a certain ideological persuasion. I'm still not sold on whether or not the quote is legit, but a clearer view is always good. *gives cheesy thumbs up*

SilverFox commented 282 days ago.

Numbah, since Lena is the only other person other than me who has questioned the validity of this quote, you must be referring to me when you say "its nice to see a little effort rather than just . . . rejecting it because you are of a certain ideological persuasion." Did you honestly make that comment with a straight face? Did you bother to read my review, in which I said I googled it (which requires at least "a little effort") and I said "If anyone can find this quote in a respected source, I'll change my rating"? Did you read my comment that I checked out EO's false claim that it was reported in Field & Stream? That I checked out thinkexist.com? Don't you think your dig at me was just a tiny bit unfair? Upon reflection, do you still think I didn't make any effort to check out the veracity of the quote, and that I questioned its veracity only because I'm "of a certain ideological persuasion"?

numbah16tdhaha commented 282 days ago.

Ah, but are not those accepting the quote ALSO basing their decision on ideology? Perhaps this "dig" has a wider scope...

numbah16tdhaha commented 282 days ago.

and of course, perhaps this "dig" is no dig at all...

Kitty77 commented 282 days ago.

Silverfox, you really are such a pompous ass.

numbah16tdhaha commented 282 days ago.

*blows whistle* No piling on please, Kitty...

SilverFox commented 282 days ago.

Thank you so much, Kitty. I sincerely appreciate your insight. It's nice of you to join in with the rest of the ultraconservative faction in this matter, but who asked you to, and have you really contributed anything intelligent to the discussion? You're not bad at being a pompous ass yourself, by the way. Anyone who would out of the clear blue jump in for the sole purpose of calling someone a pompous ass qualifies as a cretin, but even cretins are entitled to their opinions.

SilverFox commented 281 days ago.

Ah, Numbah, but that's not what you said. You said quite clearly "REJECTING it because you are of a certain ideological persuasion," not accepting it. So you were referring to me and only me, since I was the only one other than Lena who was rejecting it. Don't try to squirm out of it. It's beneath you.

Nevertheless, your point is valid as to those who accept it without questioning its validity, even when reason to doubt its validity has been pointed out.

numbah16tdhaha commented 281 days ago.

*blows whistle* Fox, if I'm gonna break out the whistle for things not needed on Kitty I gotta get you with it too. One of your major oversights in your arguments has been the assumption that you stand on superior intellectual or moral footing (or both, even) than those you debate. Maybe you do, maybe you don't, but the cretin thing leaves something to be desired. Moving along, this dangerous assumption leaves holes in arguments and paints people into corners. I spent some time in a corner myself and try now to avoid such traps. Others might do well heed a word or two of this, I imagine, but we'll see...

numbah16tdhaha commented 281 days ago.

Now, now, this talk of squirming simply won't wash either. I set a general condition and you fit it. You're not the only one who fit it that holds you're viewpoint on the matter, you just happened to be the only one present at the time. Your objection prompted me to expand my definition, a sign of actual thought occurring on my part that you might do well to appreciate rather than accusing me of something. I stand by all my curious words and would encourage you to peel back a layer or two before judge this banana by its peel...

numbah16tdhaha commented 281 days ago.

judging, perhaps. damn this lack of editing tools...

SilverFox commented 281 days ago.

Numbah, re your comment that "One of your major oversights in your arguments has been the assumption that you stand on superior intellectual or moral footing (or both, even) than those you debate" --

How you can presume that I have such an assumption is beyond me and is totally unjustified. What prompts you to presume that? Certainly I don't assume that I "stand on superior intellectual or moral footing (or both, even) than those [ I ] debate" or anything close to it, nor have I ever said or intimated that. Maybe you just don't like my style. I don't like your style of presuming to know what's going on in my mind and I find it arrogant of you to so presume. If you think I seem to believe in the positions I take, you're correct, but if you don't like it, it's your problem, not mine. Maybe you should think more carefully before you make assumptions about people.

numbah16tdhaha commented 281 days ago.

Is it? Come on, now. You called at least some of those opposed to you cretins. That identifies a presumption intellectual superiority, does it not? You accused me of making digs at you and trying to squirm out of things. Moral superiority, perhaps? Your words just might back up what I've said here. Don't go getting in a twist about it, though. Others out there seem to have similar challenges...

numbah16tdhaha commented 281 days ago.

I find it interesting Fox that you also have yet to address the somewhat broader challenge that I have hinted at through my posts that would be aimed at the readership of RIA in general. Interesting. I find myself wondering if you are ignoring it or if you have yet to perceive it...

SilverFox commented 281 days ago.

Numbah, I'm done with you. My suspicion is that you've been pissed off at me ever since I gave you a negative review about your qualities as an RIA reviewer, but you don't have the balls to admit it. Until I gave you that review I don't think you ever commented on anything I said. Since my review you've gone out of your way to comment -- negatively -- on almost everything I've said. Let's own up to it -- we don't like each other. I've been down this road with a couple of others here on RIA, and these kind of adversarial contests can get downright nasty. I can predict the same thing would eventually happen between you and me. So let's stay out of each other's backyards and away from each other before it does get nasty. I won't comment on anything you say and I hope you won't comment on anything I say. You can cross me off your list of people you think give a shit about anything you have to say, and I presume the reverse is true. Wish I could say it has been nice knowing you, but it hasn't been. Best of luck to you otherwise, though.

numbah16tdhaha commented 281 days ago.

Actually Fox, I'm kinda warming up to you, truth be told. Negative review? Bah, I hope to hell I'm bigger than that, but the idea that I wouldn't have the balls to do... well anything I guess, is comical to me at best. For the record, I didn't find that particular review out of line. When that happens I have historically made a giant flaming stink about the whole affair. Ask around if that seems far fetched. Bah, I'm rambling. I guess a question is how I shall proceed, then. Do you see an opportunity here? If not then we are at an impasse, and in that case things shall just be what they will have to be.

numbah16tdhaha commented 281 days ago.

By the way, nobody here seems to give a shit what I have to say anymore. *sigh* Then again, I suppose I might find this... liberating? Hmm, this is food for thought. Is my newfound lack of relevance to anyone here a gift?

Wiseguy commented 281 days ago.

"EO, I admit to liberal partisanship. I've never claimed not to be" but going around claiming others are is just idiotic, and unnecessary, but we've come to expect this from you.

EschewObfuscation commented 281 days ago.

It's good you admit to liberal partisanship. At least for now, conservatives are able to articulate a dissenting view to your beliefs and, while I can, I will. I just think that while your ideology is in power you should watch them instead of dreamily defending every crazy initiative they propose. Call things what they are and defend the ideology instead of attacking the dissenters personally. It is always a bit risky to tell someone what they believe, and in truth, I do believe in your sheep-like analysis of liberal politicians. Being challenged to defend your beliefs is personally threatening but you'd do your side justice if you took up the defense of the ideological initiative on an intellectual level, rather than insulting the challenger. But, I'm not convinced you can do that, you're still an ardent believer in socialism and the Obama team. That's fine, like who you want to like. I see a danger here for this country and what it has represented for many years, just as I look back and see the danger of the Clinton years, the Carter years, the FDR years, the Johnson/Nixon years. Republicans don't have all the right answers. They haven't had any in 4 years, maybe longer. But, where we're going with Obama has been tried before, I didn't like it then and we're nearing the precipice. I just don't think it's gonna be a fun ride, and a lot of Americans are going to be financially devastated.

Victor83 commented 281 days ago.

Let's see...fox begins by saying he will change his rating if he has a source. EO gives him a source, but it is not good enough, he wants a URL. Abichara gives him a URL, then he attacks the credibility of the URL.
While all of this is going on, fox accuses EO of spewing a "diatribe" and asks for EO to prove what a "wonderful researcher" he is. Then he calls EO a "rabid partisan" (pot...meet kettle) Then- after being given two sources, we learn that, with EO, it is "proof be damned" and "That's one of the reasons why you have absolutely no credibility with me and never will have". Let's not forget..."Like your opinion really matters to me".
Lest we forget, he also called EO a "knee-jerk reactionary". Then...(drum roll) fox protests the fact that he was called a hack by wise.
When kitty called a spade a spade...something fox claims to be in favor of...he didn't like it.
All of this ends up with fox telling numbah that he, like EO, has no credibility and can basically take a flying leap.
Typical fox.
As Wise has pointed out, whether Clinton said those exact words on a given date or not, we all know (those of us who are honest) that this was in fact Clinton's belief. He referred to the Constitution, conveniently, as a "living breathing document".
Fox, I give you credit where credit is due- entertainment value.

Wiseguy commented 281 days ago.

That was some analysis Vic, and dead on. It's amazing, when I looked up hack in the dictionary, there was Fox's picture. There were actually many entries that had his picture next to them. Credibility wasn't one of them.

Victor83 commented 281 days ago.

You have a URL?

Wiseguy commented 281 days ago.

Do you want a tiny one?

numbah16tdhaha commented 281 days ago.

Y'all are fashionably late...

Wiseguy commented 281 days ago.

I was sad to learn you lost street cred with fox, you must be devastated.

numbah16tdhaha commented 281 days ago.

I had street cred before?

Wiseguy commented 281 days ago.

I think you know the answer to that. I'll take the risk of giving you a complement, I have you ahead on my card in the Fox exchange.

Kitty77 commented 281 days ago.

As far as I know, it's still a free country in spite of Obama, so I didn't know that I needed an invitation to express my opinions. However, your attitude has been plainly exhibited in many of your postings and I would say after reading what you've been saying on many subjects n here, that my conclusions are dead-on. You've been trying to belittle and insult EO and others for some time now, so I thought I would call a spade a spade as Vic said. And I also agree with Vic, that the reason this quote is given so much credibility is because from what we've seen of Clinton, it appears to be his actual attitude and philosophy.

Lena commented 281 days ago.

Goodness. This thread has gotten a little...rowdy ;) I'll try to avoid the existing fights by potentially starting a new one...lol.

I think what all of this boils down to is a desire for more transparency in government. Thankfully, from here on out pretty much everything is on record (and by that of course I mean on YouTube :P), so I believe we're heading in the right direction.

I'm a fan of accountability where it's due as I believe most people on here are as well. I'm also happy that it seems like the days of pandering to various interest groups with entirely conflicting rhetoric and ideologies (as I suspect was the circumstance IF this particular quote is correctly attributed to Clinton) is approaching a close.

In line with this, hopefully Bush, Cheney and Rove will not have their way with history (as they intend to with the "Bush Legacy Project" and the general gross reinterpretation of what executive privilege extends to). That would be a big loss for all of us (and yes, I think Obama is obligated to step in here where possible. It will be interesting to see if he does.)

side note: Happy Presidents day everyone :) Apparently I have the day off or something....hope you all do too!

SilverFox commented 281 days ago.

Wiseguy, Victor, Kitty, and EO --

You people are time wasters for me, meaning that it's a waste of my time to try to have any kind of intelligent, reasoned discussion with you. And all of you, with the possible exception of EO, who is somewhat more restrained in this respect, are given to name-calling and insults, which is what you accuse me of. As I said to EO above, there are intelligent conservatives on this site whose opinions and qualities I respect, and then there is your group of moronic idiots who are "frothing at the mouth" ultraconservatives, and you represent the worst in this country. You're ignorant rednecks, who unsuccessfully try to disguise it and with self-delusion believe you've successfully done so. You're provincial, unsophisticated, narrow-minded bigots. You're knee-jerk reactionaries of the worst kind.

I admit there's a certain elementary-school pleasure in trading insults and name-calling, but it only lasts for a little while. Apart from that, the only limited value in reading your comments is purely the amusing entertainment value of hearing you struggle to say something intelligent or reasonable or that has some semblance of truth, since you're all quite willing to twist facts and what others say to suit your own purposes, which invariably is to attack liberals. A prime example of this is your unwillingness to back away from your unseeing, profound prejudices -- now you're saying that even if Clinton didn't say this (conceding it but unwilling to admit you're doing so), he surely must have thought it (because he's a liberal, and you all hate everyone and everything that's liberal). You say such ludicrous things with great conviction and without being able to recognize how ludicrous your statements and obstinacy are. But your amusement value only lasts a little while too.

I don't care what you think about me, and actually am glad to see your vituperative comments about me, because I don't want respect or agreement or anything similar from those like you in this far-right fringe group of idiotic morons. Your dislike of me and insults happily prove to me that you recognize I don't suffer fools gladly. I don't like people like you, and you don't like me. Good.

So I'm going to strive to ignore your comments and reviews from now on, since it's a complete waste of time for me to read them. I'm confident you'll respond with your own insults and name-calling -- take your best shots -- but you're playing in this sandbox alone now, just you and your fellow childlike compatriots.

numbah16tdhaha commented 281 days ago.

I'm still all pissed that I lost my street cred over this... *wails, gnashes teeth* By the way, if anyone here thinks that EO, Victor, Wise, or any of the other conservative viewpoints are a little extreme, come out to Phoenix and talk with my Dad. He can put these guys to shame...

edt4 commented 281 days ago.

Fox, I admire your fortitude in arguing your points at the length and as articulately as you have, but I've learned that debating politics on this website is an exercise in futility, frustration, and, occasionally, bizarre humor. I generally stay away from politics because (1) it's a topic that quickly becomes boring for me personally and (2) because I'm a cynic and believe the people in power, whether Democratic or Republican, will always be looking out after the interests of their corporate masters rather than the majority of citizens they supposedly represent and (3) anything vaguely left-wing that gets said on this site brings the wingnuts out of the woodwork like avaricious termites. EO (and LanceRoxas, who no longer contributes) probably summarize extreme right-wing sentiment (and these days, there isn't any other kind) on this website the best, but arguing with EO after awhile (and I did get to kinda like the guy after a certain point) became like arguing with a Jonestown cultist at the point of drinking Kool-Aid and wandering away from the pavilion into the jungle because there are less bodies piling up there. Someone like EO is against gay marriage, not because he is repulsed by gay people and thinks of them as lesser beings (which would be a reprehensible sentiment but at least it would be honest), but because "it isn't a benefit to society." Or someone else suggesting that Hitler was a left-winger, or that apartheid in South Africa was actually somehow beneficial to the blacks living under it. How does one "debate" such mind-boggling sophistry, such relentless, numbing and bone-headed nonsense? Besides EO, the other wingnuts on the site paraphrase Rush Pusbag and the multitude of right-wing websites that tend to be written by some neo-con student at a Western Connecticut Junior College still living at home with her parents (or someone like her) with varying degrees of competence and belligerency. It's ridiculous, and futile, and pathetic. As Bill Maher mentioned recently, there's no such thing anymore as a "moderate Republican" and they think in lock-step. I know neo-cons personally who already have "screen-savers" on their laptops showing Obama dressed like Che Guevara. How do you have constructive dialogue with such closed-minded fanatics? Like I said, I tend to be a cynic and a fatalist and only comment on politics when my exasperation becomes such that I say to myself, "Y'know, I'm gonna have to live in the shitty world that these scumbags are creating here!", and feel the need to at least blow off steam. But I do it rarely. If the thought, a few weeks into his Presidency, that Obama is "a raving Socialist" can be accorded serious attention, then we truly have become a nation of angry sheep. But do I applaud your efforts to bring some sanity to the "debate".

numbah16tdhaha commented 281 days ago.

Hey now, if Maher was right about there being no moderate republicans I'd piss Dad off a whole lot less.

edt4 commented 281 days ago.

I'm still looking. I live in hope, but I'm likely to die in despair, to quote my late lamented grandmother.

Victor83 commented 281 days ago.

"Time wasters... your group of moronic idiots who are 'frothing at the mouth' ultraconservatives, and you represent the worst in this country. You're ignorant rednecks, who unsuccessfully try to disguise it and with self-delusion believe you've successfully done so. You're provincial, unsophisticated, narrow-minded bigots. You're knee-jerk reactionaries of the worst kind."
"You say such ludicrous things with great conviction and without being able to recognize how ludicrous your statements and obstinacy are."
"I don't want respect or agreement or anything similar from those like you in this far-right fringe group of idiotic morons."
"So I'm going to strive to ignore your comments and reviews from now on, since it's a complete waste of time for me to read them."
...All direct quotes from the great one..SiverFox.
I will say it again...all the left has to offer.

SilverFox commented 281 days ago.

Edt, I wish I had arrived at the same conclusion as you a long time ago -- I wouldn't have wasted so much time trying to intelligently debate the wingnuts (I like your term and therefore adopt it -- it's a quicker shorthand for "frothing at the mouth" ultraconservatives).

While I agree with almost everything you said, I do quibble with the Bill Maher statement that "there's no such thing anymore as a "moderate Republican." I know some personally, and there are some on this site. Not all Republicans are wingnuts like the group above, thankfully.

BTW, it's unusual for me to disagree with Bill Maher, since usually I think he's right on (notwithstanding he sometimes comes off as arrogantly believing he's the only person on the show whose opinions are always correct). And I found his film "Religulous" to be very thought-provoking and well done. After seeing it, my girlfriend and I talked for almost three hours about the issues he raised in it.

I loved your sentence "How does one "debate" such mind-boggling sophistry, such relentless, numbing and bone-headed nonsense?" You certainly have a great command of language.

I'll see you later elsewhere on RIA.

Victor83 commented 281 days ago.

Still laughing.

Wiseguy commented 281 days ago.

Can we change the list name to Democrats Say Stupid Things a lot.

edt4 commented 281 days ago.

Will do, Fox. I haven't seen "Religulous" yet and plan to soon. I'm not Maher's biggest fan...he does have an off-putting arrogance about him and sometimes seems to enjoy being contrary just for the sake of being contrary...but oftentimes his seems to be the only voice of sanity in an otherwise idiotic media brew.

Victor83 commented 281 days ago.

Good idea Wise...lotta material.

Kitty77 commented 281 days ago.

That is really funny-I'm about as far from an ignorant redneck as a person can get, but I guess in Silverfox's mind anybody who is conservative and patriotic is just an ignorant redneck, frothing at the mouth, moronic, blah blah blah. That tirade just proves that I was right, as far as I'm concerned.

irishgit commented 281 days ago.

OK , I make some of my living as a researcher, and not just by running Google searches. Since this came up a couple of days ago, I have found zero credible attribution of this quote. In poin of fact, most of them come back to this link. I`m not going to say that means he never said it, because I suspect its close to his beliefs, but he was too smart to say them publicly. Were it at real quote, I`d expect attributes all over the place, and I can`t find them. Nor I might add, can my former associates who work for a prominent right wing think tank. I suspect this is all horseshit, and all of you are arguing over ghosts.

fitman commented 280 days ago.

The winger who made up this Clinton 'quote' - and the wingers who repeat it as gospel - are apparently primarily motivated by the fact that their boy W actually confessed his hunger for absolute power on several occasions.

I'm sure there are plenty of real stupid things said by neoliberal centrists like Bill Clinton, but perhaps none quite so idiotic and plentiful as those uttered by members of the obstinately ignorant extreme right and/or left.

Maher was - of course - exaggerating. However, moderate Republicans have been overwhelmed by radicals like the neoCONS, the 'religious' right, and the Freepers while the Democratic Party is still dominated by neoliberals (read, 'liberal Republicans') like the Clintons and Barrack Obama.

Wiseguy commented 280 days ago.

Fit, until you mentioned the W quote, there were only a few people who actually knew that quote existed. I never heard it before. Other than the word of a couple of people who said they were in Bush's company when he supposedly said that, Wheres your proof? Do you think Bush said that? Yes or no?

The fact that both sides say stupid shit kinda goes without saying. The rest of your comment is bogus as well, three moderate repubs control the senate right now. Thats a fact.

SilverFox commented 279 days ago.

I notice I've picked up a couple of trolls who now leave a "funny" on each of my reviews. Undoubtedly it's one or more of you wingnuts above who I insulted in my comment above. No one likes to have his/her self-identity challenged by someone who describes them differently than they see themselves, but obviously some of you became so threatened and bothered by it that you now try to seek revenge in any way you can, including petty stuff like giving out "funnies" to humorless reviews. Your doing so makes me happy and gives me enormous satisfaction, because it shows I succeeded in really getting under your skin big time, and proves the point I made about what kind of people you are. Please continue to do this so I'll know you're still pissed off and haven't gotten over it yet, and that what I said continues to constantly upset you.

numbah16tdhaha commented 279 days ago.

Fox, it makes a case for somebody being under your skin if you keep responding to these supposed trolls. Are you really happy?Are you really as satisfied as you claim? What does the fact that I've seen this same comment twice say about the kind of person that you are? You might meditate on these questions. My own advice would be to rise above if you are indeed above, but I don't have the answers here, you do.

"If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." - Bill Clinton in an August 12, 1993 speech

email friends

SilverFox

By the Numbers

My RateItAll!

Take-Out

How It Works

Explore

Get In Touch

Popular Topics:

Other Topics:

Major Cities: