A young, pretty, American female rape victim who doesn't like Republican governments?

Tell me how this is news...?

lordjupiter

Indeed.

Chelsea.. whatever, this is the lamest nick ever

1984 Reagan votes: 54,455,075
1988 Bush I votes: 48,886,588
1992 clinton votes: 44,909,806
1996 clinton votes: 47,402,357
2000 GWB votes: 50,459,624

and drum roll please..

2000 Al Gore votes: 50,996,116

Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin

"dang, you clinton appoligists are a riot!!! one of the reasons attributed to algore's loss was that al didn't distance himself far enough from clinton and his scandals. that's hardly bides well for clinton."

Actually, you're wrong here. One of the reasons attributed to Al Gore not getting an even bigger MAJORITY of the vote than he actually won was because he refused to embrace Clinton's record and didn't want Clinton campaigning for him. Be grateful that Gore was dumb enough to fall for the republican claptrap about being dragged down by Clinton.

"clinton kicked both Bush I ass? again, lets try and teach you dems a little history:

clinton: 44,909,806 votes
bush I: 39,104,550 votes
perot: 19,742,240 votes"

Number 1, I'm not a dem. I'm a liberal. HUGE difference. Number 2, how about you show how many votes Bush II won by? Oh wait, he didn't get the majority of the votes. Gore did.

"hardly an ass kicking. but that vote tally does bring up an interesting point... perot far outswayed the election results than nader did, but all you hear about are the democrats whining about nader. republicans, when they lose, move on and don't constantly whine about things."

So every time there's a political thread and the right starts screaming "Clinton, Clinton, Clinton!!!!", that's what you call moving on and not whining about things. Orwell would be proud.

yes, dole was a bad choice as a presidential candidate. i didn't even vote for him.

If by bad you mean couldn't win. If you mean bad as in liar drunk deserter, then Bush is your man. Doesn't matter I suppose. Republicans have no character or integrity. They'll nominate/vote for whoever will win. It doesn't matter if they're serial groper, pothead, gay-rights, pro-choicers, or if they are the aforementioned liar drunk deserter. Can you win? You're our man.


"as far as clinton being voted in for a third term... hardly. if this was the case, then algore woulda been a shoe in. for example - ronald reagan couldn't be voted in for a third time so people overwhelmingly picked Bush I even though he wasn't a strong candidate. to further prove this country really never had a love affair (perhaps a bad choice of words when discussing clinton) with bill clinton, just look at the vote tallies:"

Al Gore was not a shoe-in just because he followed Clinton. He was a different candidate. I still believe that the majority of Americans would have voted for Clinton over GWB.

"1984 Reagan votes: 54,455,075
1988 Bush I votes: 48,886,588
1992 clinton votes: 44,909,806
1996 clinton votes: 47,402,357
2000 GWB votes: 50,459,624"

Those numbers mean nothing. Unless Bush I and II, and Reagan as well ran in an election against Clinton, those numbers have zero meaning. It is not Clinton's fault that your 3 guys had to run against Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore. Oh, and you also forgot to mention how many votes Gore got in the last election. You did forget, right? It couldn't possibly be that you would deliberately not put his votes in there because he had more than GWB, could it? Oh, and while we're on the subject of forgetting to include numbers, where are the total votes for Bush from 1992? You seem to have forgotten those too.

"Reagan, Bush I and Bush II all beat clinton."

which election are you referring to? I don't remember them ever running against each other.

now, is there anything else i can school you on, jdave34?

Yeah, how about schooling me on cherry-picking my facts so that they are a complete distortion of reality, and believing whatever bullshiat the GOP feeds me? Could you school me on that? please? PLEASE?

pontechango

I was waiting for somebody to smash that loopy volley Chelsea gave.

I, as usual, was just way too farking lazy to look the numbers up.

StretchCannon

"erector-set tailwing"

BAHAHAHA....

hadn't heard that yet.. :)

Here's my source, btw. Not sure where eraser8 got his numbers but I almost trust his political knowledge more than my own.

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/scores2.html#2000

Chelsea,

While you're on the subject of the Reagan miniseries, please enlighten me as to how you protested the Jessica Lynch movie because it's a distortion of the truth, and god knows, republicans can't have that. Can they?

Brava Jessica.

And everyone kicked Reagon's ass!

Except Granada. He might have gotten spanked out of the Middle East but at least he won in Granada.

Tad3tte

more people voted for reagan, Bush I and Bush II than they did for clinton. Hardly any dishonesty with numbers there.

and if the republicans had contested the voting discrepencies in New Mexico, Oregon, Iowa, and Wisconsin then GWB would probably beaten algore in the popular vote as well. But republicans don't do that... they move on and don't whine about it.

my favorite 2000 presidential election results have to be:

Arkansas:
GWB: 472,940 votes
gore: 422,768 votes

Tennessee
GWB: 1,061,949 votes
gore: 981,720 votes

even the democrats can't twist those results around (although they probably try)... al gore couldn't even carry clinton's or HIS OWN state...

2004 presidential election prediction:

GWB: 46 states
dean: 4 states

mr_entropy

I can die in peace now. Well done.

What the hell does Jessica Lange have to say about the Pentagon? Why is she trying to get her name in the paper -- she hasn't done anything wortwhile since Tootsie.

Y'know, the other day there I was reading an article on democratic underground that advised that since there was a great deal of liberal coverage in the media, the right wing (I won't use conservative since, you know, that means well reasoned and slow moving change, which well, you know what I'm gonna say next so I'll just move on) well, the point was that soon all liberal speech would soon simply be marked as "bush haters" much like "player haters" since I just saw such a thing I have to say, congrats for being so predictable dimwits, now you'll have to deal with all sorts of liberal crowing over them being so smart.

New documentary discussing more Bush administration lies

Hope it is good enough to win an Oscar next year and have the same crowd that cried about Bowling moaning all over again.

Anyone seen it yet?

Chelsea Clinton Is Carrot Top's Lost Twin

How did more people vote for Bushiathan Clinton when Clinton beat Bush1.

Bush1 rode in on Reagens coat tails and then people found out he sucked, much in the same way Reagen did but without the charisma to pull it off.

I can't wait until Shrub's smug mug is a distant memory that is only brought up whenever the nations worst presidents are discussed.

Chelsea

Yeah, not being able to carry your own state is pretty sad.

With that said, drop the comparisons of DIFFERENT elections. Clinton didn't run against Reagan. If he did, then we have something.

Err. Reagan against Clinton...my bad.

You should probably dismiss any media report that cites "sources" or "officials" or "insiders". I worked in the media for years...mainstream local AND national media...and I can tell you for a fact that there were PLENTY of stories that were embellished with "facts" that never existed, or just plain made up completely, with these so-called facts attributed to "unnamed sources".

Unless someone is specifically named, and there are quotes surrounding what that official says, you might as well flip a coin.

Sources? Officials? HA, those are the punchlines to the media's little joke on you. Thank goodness I'm out of that field, all the lies and fabrication we in the media foisted on people as facts just burns me up...

nitemayr

Maybe they'll start chanting, "Its all about the Benjamins baby".

RE: Clinton vs. Reagan

A while back they had boxing simulations where Muhammed Ali in his prime was matched up against Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano.

I'd like to see a simulated debate between Clinton and Reagan. A simulated boxing match too.

control

I'd pay to see the boxing match. Let's make sure Reagan IS in his prime for it though...it'd be just, you know, slightly unfair otherwise.

Control:

It wouldn't be much of a debate, simulated or otherwise. Clinton would make his points, while Reagan would drool and hide his own easter eggs.

If you ask me, Alzheimer's was the best thing that Reagan could have hoped for. He doesn't have to live with the memories of the evil acts he supported, nor does he have to live with his conscience.

U.S. Population in 1984: 235 MM

U.S. Population in 2000: 275 MM

Tad3tte

Thanks for the heads up. Did a little googling. Here's the website for the film, complete with trailer.

http://www.truthuncovered.com/

Man, I wish you guys would wait for me before you start a flamewar. Now I feel left out.

Hehehe

Warchild,

Followed by a thorough drying and oiling of course. This method is also used in the field, so he is right about that.

He is suggesting only using water, however, as the oil tends to attract dust and dirt.

Only using water is horrible for the weapon.

In the debate if both were at their peak,

Reagan would say "well there you go again" and the repubs in the audience would think that's just so adorable.

Clinton would bite his lip and care.

Now if both were at their peak in a boxing match, Dutch would win. Clinton was never an athlete.

Sorry, but I'd like to see the current Clinton kick the current Reagan's ass for a round. Reagan deserves it for the evil shiat he did.

But I'd also like to see a 25-yr old Reagan wipe that smirk off Clinton's current face too. I hate Clinton too. Frickin hypocrite about doubled our prison population by continuing the drug war.

As long as we're not on the subject of alzheimer's:

A guy gets a call from his wife's doctor, asking him to come in to discuss some recent test results. The doctor says "Well, Mr. Smith, the results of our tests have been inconclusive."
"What do you mean doc?"
"Well, from what we've been able to determine, your wife either has Alzheimer's or AIDS."
"Alzheimer's or AIDS???? What the hell??? What are we supposed to do about that?"
"Pick your wife up from work, as you normally would. But instead of going home, give her a hundred bucks, and drop her off downtown to do some shopping. If she makes it home, don't fark her."

Reagan, Bush I and Bush II all beat clinton.

Did they teach math in your school? if so.. check the returns for Bush II v. Gore. Gore beat Clinton too, by a bigger margain.

:D

RF

That is so cool Chelsea, thanks for the new style of logic. I had thought I was doing badly in our company's football pool. For instance I picked Tampa Bay to beat Carolina this week. And the NFL claims I picked incorrectly (and so will my co-workers most likely).

However, now I can simply explain to them that Tampa Bay scored 35 points in week 6 and Carolina only scored 17 points in week 7. So by Chelsea logic, Tampa Bay wins.

works for me! Now I just have to convince my stupid co-workers who I am sure will keep pointing at this weeks box score for their lame argument.

As long as we're not on the subject of alzheimer's:

A guy gets a call from his wife's doctor, asking him to come in to discuss some recent test results. The doctor says "Well, Mr. Smith, the results of our tests have been inconclusive."
"What do you mean doc?"
"Well, from what we've been able to determine, your wife either has Alzheimer's or AIDS."
"Alzheimer's or AIDS???? What the hell??? What are we supposed to do about that?"
"Pick your wife up from work, as you normally would. But instead of going home, give her a hundred bucks, and drop her off downtown to do some shopping. If she makes it home, don't fark her."

Once again, I did not repost that.

Faxinator, I call shenanigans. I worked in print media for a number of years, and never encountered the fabrication of sources. At worst, the media is just extremely lazy.

"good ole Shoe"...

if the republicans had contested the voting discrepencies in New Mexico, Oregon, Iowa, and Wisconsin then GWB would probably beaten algore in the popular vote as well.

and lord knows there wasn't another voting discrepency that was even more crucial than somebody swearing they heard some claim about a homeless guy voting for cigarettes.

But republicans don't do that... they move on and don't whine about it.

Considering they won the election, it's not like they lost much by not contesting Iowa's vote to the bitter end.

RF