If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   The 15 best lines from Bill Clinton's speech last night. "Democracy does not have to be a bloodsport. It can be an honest enterprise." Looks like he hasn't spent a lot of time in the Politics tab though   (politico.com) divider line 166
    More: Spiffy, Bill Clinton, Democratic National Convention, obama, democracy, Joe Biden, President Obama, speeches  
•       •       •

2702 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Sep 2012 at 9:29 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



166 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-06 10:33:02 AM  
Lessee now, the Arithmetic line? Check. Brass? Check. Zero? Check.
Double down on trickle down? Check. Blood Sport? Check.
Constructive co-operation? Check. Fact checkers? Check.

Good list.

A few honorable mentions as well...

"As another president once said, there they go again."

And..

"Now, when you say, what are you going to do about this $5 trillion you just added on? They say, oh, we'll make it up by eliminating loopholes in the tax code.

So then you ask, well, which loopholes, and how much? You know what they say? See me about that after the election. I'm not making it up. That's their position. See me about that after the election."


And...

Don't you ever forget when you hear them talking about this that Republican economic policies quadrupled the national debt before I took office, in the 12 years before I took office and doubled the debt in the eight years after I left, because it defied arithmetic. It was a highly inconvenient thing for them in our debates that I was just a country boy from Arkansas, and I came from a place where people still thought two and two was four. It's arithmetic.

Romney is probably still curled up into a fetal ball somewhere whimpering after that speech.

Maybe on his Cayman Island flagged yacht.
 
2012-09-06 10:33:08 AM  

urbangirl: StopLurkListen: urbangirl: I'm looking for a full video. I thought I saw Obama give sort of a rope-a-dope to clinton as he walked out on to the stage after clinton's speech. it was a great piece of body language. did anybody else see that?

What does 'rope a dope' mean in this context? I saw it and didn't notice anything unusual about his body language.

Dont remember exactly -- it was a fleeting moment. Sort of a quick foot shuffle and a couple of short gut punches, if I remember correctly.


Not exactly a rope-a-dope, which implies that he let Clinton takes inneffectual swings at him in an effort to tire him out...

But yeah, they did exchange playful faux jabs/hooks right at the end, by the look of it. A little "farkin' killed it man." "as farkin' usual, bro. You're up."
 
2012-09-06 10:33:48 AM  

Serious Black: imontheinternet: The best lines from presidents speaking at the RNC Convention:

1. "..."
2. "..."
3. "..."

I assume they all came from Invisible Obama?


ewpopwatch.files.wordpress.com

Did you see President Chair's interview on Colbert? He killed it.
 
2012-09-06 10:36:01 AM  

Cythraul: Whatever. All I could hear was "DEATH TO ALL REPUBLICANS" from his speech. He's a total wingnut.


That's what you get when you watch the speech on Fox...
 
2012-09-06 10:40:26 AM  
o.onionstatic.com

Does this mean Romney won't throw sand in Obama's eyes, forcing him to fight blindly using the ancient, mystical skills he learned from his teacher?

Too bad. Romney was awesome as the main henchman in Enter the Dragon.
 
2012-09-06 10:41:50 AM  

imontheinternet: Serious Black: imontheinternet: The best lines from presidents speaking at the RNC Convention:

1. "..."
2. "..."
3. "..."

I assume they all came from Invisible Obama?

[ewpopwatch.files.wordpress.com image 240x320]

Did you see President Chair's interview on Colbert? He killed it.


If it were up to me, I'd have an empty chair sitting on the very edge of the stage, and would have speakers periodically pause and immediately look over, as if they were being interrupted by invisible Obama.
 
2012-09-06 10:43:05 AM  

urbangirl: I'm looking for a full video. I


here you go
 
2012-09-06 10:47:00 AM  

feanorn: bdub77: feanorn: The problem for the Ds is the contrast between the past president & the incumbent. Clinton gave a speech showing why he ought to be the party's candidate; little was done to show why the current occupant of the White House should be the candidate.

The spin machine is strong with you.

Bill Clinton showed that Obama is on the right path, the GOP is obstructing progress, and that Obama's policies are better for the nation. That's why he should be president. And it's not Clinton's task to talk about the future, it's Obama's. You probably didn't hear it because of the buildup of bullsh*t in your brain.

Sigh.

Spin has nothing to do with it. It's rather this: there's simply no comparison between C & O as politicians (and not as speakers, if consistency matters to you), and the speech C gave is evidence of that. Unless O gives the speech of his life when it's his turn (and he's yet to again give a speech nearly at the quality of his '04 speech, so I doubt he will), the contrast will be Sun vs. Moon. In a case such as this, content isn't what matters: letting C do what he does best, before O gets up to speak, only makes the difference that much more apparent. You're focused on content; that's great. It's good that you're paying attention. But most folks aren't, and don't, and that's the point.


Political discourse is worse than it was in 1994. There was no Tea Party Koch Brothers fantasy Congressional draft going on. The Fox News Republican Talking Points spin machine didn't exist, neither did the internet, fact checkers, the 24 hour news cycle, reality crap. A lot has changed media wise since then, and a lot has changed within the GOP since then. Certainly there was a socially conservative agenda back then, certainly the same trickle down crap applied, but Clinton was successful because there was no Grover Norquist Tax Pledge, there were far fewer people in power who believe that women's bodies contain a magical rape repellant. And you certainly didn't have the covert racism that exists between Obama and the mostly white representatives of Congress.

Bill Clinton is a brilliant orator, better than Obama I'll grant you, but the fact is they are both pragmatic, center-left politicians who want what is best for the nation. Obama has certainly been less successful so far but these are different times and Clinton oversaw the rise of the Internet (and with it a fairly unhealthy tech bubble I should add). I think some of it can be attributed to Obama's inexperience, but frankly I just think the GOP has shifted too far right and polarized its representatives to no longer work with the Democrats. The ones who have offered to work with Democrats, like Rich Lugar, are being primaried out. I pray that the GOP dies a hard death and that the Democrats take control of Congress.

So Clinton provided the content for why Obama should be re-elected, and today Obama will probably not focus nearly as much on it, because as you said most people don't understand policy content. I don't think you are making a very good case as it stands, your arguments are really not well-formed.
 
2012-09-06 10:47:39 AM  

feanorn: Sigh.

Spin has nothing to do with it. It's rather this: there's simply no comparison between C & O as politicians (and not as speakers, if consistency matters to you), and the speech C gave is evidence of that. Unless O gives the speech of his life when it's his turn (and he's yet to again give a speech nearly at the quality of his '04 speech, so I doubt he will), the contrast will be Sun vs. Moon. In a case such as this, content isn't what matters: letting C do what he does best, before O gets up to speak, only makes the difference that much more apparent. You're focused on content; that's great. It's good that you're paying attention. But most folks aren't, and don't, and that's the point.



i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-06 10:47:40 AM  

sprawl15: vernonFL: Clinton gave a great speech, but I was struck by how he is aging. Didn't he have a quadruple bypass or something? It shows.

They removed an intact Big Mac from his aorta.


I thought it looked like he lost a bit of weight.

For some guy who used to lead the free world he's actually looking pretty good, especially for his age (he is ten years younger than John McCain for example). DC ages you terribly.
 
2012-09-06 10:54:32 AM  
I found these two quotes from the "best of" quite interesting:

"One reason we need to reelect President Obama is he is still committed to constructive cooperation."

"Though I often disagree with Republicans, I actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our president and a lot of other Democrats."


Clinton was hated with a passion by the right wing. To the point of them launching repeated "Right Wing Conspiracies" against him, according to Hillary.

They impeached him, for fark's sake. On a most personal level, they embarrassed him horribly, if he's capable of embarrassment. They made much of his presidency a running joke.

Yet, Clinton was able to govern. He was able to overcome the Republican Contract With America, an even larger Congressional sea change than Obama experienced in the midterms.

Now somehow, the obstructionist, intransigent Republicans are now to blame for Obama's failure to govern. He may be "committed to constructive cooperation" but that commitment must be in a theoretical way.

Obama's battle lines are hardened. He ratchets up the political rhetoric when bipartisanship is in order. Sure, it is impossible for him to get everything he wants from this Congress but he seems to think the only alternative is to get nothing and use that as an excuse for his failures.
 
2012-09-06 10:56:30 AM  

bdub77: feanorn: The problem for the Ds is the contrast between the past president & the incumbent. Clinton gave a speech showing why he ought to be the party's candidate; little was done to show why the current occupant of the White House should be the candidate.

The spin machine is strong with you.


No kidding: a) he didn't see or read Clinton's speech, b) Obama will be doing that tonight and c) Obama's speech will be just as strong as Clinton's

So yeah RWers, bend over and kiss your collective asses goodbye.
 
2012-09-06 10:57:13 AM  

urbangirl: VRaptor117: One thing Bill Clinton didn't talk about: Why hasn't anyone who took part in destroying the economy in 2008 gone to jail? Why hasn't anyone been punished? Because Obama is just as in the tank for the rich and wealthy as Mitt Romney.

Because the republicans have been successful in gutting regulation. So what those people did wasn't actually illegal. Immoral and borderline psychotic, but not illegal.


Gutting regulation has nothing to do with telling the farking SEC and DOJ to actually go after these assholes instead of just rolling over and accepting a bunch of shiatty fines and "Oh we're so sorry it'll never happen....BWAHAHAHA".
 
2012-09-06 10:57:24 AM  

urbangirl: feanorn: bdub77: feanorn: The problem for the Ds is the contrast between the past president & the incumbent. Clinton gave a speech showing why he ought to be the party's candidate; little was done to show why the current occupant of the White House should be the candidate.

The spin machine is strong with you.

Bill Clinton showed that Obama is on the right path, the GOP is obstructing progress, and that Obama's policies are better for the nation. That's why he should be president. And it's not Clinton's task to talk about the future, it's Obama's. You probably didn't hear it because of the buildup of bullsh*t in your brain.

Sigh.

Spin has nothing to do with it. It's rather this: there's simply no comparison between C & O as politicians (and not as speakers, if consistency matters to you), and the speech C gave is evidence of that. Unless O gives the speech of his life when it's his turn (and he's yet to again give a speech nearly at the quality of his '04 speech, so I doubt he will), the contrast will be Sun vs. Moon. In a case such as this, content isn't what matters: letting C do what he does best, before O gets up to speak, only makes the difference that much more apparent. You're focused on content; that's great. It's good that you're paying attention. But most folks aren't, and don't, and that's the point.

What's your argument here? Your opening comment was all about content and now you're saying content doesn't matter. Can't have both.


Sorry not to have been painfully explicit enough for you. In the Weeners, I pointed to the contrast between C & O. It's that contrast that matters. While C was certainly stumping for O, his speech wasn't really about why O, but why not the Rs, and why the Ds, who have O at the helm, and why he should stay there since he's there. This is not about O vs. Romney or any R, or O's fitness as the candidate against the Rs; rather, it's to compare C vs. O as the best possible candidate for the Ds. C showed with his speech why he should be the choice (and would have been in every election since 2000; neither party would have had someone who actually ran who could beat him). But, since he can't be the candidate, he of course argued for O.
 
2012-09-06 10:57:57 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: sprawl15: vernonFL: Clinton gave a great speech, but I was struck by how he is aging. Didn't he have a quadruple bypass or something? It shows.

They removed an intact Big Mac from his aorta.

I thought it looked like he lost a bit of weight.

For some guy who used to lead the free world he's actually looking pretty good, especially for his age (he is ten years younger than John McCain for example). DC ages you terribly.


The Presidency ages a man fast. That Clinton actually looks this good, 12 years out of office, says something. I guess chasing tail while your wife helps run the free world is good for you after all...
 
2012-09-06 10:59:04 AM  

WhyteRaven74: [fark.upi.com image 301x301]

"You smooth motherfarker" "I know"


"Can I kiss you?" "Okay."
 
2012-09-06 10:59:38 AM  

Cletus C.: I found these two quotes from the "best of" quite interesting:

"One reason we need to reelect President Obama is he is still committed to constructive cooperation."

"Though I often disagree with Republicans, I actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our president and a lot of other Democrats."

Clinton was hated with a passion by the right wing. To the point of them launching repeated "Right Wing Conspiracies" against him, according to Hillary.

They impeached him, for fark's sake. On a most personal level, they embarrassed him horribly, if he's capable of embarrassment. They made much of his presidency a running joke.

Yet, Clinton was able to govern. He was able to overcome the Republican Contract With America, an even larger Congressional sea change than Obama experienced in the midterms.

Now somehow, the obstructionist, intransigent Republicans are now to blame for Obama's failure to govern. He may be "committed to constructive cooperation" but that commitment must be in a theoretical way.

Obama's battle lines are hardened. He ratchets up the political rhetoric when bipartisanship is in order. Sure, it is impossible for him to get everything he wants from this Congress but he seems to think the only alternative is to get nothing and use that as an excuse for his failures.


"When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House [on the debt deal], I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy." - Speaker of the House John Boehner
 
2012-09-06 10:59:43 AM  
feanorn: The problem for the Ds is the contrast between the past president & the incumbent. Clinton gave a speech showing why he ought to be the party's candidate; little was done to show why the current occupant of the White House should be the candidate.

wanna know how I know you didn't understand the speech?
 
2012-09-06 11:01:28 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: sprawl15: vernonFL: Clinton gave a great speech, but I was struck by how he is aging. Didn't he have a quadruple bypass or something? It shows.

They removed an intact Big Mac from his aorta.

I thought it looked like he lost a bit of weight.

For some guy who used to lead the free world he's actually looking pretty good, especially for his age (he is ten years younger than John McCain for example). DC ages you terribly.


I noticed right away that his hands were shaking a lot when he would pause a gesture. Kind of worrying.
 
2012-09-06 11:02:50 AM  

sprawl15: Alphax: Zerochance: Considering Clinton answered a bunch of tired-ass, moronic taking points in a similar manner a FARKer would, I'd say he DOES spend a lot of time in the politics tab.

Yeah, we Farkers are a pretty sharp bunch. We take out the trash, and fast.

If this were true, Corvus wouldn't be around.


project much?

Always amusing to hear I'm the the one who starts the problems when people like you Weeners in a thread that I haven't even posted anything in.
 
2012-09-06 11:06:16 AM  
I'm just going to let you explain why you think you make any sense:

feanorn: It's that contrast that matters.


But, since he can't be the candidate, he of course argued for O.

Bill Clinton cannot be president, as you stated. He's not the candidate. So the contrast does not f*cking matter. It doesn't matter at all. This is what people are trying to say to you. If you think Clinton is better than Obama and it showed last night, well tough titties, we don't elect presidents for life. And if you actually watch or listen to his speech you'd know that Clinton did indeed stump for Obama last night, and that Obama will speak tonight and it'll be a very good speech if not as rousing as Clinton's. Clinton has had many more years than Obama to perfect his public speaking, and he was a good orator to begin with.
 
2012-09-06 11:07:28 AM  

Corvus: people like you Weeners in a thread that I haven't even posted anything in


I weener wherever the fark I want to weener.
 
2012-09-06 11:13:37 AM  

bdub77: Political discourse is worse than it was in 1994. There was no Tea Party Koch Brothers fantasy Congressional draft going on. The Fox News Republican Talking Points spin machine didn't exist, neither did the internet, fact checkers, the 24 hour news cycle, reality crap. A lot has changed media wise since then, and a lot has changed within the GOP since then. Certainly there was a socially conservative agenda back then, certainly the same trickle down crap applied, but Clinton was successful because there was no Grover Norquist Tax Pledge, there were far fewer people in power who believe that women's bodies contain a magical rape repellant. And you certainly didn't have the covert racism that exists between Obama and the mostly white representatives of Congress.


You must be younger than I am, and I'm only 30. Your history is slightly off:

-Grover Norquist's Americans for Prosperity was founded - at the behest of Ronald Reagan - in 1985; the tax pledge was initially drafted in either 1988 or 1990 (source).
-there were plenty of people in Congress who believed in that stupid biological claptrap - do you think it spawned on the Senate locker room floor one night? Know-nothing conservatives have been fed lies by the people who'd rather they not know the truth (because the truth is Satanic and also makes you have sex). And even if they didn't buy this particular line about rape-baby protection, there were many, many others - welfare queens, black people were simply not as smart (yeah, in 1990), faith can save the economy, trickle-down economics...
-racism in Congress in the early 90s was, by today's standards, at unacceptable levels. I have no specific recall, but if Strom Thurmond sat in that chamber next to Asa Hutchinson and Trent Lott, you can bet it was there. Ironically, they may have been better at dogwhistling.

The 24-hour news cycle arguably started with the advent of CNN in 1985. Fox News didn't get going until 1996, though, so you're not wrong. Also, I'd say that "reality crap" started with MTV's The Real World in 1992, but that's not really relevant.
 
2012-09-06 11:15:37 AM  

bdub77: So Clinton provided the content for why Obama should be re-elected, and today Obama will probably not focus nearly as much on it, because as you said most people don't understand policy content. I don't think you are making a very good case as it stands, your arguments are really not well-formed.


I have no idea what Obama will focus on tonight. I would hope that, since Clinton basically dismantled the GOP and gave the context for what he's done in the past, he focuses on the future and what he wants to accomplish with a final four years in Washington. This is probably my idealistic side speaking, but I think his best bet is doubling down on his recent criticism of Citizens United and going after one of the biggest things he didn't (or couldn't) do in his first term: tackling corruption in government. It's an issue that almost every American from all areas in the political spectrum cares about, and if he makes a principled stand for returning control to the voters, to the people, I think there's a very slim chance he could build his standing with the left AND peel away a not-so-insignificant sliver of support on the right.
 
2012-09-06 11:18:33 AM  

Serious Black: I have no idea what Obama will focus on tonight.


What we haven't seen yet is a serious mention of foreign policy.
 
2012-09-06 11:18:46 AM  

hubiestubert: Crotchrocket Slim: sprawl15: vernonFL: Clinton gave a great speech, but I was struck by how he is aging. Didn't he have a quadruple bypass or something? It shows.

They removed an intact Big Mac from his aorta.

I thought it looked like he lost a bit of weight.

For some guy who used to lead the free world he's actually looking pretty good, especially for his age (he is ten years younger than John McCain for example). DC ages you terribly.

The Presidency ages a man fast. That Clinton actually looks this good, 12 years out of office, says something. I guess chasing tail while your wife helps run the free world is good for you after all...


Maybe Family Guy had it right and he's back on the herb again? I'm sure that's how I still have my original hair color @32 while my siblings (all a few years younger than I am) are going grey. Well, them all having significant others and my brothers having young children may be a factor too.
 
2012-09-06 11:22:47 AM  

VRaptor117: urbangirl: VRaptor117: One thing Bill Clinton didn't talk about: Why hasn't anyone who took part in destroying the economy in 2008 gone to jail? Why hasn't anyone been punished? Because Obama is just as in the tank for the rich and wealthy as Mitt Romney.

Because the republicans have been successful in gutting regulation. So what those people did wasn't actually illegal. Immoral and borderline psychotic, but not illegal.

Gutting regulation has nothing to do with telling the farking SEC and DOJ to actually go after these assholes instead of just rolling over and accepting a bunch of shiatty fines and "Oh we're so sorry it'll never happen....BWAHAHAHA".


They can't make up laws and rules after the fact just so they have something to nail them with -- not that it wouldnt be sweet if they could. It's called due process. And yes it sometimes sucks.
 
2012-09-06 11:23:54 AM  

sprawl15: Serious Black: I have no idea what Obama will focus on tonight.

What we haven't seen yet is a serious mention of foreign policy.


True, but I think a lot of that is because everyone knows Obama has the GOP over a barrel on foreign policy this year. Maybe the only thing dealing with foreign countries he could focus on is free trade and how we should use trade to make everyone's lives better rather than just a few lucky duckies.
 
2012-09-06 11:25:32 AM  

Cletus C.: I found these two quotes from the "best of" quite interesting:

"One reason we need to reelect President Obama is he is still committed to constructive cooperation."

"Though I often disagree with Republicans, I actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our president and a lot of other Democrats."

Clinton was hated with a passion by the right wing. To the point of them launching repeated "Right Wing Conspiracies" against him, according to Hillary.

They impeached him, for fark's sake. On a most personal level, they embarrassed him horribly, if he's capable of embarrassment. They made much of his presidency a running joke.

Yet, Clinton was able to govern. He was able to overcome the Republican Contract With America, an even larger Congressional sea change than Obama experienced in the midterms.

Now somehow, the obstructionist, intransigent Republicans are now to blame for Obama's failure to govern. He may be "committed to constructive cooperation" but that commitment must be in a theoretical way.

Obama's battle lines are hardened. He ratchets up the political rhetoric when bipartisanship is in order. Sure, it is impossible for him to get everything he wants from this Congress but he seems to think the only alternative is to get nothing and use that as an excuse for his failures.


Nonsense. You're comparing 8 years of Clinton's presidency to 4 years of Obama's. Of course Clinton had more opportunity to compromise and work with the Republicans. For fark's sake, the Clinton economic plan that led to the 1990s boom by raising tax rates on the top 2% passed by one vote, the vote of Al Gore, who broke the tie. That would never happen today, because the Republicans filibuster everything. Just look at the stats, man!

Further, the Republicans in the 1990s we're only willing to compromise because they got smacked down by the electorate every time they went too far. The came in in 1995, thinking they would rule the roost, and tried to push Bill over, and what was the response? Bill gets reelected in 1996, a big screw you to Republican tactics and the Contract on America. Then Newt tries to shut down the government, Bill gets impeached, and then what happens? 1998, Republicans lose so many seat in the Congress that Newt has to resign, not just as leader, but his whole farking seat. The Republicans had to compromise in the 1990s, because when they didn't, they got punished big time.

Now, again, look at the record number of filibusters. Look at them. Because that is what Obama has to deal with.

What's the real difference between the 1990s and 2000s? Fox news. Fox news has created an environment where compromise of the type seen in the 1990s is impossible, because Obama is the anti-Christ. The only hope if for people to smack down the Republicans so hard, like 1996 and 1998 hard, so they get the message that this type of BS obstructionism is impossible.

And still, despite this unprecedented BS, in the last four years Obama has accomplished more for credit card reform, health care reform, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, wage reform, school loan reform, gay rights, the economic stimulus, and a whole slew of other things than Bill did in his first four years.
 
2012-09-06 11:25:38 AM  

Dr Dreidel: biological claptrap


admintell.napco.com
 
2012-09-06 11:26:36 AM  

Serious Black: sprawl15: Serious Black: I have no idea what Obama will focus on tonight.

What we haven't seen yet is a serious mention of foreign policy.

True, but I think a lot of that is because everyone knows Obama has the GOP over a barrel on foreign policy this year. Maybe the only thing dealing with foreign countries he could focus on is free trade and how we should use trade to make everyone's lives better rather than just a few lucky duckies.


So, we trade out food stamps for what, rugs?
 
2012-09-06 11:27:20 AM  

Serious Black: True, but I think a lot of that is because everyone knows Obama has the GOP over a barrel on foreign policy this year.


Which is the perfect reason to beat them over the head with it. I wouldn't be surprised to see today be very heavy on it, especially the killing of bin Laden...which I don't think has even been mentioned.
 
2012-09-06 11:30:31 AM  

RyogaM: Nonsense. You're comparing 8 years of Clinton's presidency to 4 years of Obama's. Of course Clinton had more opportunity to compromise and work with the Republicans. For fark's sake, the Clinton economic plan that led to the 1990s boom by raising tax rates on the top 2% passed by one vote, the vote of Al Gore, who broke the tie. That would never happen today, because the Republicans filibuster everything. Just look at the stats, man!

Further, the Republicans in the 1990s we're only willing to compromise because they got smacked down by the electorate every time they went too far. The came in in 1995, thinking ...


Filibusters are the product of failure. A failure in leadership.
 
2012-09-06 11:31:43 AM  
fark.upi.com
"You on point, Bill?"
"All the time, Barry."
"You on point, Bill?"
"All the time, Barry."
"You on point, Bill?"
"All the time, Barry. And for Mitt and Paul, shiat just got scary."
 
2012-09-06 11:32:12 AM  

sprawl15: Serious Black: True, but I think a lot of that is because everyone knows Obama has the GOP over a barrel on foreign policy this year.

Which is the perfect reason to beat them over the head with it. I wouldn't be surprised to see today be very heavy on it, especially the killing of bin Laden...which I don't think has even been mentioned.


I don't recall it being mentioned either. And I do think he could make a good run with it by showing how the world's opinion of America has dramatically improved under his watch. It does us no good to be the superpower of the planet if everyone looks at us like the big bully on the block.
 
2012-09-06 11:32:13 AM  

Serious Black: sprawl15: Serious Black: I have no idea what Obama will focus on tonight.

What we haven't seen yet is a serious mention of foreign policy.

True, but I think a lot of that is because everyone knows Obama has the GOP over a barrel on foreign policy this year. Maybe the only thing dealing with foreign countries he could focus on is free trade and how we should use trade to make everyone's lives better rather than just a few lucky duckies.


Like how the democrats tried to pass a bill that taxed companies that moved U.S. jobs overseas......which was vehemently rejected by the GOP. That would be a good start.
 
2012-09-06 11:32:25 AM  

Cletus C.: RyogaM: Nonsense. You're comparing 8 years of Clinton's presidency to 4 years of Obama's. Of course Clinton had more opportunity to compromise and work with the Republicans. For fark's sake, the Clinton economic plan that led to the 1990s boom by raising tax rates on the top 2% passed by one vote, the vote of Al Gore, who broke the tie. That would never happen today, because the Republicans filibuster everything. Just look at the stats, man!

Further, the Republicans in the 1990s we're only willing to compromise because they got smacked down by the electorate every time they went too far. The came in in 1995, thinking ...

Filibusters are the product of failure. A failure in leadership.


No, they're a product of being held hostage by a bunch of know-nothings called the Tea Party.
 
2012-09-06 11:33:40 AM  

coeyagi: Cletus C.: RyogaM: Nonsense. You're comparing 8 years of Clinton's presidency to 4 years of Obama's. Of course Clinton had more opportunity to compromise and work with the Republicans. For fark's sake, the Clinton economic plan that led to the 1990s boom by raising tax rates on the top 2% passed by one vote, the vote of Al Gore, who broke the tie. That would never happen today, because the Republicans filibuster everything. Just look at the stats, man!

Further, the Republicans in the 1990s we're only willing to compromise because they got smacked down by the electorate every time they went too far. The came in in 1995, thinking ...

Filibusters are the product of failure. A failure in leadership.

No, they're a product of being held hostage by a bunch of know-nothings called the Tea Party.


Four more years of that then.
 
2012-09-06 11:34:10 AM  

Cletus C.: RyogaM: Nonsense. You're comparing 8 years of Clinton's presidency to 4 years of Obama's. Of course Clinton had more opportunity to compromise and work with the Republicans. For fark's sake, the Clinton economic plan that led to the 1990s boom by raising tax rates on the top 2% passed by one vote, the vote of Al Gore, who broke the tie. That would never happen today, because the Republicans filibuster everything. Just look at the stats, man!

Further, the Republicans in the 1990s we're only willing to compromise because they got smacked down by the electorate every time they went too far. The came in in 1995, thinking ...

Filibusters are the product of failure. A failure in leadership.


chzheroes.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-06 11:37:16 AM  

Citrate1007: Serious Black: sprawl15: Serious Black: I have no idea what Obama will focus on tonight.

What we haven't seen yet is a serious mention of foreign policy.

True, but I think a lot of that is because everyone knows Obama has the GOP over a barrel on foreign policy this year. Maybe the only thing dealing with foreign countries he could focus on is free trade and how we should use trade to make everyone's lives better rather than just a few lucky duckies.

Like how the democrats tried to pass a bill that taxed companies that moved U.S. jobs overseas......which was vehemently rejected by the GOP. That would be a good start.


Absolutely! I've been reading Matt Miller's The Tyranny of Dead Ideas recently, and his chapter on free trade put to paper a lot of thoughts I haven't been able to organize in my head. That was actually one of the brief proposals he made.
 
2012-09-06 11:39:11 AM  

Dr Dreidel: bdub77: Political discourse is worse than it was in 1994. There was no Tea Party Koch Brothers fantasy Congressional draft going on. The Fox News Republican Talking Points spin machine didn't exist, neither did the internet, fact checkers, the 24 hour news cycle, reality crap. A lot has changed media wise since then, and a lot has changed within the GOP since then. Certainly there was a socially conservative agenda back then, certainly the same trickle down crap applied, but Clinton was successful because there was no Grover Norquist Tax Pledge, there were far fewer people in power who believe that women's bodies contain a magical rape repellant. And you certainly didn't have the covert racism that exists between Obama and the mostly white representatives of Congress.

You must be younger than I am, and I'm only 30. Your history is slightly off:

-Grover Norquist's Americans for Prosperity was founded - at the behest of Ronald Reagan - in 1985; the tax pledge was initially drafted in either 1988 or 1990 (source).
-there were plenty of people in Congress who believed in that stupid biological claptrap - do you think it spawned on the Senate locker room floor one night? Know-nothing conservatives have been fed lies by the people who'd rather they not know the truth (because the truth is Satanic and also makes you have sex). And even if they didn't buy this particular line about rape-baby protection, there were many, many others - welfare queens, black people were simply not as smart (yeah, in 1990), faith can save the economy, trickle-down economics...
-racism in Congress in the early 90s was, by today's standards, at unacceptable levels. I have no specific recall, but if Strom Thurmond sat in that chamber next to Asa Hutchinson and Trent Lott, you can bet it was there. Ironically, they may have been better at dogwhistling.

The 24-hour news cycle arguably started with the advent of CNN in 1985. Fox News didn't get going until 1996, though, so you're not wrong. Also, ...


Older than 30.

To answer your points:

- Most of us know Norquist has had his idea since he was 12, and maybe it was drafted as early as 1988 but it certainly didn't have significant traction until the last decade, possibly even the last four years. The tax pledge has been much more recent, your own source cites that Gingrich first brought it up in 1998, and it's gotten significantly worse since.

- Crazies have been in Congress since the dawn of the union, but the Tea Party movement and the push of the GOP further right has made the social conservative agenda much more pronounced. And I even admitted as much, that the social conservative agenda and supply side economics have been around since well before 1990. But the number of moderate Republicans has shrunk considerably. The ones left have shifted further right under pressure from outside groups and SuperPACs.

- Racism in Congress was bad if not worse but I also don't recall the leader of the free world being in charge of the executive branch of government. This is my point, that some may simply not want to reach out a hand to the president simply because he's black. Racism still exists, it's just less pronounced. Very few will outwardly admit they are racist, but people are a collection of their experiences. You want an example, like say oh Michelle Bachmann and her whole Muslim Brotherhood outrage?

- And as far as 24 hour news cycle, CNN's been around for a while but it really didn't get bad until CNN was competing with other networks, and the birth of the 24 hour news cycle and the blatant partisanship in news really didn't get bad until Bush/Gore in 2000. In the 12 years since the news cycle has accelerated. And I'm not even talking about new media, the blogosphere, crazy people popping up left and right to share their ideas. It's like furry porn and fanfiction, the internet has enabled any group of weirdos to get together and discuss whatever horrible stuff they have accumulated in their brains.
 
2012-09-06 11:41:37 AM  

Cletus C.: coeyagi: Cletus C.: RyogaM: Nonsense. You're comparing 8 years of Clinton's presidency to 4 years of Obama's. Of course Clinton had more opportunity to compromise and work with the Republicans. For fark's sake, the Clinton economic plan that led to the 1990s boom by raising tax rates on the top 2% passed by one vote, the vote of Al Gore, who broke the tie. That would never happen today, because the Republicans filibuster everything. Just look at the stats, man!

Further, the Republicans in the 1990s we're only willing to compromise because they got smacked down by the electorate every time they went too far. The came in in 1995, thinking ...

Filibusters are the product of failure. A failure in leadership.

No, they're a product of being held hostage by a bunch of know-nothings called the Tea Party.

Four more years of that then.


No, vote out the Tea Partiers.
 
2012-09-06 11:45:25 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Also, I'd say that "reality crap" started with MTV's The Real World in 1992, but that's not really relevant


ecx.images-amazon.com

Albert Brooks is pretty eerily prescient back in 1979, eh?
 
2012-09-06 11:48:02 AM  

Cletus C.: RyogaM: Nonsense. You're comparing 8 years of Clinton's presidency to 4 years of Obama's. Of course Clinton had more opportunity to compromise and work with the Republicans. For fark's sake, the Clinton economic plan that led to the 1990s boom by raising tax rates on the top 2% passed by one vote, the vote of Al Gore, who broke the tie. That would never happen today, because the Republicans filibuster everything. Just look at the stats, man!

Further, the Republicans in the 1990s we're only willing to compromise because they got smacked down by the electorate every time they went too far. The came in in 1995, thinking ...

Filibusters are the product of failure. A failure in leadership.


Bull shiat. Rape is the product of failure. A failure of the victim to stop the rapist.

And, I hope you remember this little canard when a Republican gets in the White House and the Democrats filibuster everything.
 
2012-09-06 11:50:53 AM  

RyogaM: Cletus C.: I found these two quotes from the "best of" quite interesting:

"One reason we need to reelect President Obama is he is still committed to constructive cooperation."

"Though I often disagree with Republicans, I actually never learned to hate them the way the far right that now controls their party seems to hate our president and a lot of other Democrats."

Clinton was hated with a passion by the right wing. To the point of them launching repeated "Right Wing Conspiracies" against him, according to Hillary.

They impeached him, for fark's sake. On a most personal level, they embarrassed him horribly, if he's capable of embarrassment. They made much of his presidency a running joke.

Yet, Clinton was able to govern. He was able to overcome the Republican Contract With America, an even larger Congressional sea change than Obama experienced in the midterms.

Now somehow, the obstructionist, intransigent Republicans are now to blame for Obama's failure to govern. He may be "committed to constructive cooperation" but that commitment must be in a theoretical way.

Obama's battle lines are hardened. He ratchets up the political rhetoric when bipartisanship is in order. Sure, it is impossible for him to get everything he wants from this Congress but he seems to think the only alternative is to get nothing and use that as an excuse for his failures.

Nonsense. You're comparing 8 years of Clinton's presidency to 4 years of Obama's. Of course Clinton had more opportunity to compromise and work with the Republicans. For fark's sake, the Clinton economic plan that led to the 1990s boom by raising tax rates on the top 2% passed by one vote, the vote of Al Gore, who broke the tie. That would never happen today, because the Republicans filibuster everything. Just look at the stats, man!

Further, the Republicans in the 1990s we're only willing to compromise because they got smacked down by the electorate every time they went too far. The came in in 1995, thinking they would rule the roost, and tried to push Bill over, and what was the response? Bill gets reelected in 1996, a big screw you to Republican tactics and the Contract on America. Then Newt tries to shut down the government, Bill gets impeached, and then what happens? 1998, Republicans lose so many seat in the Congress that Newt has to resign, not just as leader, but his whole farking seat. The Republicans had to compromise in the 1990s, because when they didn't, they got punished big time.

Now, again, look at the record number of filibusters. Look at them. Because that is what Obama has to deal with.

What's the real difference between the 1990s and 2000s? Fox news. Fox news has created an environment where compromise of the type seen in the 1990s is impossible, because Obama is the anti-Christ. The only hope if for people to smack down the Republicans so hard, like 1996 and 1998 hard, so they get the message that this type of BS obstructionism is impossible.

And still, despite this unprecedented BS, in the last four years Obama has accomplished more for credit card reform, health care reform, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, wage reform, school loan reform, gay rights, the economic stimulus, and a whole slew of other things than Bill did in his first four years.


Nice. You should post more often.
 
2012-09-06 11:52:29 AM  

I May Be Crazy But...: WhyteRaven74: [fark.upi.com image 301x301]

"You smooth motherfarker" "I know"

"Can I kiss you?" "Okay."


LOL. I can hear Obama's smooth baritone and Clinton's throaty, Southern-accented, nearly-whispered reply when I read that.
 
2012-09-06 11:53:12 AM  
This is a campaign that will be fought over social media.

RNC on social media: Crazy old man yelling at chair!

DNC on social media: I have been seeing people linking to Michelle Obama's speech and Clinton's speech that normally never post political links.


I think the Romney may be in trouble.
 
2012-09-06 12:01:44 PM  

Cletus C.: Serious Black: sprawl15: Serious Black: I have no idea what Obama will focus on tonight.

What we haven't seen yet is a serious mention of foreign policy.

True, but I think a lot of that is because everyone knows Obama has the GOP over a barrel on foreign policy this year. Maybe the only thing dealing with foreign countries he could focus on is free trade and how we should use trade to make everyone's lives better rather than just a few lucky duckies.

So, we trade out food stamps for what, rugs?


Gosh, you're classy! I wanna have your rape babies.
 
2012-09-06 12:02:54 PM  

Huggermugger: Cletus C.: Serious Black: sprawl15: Serious Black: I have no idea what Obama will focus on tonight.

What we haven't seen yet is a serious mention of foreign policy.

True, but I think a lot of that is because everyone knows Obama has the GOP over a barrel on foreign policy this year. Maybe the only thing dealing with foreign countries he could focus on is free trade and how we should use trade to make everyone's lives better rather than just a few lucky duckies.

So, we trade out food stamps for what, rugs?

Gosh, you're classy! I wanna have your rape babies.


You can only have them if he illegitimately rapes you. I'd recommend either getting drunk or going on a date with him to accomplish said goal.
 
2012-09-06 12:03:18 PM  

Huggermugger: Cletus C.: Serious Black: sprawl15: Serious Black: I have no idea what Obama will focus on tonight.

What we haven't seen yet is a serious mention of foreign policy.

True, but I think a lot of that is because everyone knows Obama has the GOP over a barrel on foreign policy this year. Maybe the only thing dealing with foreign countries he could focus on is free trade and how we should use trade to make everyone's lives better rather than just a few lucky duckies.

So, we trade out food stamps for what, rugs?

Gosh, you're classy! I wanna have your rape babies.


He has ways to shut that down.
 
Displayed 50 of 166 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report