Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Some Guy)   Instead of attacking Clinton like that guy on Fox did, we need more unbiased, objective journalism. Like this article, titled "Clinton: The Man Who Would Heal the World"   ( divider line
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

281 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Sep 2006 at 7:41 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook

25 Comments     (+0 »)
2006-09-29 5:10:22 PM  
Yes, but would he make it a better place? For you and for me and the entire human race?
2006-09-29 5:21:43 PM  
Well, Bush is "the man who would save the world from terrorism."

Would, if he weren't totally incompetent.
2006-09-29 5:23:03 PM  
2006-09-29 6:00:01 PM  
Someone please explain to me why we're supposed to care about what some Englishwoman writes about Bill Clinton in the Mirror, a unabashedly liberal-leaning British tabloid? (You see, in England, newspapers make no secret of whether they lean toward the liberal or conservative side--papers like the Mirror, the Independent, and the Guardian are overtly and proudly liberal, and papers like the Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Sun, and the Daily Mail are overtly and proudly conservative.) You'll notice the article also went on to laud Bush's bestest buddy Tony Blair, since this paper will kiss the ass of anybody who is a member of the Labour Party, even Blair.

So how does this relate in any way to the state of objectivity of the American media? WTF is your point, Submitter?
2006-09-29 7:01:49 PM  
funny how...people...scream that media should be tougher on politicians until its their politicians their tough on.
2006-09-29 7:35:42 PM  
c'mon, people, think about it: He feels our pain.
2006-09-29 7:41:59 PM  
Since quitting the White House six years ago, Bill Clinton has dedicated himself to making the world a better place.

wait... he quit?
2006-09-29 7:44:38 PM  
Can anyone imagine a positive article about Bush like that from a British newspaper?

I can imagine it from a Saudi Arabian paper... that is about it.

How things have changed.

/funny headline subby.
2006-09-29 7:52:36 PM  
If we're using medical terms, I'd associate Clinton more with herpes.

Since that's such a cheap shot, I'll lob another in other directions, such as linking Bush (the current) to delusional parasitosis with respect to domestic policies.

2006-09-29 8:13:44 PM  
yeah... I'm thinking of that old Motown tune...
Sexual Heeeeeeeeeeeeealing...
2006-09-29 8:14:35 PM  
Hey, it's election time. That means it's "But, but Clinton...!" season for the repubbies.
2006-09-29 8:23:34 PM  
Aldon: Can anyone imagine a positive article about Bush like that from a British newspaper?

Yes - just, you know, not in the Mirror or the Guardian. Farkers do realize there are other British papers, right? And that some of them aren't quite so frothily Leftish?
2006-09-29 8:26:09 PM  
I'm a popular two term President, made even more popular by the evil of the current President. What should I do?

Some charity work, and golf a lot. Sounds good to me.
2006-09-29 8:48:00 PM  
Seems pretty objective to me.
2006-09-29 9:12:57 PM  
[image from too old to be available]
2006-09-29 9:22:07 PM  
He did a number on my leprosy, that's for sure.
2006-09-29 9:36:00 PM  
submitter, Wallace didn't attack clinton. he asked him a simple question.
2006-09-29 10:35:22 PM  
Focus on what Clinton did now.
Please pay no attention to the war in Iraq.
Or the war in Afghanistan.
Or the nuclear threat posed by Iran.
Or the nuclear threat posed by North Korea.
Or the genocide in Sudan.
Or the Abramhoff scandal.
Or the warrantless wiretaping.
Or the secret CIA prisons.
Or the backdoor draft we are forced to institute.
Or the seemingly endless parade of Congressional corruption scandals.

/But don't forget Poland.
2006-09-29 11:11:54 PM  
Wow, a whole "But Clinton" thread! It godwins itself!
2006-09-30 12:07:38 AM  
He did, he tried, he failed. He was a Promoter of Peace.


that's the difference he promoted the middle east talks while Bush Jr. promoted the middle east war.
2006-09-30 12:09:36 AM  
Did he ever finish that bridge? Or was he to busy getting his toes curled by ML...
2006-09-30 12:35:33 AM  
he promoted the middle east talks

How'd that work out for him?
2006-09-30 3:33:20 AM  
Hmm... Here ya go, class... Compare and contrast the tone of coverage between and

Why... gosh golly... They seem to cancel out with equal amounts of rhetorical bullshiat, but Fox gets the win on pure coverage and tonnage.

This may be the best export on some levels that the US ever had. The heck with a failing steel industry and Hollywood, let's export idealistic presidents.

You assume I joke, but think about it... We have had some people at the pinnacle of access and observation and of power to do something about it... Ok, even if idiots elected them, they *must* have learned something.

This argument cuts both ways.

For myself, yes, I tend to like the ones who are smart about the economy and deficit, the ones who try to do something for the have-nots...

I repeat, these aren't stupid people.
The US has a history of either providing inspiration or entertainment. What's your entertainment?
2006-09-30 8:01:08 AM  
2006-09-30 12:10:16 PM  
I'll take "the man who would heal the world" over "the man who would DESTROY the world to avoid going to PMITA prison"
Displayed 25 of 25 comments

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.