[civilian_number_two]

Well actually Clinton killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis with sanctions and bombings for the very same reason Bush invaded Iraq. So Clinton lied and people died.

People died in Iraq because Clinton lied about sex with Monica Lewinsky?

I need you to prove that.

[?!!]

Once again, Snake, bit of a stretch there. About CNN, I don't really watch it that often, BBC seems more fair than a lot of American news networks. I do occasionally watch Fox news, although my interest waned when I saw it's coverage of the Colorado Springs shooting- I lived there at the time and the local news provided a much clearer and less frightening account of the incident, so I went with them.

[Snake Logan]

He lied about one thing, then he lied about another thing.

[Spoon Poetic]

Snake, you need to do some research into logical fallacies.

[Snake Logan]

Again. How can you trust the words of a man who lies under oath?

[Spoon Poetic]

How can you trust anyone? People can be lying at any time, whether under oath or not. I don't trust you. I don't even always trust my best friends. Everyone will always have something they feel like they need to keep secret, and therefore lie about it. So what?

What if Clinton hadn't been caught? Then no one would have even known he lied. Undoubtedly, since the only thing you care about is his lying under oath, you would be singing a different tune. Or what if he just came right out and told the truth? Would that somehow make his every action he took as president better, just because he lied under oath about a personal issue? And what, really, is the difference between lying under oath (per Clinton) and lying to the whole American people, but not under a sworn oath on the Bible (shall we say George W.)? Why do you insist on focusing on the fact that Clinton lied under oath? We all know he did it. It has no effect on what he did in office. So why harp on it? Why are you obsessing over this?

[Snake Logan]

Forget it. If you don’t believe that breaking the law in order to improve/maintain your public image is a bad thing then I cannot help you nor will I try anymore.

This post has been edited by Snake Logan: 17 January 2008 - 11:53 PM

[Spoon Poetic]

Of course it is. It's just not something I think deserves as much emphasis as you give it. There's plenty of other things Clinton did while in office, good and bad. To base his entire presidential career on one thing is just... Well, honestly, it's stupid.

[Snake Logan]

I didn’t just concentrate on that. Didn’t you read the article by Herman the German?

[Spoon Poetic]

So you post a page long quote from someone else entirely, and then you harp on the fact that he lied under oath. And again. And again, and again, and again. Even implying that his lying under oath is what led him to doing all those other bad things.

Honestly, I'm bored of this argument. It's just not fun to debate with someone who's not good at it.

So anyway. About news channels and news shows, which is the actual topic of this thread. I somewhat agree with whoever said BBC tends to be a less biased news; but only on the point that it's not biased towards republican or democrat. It does, however, tend to be biased as anti-America. Just a little, just sometimes - but it kinda sometimes spins things to make America out to be worse than it is, and I never see any good news stories about America, that's for sure.

[Snake Logan]

You’re the one taking the position that it is perfectly alright for a president to break the very law he has swore to uphold. I am ending this argument.

[Spoon Poetic]

[?!!]

Dammit, I got this name because it would be a weird name to try to say, and NOBODY HAS SAID IT. How long have I been here, five months? Almost half a year, and nobody can mention my name! Jesus, is everyone in on this?

On a less crazy note, I use Fox nuwse for my more American stuff. I am a republican after all, although I never really act like one.

[Despondent]

Clinton lobbed the bombs to take the story away from his scandal. It happened the same day he testified.

And Lewinski wasn't the first. The only reason her name ever came up was with testimony regarding the Paula Jones trial. Remember her? Or Juanita Broderick? Or Kathleen Willey? Just a few of the women Clinton has used and reduced to "bimbo" status, all while Hillary stood by and allowed it to happen?

And SHE gets to be with him and not have the Bimbo association? Another convenient Democrat double-standard.

From what I hear, she's not interested in men anyway. But how could that be true seeing as how she's never flaunted lesbian sexuality and outed herself? After all, we all know: the only homosexuals who lie to the world and keep it to themselves HAVE to be Republicans.

[TruJade]

I understand. You cannot win the argument so you change the subject. If you meant ‘worse’ as in quality then I totally agree.

Ohhh puh-leeease
It wasn't about winning
it's plainly the fact that you have no compassion for
someone that made a terrible and embarrassing mistake
thus you take it out on anyone associated with them who is trying to move on.

Honestly it truely doesn't make sense why you hate Clinto so much
If you wanna be ignorant and completely narrow-minded
then be that way we can continue this arguement for as long as you wish
obvious you are the only one who is keeping score
and yes i meant worse as in quality

Dammit, I got this name because it would be a weird name to try to say, and NOBODY HAS SAID IT. How long have I been here, five months? Almost half a year, and nobody can mention my name! Jesus, is everyone in on this?

On a less crazy note, I use Fox nuwse for my more American stuff. I am a republican after all, although I never really act like one.

oh you. . .
I just think of you as that guy with the name
what would you like us to call you

question double exclamation?
do those symbols together even make a sound?
And did you ever think that maybe you never acted
like a Republican because you aren't really one?