Just A Thought

[elvis]

I thought that was Israel's threat but there was so much lying going on it could have been Vermont attacking New Hampshire.

I don't know, didn't Vermont used to part of New York?

 

[Silence]

The Hunting of the President, official movie site - Regent Releasing

The movie by Harry Thomason



ROFLMAO
yeah, such a sure sign it was a fair reporting of what happened

watch it before you dismiss it. Of course you won't do that because then you might have to admit the shady shit that went down.

 

[elvis]

it "opened" her eye, what do you think?
was likely made by Michael Moore
LOL

No, I have seen all of Michael Moore's films except sicko. I don't bash something until I see it. I don't doubt the republicans went after Clinton because they wanted him thrown out. But that doesn't diminish the fact that he DID break the law.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The Hunting of the President, official movie site - Regent Releasing

The movie by Harry Thomason



ROFLMAO
yeah, such a sure sign it was a fair reporting of what happened

It was a good documentary. Not an eye opener as it was heavily, and I mean heavily, slanted. But is was good.

 

[DiveCon]

watch it before you dismiss it. Of course you won't do that because then you might have to admit the shady shit that went down.

harry thomason was Clintons personal film maker

 

[DiveCon]

It was a good documentary. Not an eye opener as it was heavily, and I mean heavily, slanted. But is was good.

oh, i dont doubt it was good
but i also know it was heavily biased

 

[elvis]

It was a good documentary. Not an eye opener as it was heavily, and I mean heavily, slanted. But is was good.

I downloaded it. I will watch it in the next few days.

 

[DiveCon]

personally, i think there was so much more that could have been prosecuted on the Clintons, but Hillary was good at covering her steps
(no, i dont believe that stupid Clinton death list)
but, the one thing she really didnt know about was all they had

 

[PeterS]

Not one person here has said, "Look, here's some points that we could work together on, or rather we could all encourage our representatives to do so.

So what parts of Obama's agenda are you going to encourage your representatives to work with Obama on?

 

[Annie]

So what parts of Obama's agenda are you going to encourage your representatives to work with Obama on?

Ah there is the point, considering the climate of the left, before and after victory; why would that occur to any?

 

[Annie]

google it... the rumors are all over. It wasn't reported because back then the media didn't report on the personal lives of high ranking officials.

I'm making the point that UNTIL Clinton, personal affairs were off limits. The right made it okay to mock and humiliate our public officials. Now they don't like it when it's directed at their people.

I'm pitiful? you're a hypocrite.

Wow from 'he had affairs' to rumors everywhere, just google it. Who's the hypocrite? Not I.

There were 'rumors' of Gennifer Flowers, etc. Then there was Monica. That wasn't rumor.

Then there was whether or not I cared? I mean if we are going to talk about hypocrisy. I didn't bring up this venue, you did.

 

[Annie]

On the OT, seems I wasn't the only one having 'A thought' along this line, just read this:

Dave Barry: And the winner is . . . the man with the martini | MiamiHerald.com

Dave Barry: And the winner is . . . the man with the martini

BY DAVE BARRY
In analyzing the results of Tuesday's historic election, the question we must ask ourselves, first and foremost, is: what the heck were the results of Tuesday's historic election?
I personally don't know. The Miami Herald made me send in this analysis before the election was actually over, so that it could be printed in a timely manner. This is part of the newspaper industry's crafty plan to defeat this ''Internet'' thing that has the youngsters so excited.

Anyway, my election analysis, based on weeks of reading political bogs, listening to talk radio and watching campaign ads on television, is that one of the following things is true:

• Barack Obama is our next president, which is very bad because he is a naive untested wealth-spreading terrorist-befriending ultraliberal socialist communist who will suddenly reveal his secret Muslim identity by riding to his inauguration on a camel shouting ''Death to Israel!'' (I mean Obama will be shouting this, not the camel) after which he will wreck the economy by sending Joe the Plumber to Guantánamo and taxing away all the income of anybody who makes over $137.50 per year and giving it to bloated government agencies that will deliberately set it on fire.

• Or, John McCain is our next president, which is very bad because he is a 287-year-old out-of-touch multiple-house-owning fascist who will rape the environment and build nuclear power plants inside elementary schools and reinstate slavery and create tax loopholes that benefit only people who own three or more personal helicopters, after which he will declare war on the entire United Nations and then keel over dead and leave us with commander-in-chief Sarah ''Flash Card'' Palin.

• Or, Ralph Nader is our next president, which is very bad because it means there has been a successful Klingon invasion...

...You know what I miss? I miss 1960. Not the part about my face turning overnight into the world's most productive zit farm. What I miss is the way the grown-ups acted about the Kennedy-Nixon race. Like the McCain-Obama race, that was a big historic deal that aroused strong feelings in the voters. This included my parents and their friends, who were fairly evenly divided, and very passionate. They'd have these major honking arguments at their cocktail parties. But unlike today, when people wear out their upper lips sneering at those who disagree with them, the 1960s grown-ups of my memory, whoever they voted for, continued to respect each other and remain good friends.

What was their secret? Gin. On any given Saturday night they consumed enough martinis to fuel an assault helicopter. But also they were capable of understanding a concept that we seem to have lost, which is that people who disagree with you politically are not necessarily evil or stupid. My parents and their friends took it for granted that most people were fundamentally decent and wanted the best for the country. So they argued by sincerely (if loudly) trying to persuade each other. They did not argue by calling each other names, which is pointless and childish, and which constitutes I would estimate 97 percent of what passes for political debate today.

What I'm saying is: we, as a nation, need to drink more martinis.

No, you know what I'm saying. I'm saying, now that this election is over, whatever the hell happened, can we please grow up and stop being so nasty to each other? Please?

OK, I didn't think so.

Please pass the pitcher.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A little correction and perhaps a bit of semantics. While BHO got 6% more of the vote than Mac it is only 3% over the tipping point. So the margin needed to beat BHO in 4 years is really only 3%. Changing the minds of 3% of voters, who were probably independents is not that daunting of a task.

the trick is to find the right messenger

 

[AVG-JOE]

On the OT, seems I wasn't the only one having 'A thought' along this line, just read this:

Dave Barry: And the winner is . . . the man with the martini | MiamiHerald.com

Dave Barry: And the winner is . . . the man with the martini

BY DAVE BARRY
In analyzing the results of Tuesday's historic election, the question we must ask ourselves, first and foremost, is: what the heck were the results of Tuesday's historic election?
I personally don't know. The Miami Herald made me send in this analysis before the election was actually over, so that it could be printed in a timely manner. This is part of the newspaper industry's crafty plan to defeat this ''Internet'' thing that has the youngsters so excited.

Anyway, my election analysis, based on weeks of reading political bogs, listening to talk radio and watching campaign ads on television, is that one of the following things is true:

• Barack Obama is our next president, which is very bad because he is a naive untested wealth-spreading terrorist-befriending ultraliberal socialist communist who will suddenly reveal his secret Muslim identity by riding to his inauguration on a camel shouting ''Death to Israel!'' (I mean Obama will be shouting this, not the camel) after which he will wreck the economy by sending Joe the Plumber to Guantánamo and taxing away all the income of anybody who makes over $137.50 per year and giving it to bloated government agencies that will deliberately set it on fire.

• Or, John McCain is our next president, which is very bad because he is a 287-year-old out-of-touch multiple-house-owning fascist who will rape the environment and build nuclear power plants inside elementary schools and reinstate slavery and create tax loopholes that benefit only people who own three or more personal helicopters, after which he will declare war on the entire United Nations and then keel over dead and leave us with commander-in-chief Sarah ''Flash Card'' Palin.

• Or, Ralph Nader is our next president, which is very bad because it means there has been a successful Klingon invasion...

...You know what I miss? I miss 1960. Not the part about my face turning overnight into the world's most productive zit farm. What I miss is the way the grown-ups acted about the Kennedy-Nixon race. Like the McCain-Obama race, that was a big historic deal that aroused strong feelings in the voters. This included my parents and their friends, who were fairly evenly divided, and very passionate. They'd have these major honking arguments at their cocktail parties. But unlike today, when people wear out their upper lips sneering at those who disagree with them, the 1960s grown-ups of my memory, whoever they voted for, continued to respect each other and remain good friends.

What was their secret? Gin. On any given Saturday night they consumed enough martinis to fuel an assault helicopter. But also they were capable of understanding a concept that we seem to have lost, which is that people who disagree with you politically are not necessarily evil or stupid. My parents and their friends took it for granted that most people were fundamentally decent and wanted the best for the country. So they argued by sincerely (if loudly) trying to persuade each other. They did not argue by calling each other names, which is pointless and childish, and which constitutes I would estimate 97 percent of what passes for political debate today.

What I'm saying is: we, as a nation, need to drink more martinis.

No, you know what I'm saying. I'm saying, now that this election is over, whatever the hell happened, can we please grow up and stop being so nasty to each other? Please?

OK, I didn't think so.

Please pass the pitcher.

Awesome find, Kathianne! Thanks for digging it up and posting it...

-Joe

 

[Caligirl]

A little correction and perhaps a bit of semantics. While BHO got 6% more of the vote than Mac it is only 3% over the tipping point. So the margin needed to beat BHO in 4 years is really only 3%. Changing the minds of 3% of voters, who were probably independents is not that daunting of a task.

the trick is to find the right messenger

But more than the messenger and convincing three percent, is what he does in office which is out of our hands. If he is successful he can run a much stronger campaign next time (the experience argument doesn't work against him, and the "are you better off than four years ago" does.) If he screws up, he's out.

The scenario I like in four years, if things are going well, is for Biden to step up, Obama to step down, and Obama to be first in line for SC nomination. Eight years works too, but Biden ain't no spring chicken.

 

[glockmail]

A little correction and perhaps a bit of semantics. While BHO got 6% more of the vote than Mac it is only 3% over the tipping point. So the margin needed to beat BHO in 4 years is really only 3%. Changing the minds of 3% of voters, who were probably independents is not that daunting of a task.

the trick is to find the right messenger

Actually all you have to do is run a conservative republican to get the 3%. At least that many stayed home because they didn't like McCain. Obama didn't get the massive young voter turnout that he paid for and was claiming he'd get.

People always say that you have to go for the middle and reach the independents. That theory was proven wrong again this election.

 

[Annie]

Awesome find, Kathianne! Thanks for digging it up and posting it...

-Joe

Glad you liked it Joe. We all need more gin or *well* vodka.

 

[glockmail]

Not going to happen Glock... Obama is going to govern moderately. He owes it to the moderate voters who elected him. He also owes it to us to keep a tight leash on Pelosi and her ilk. It may be up to us to remind him occasionally, but the debt to us (moderates) is real and he knows it.

-Joe

George Soros paid for the election. Obama owes him, not you.

 

[midcan5]

Jeez, the chest beating begins already. Give the man and his administration a chance, after Bush junior it is time to stand back and wait. Assess Obama in a few years and then you'll have something to point to, for the present it is only speculation and speculation is often empty and usually wrong.


Nowhere man: a farewell to Dubya, all-time loser in presidential history
Simon Schama: a farewell to Dubya, all-time loser in presidential history | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[Annie]

Jeez, the chest beating begins already. Give the man and his administration a chance, after Bush junior it is time to stand back and wait. Assess Obama in a few years and then you'll have something to point to, for the present it is only speculation and speculation is often empty and usually wrong.


Nowhere man: a farewell to Dubya, all-time loser in presidential history
Simon Schama: a farewell to Dubya, all-time loser in presidential history | Comment is free | The Guardian

Sow, reap. Get over it. He will NOT catch a break, I hope he makes one that we can all benefit from.