Bush tried to pull a Raiders of the Lost Ark and replace the gold idol Bin Laden with the bag of Sanddam (get it sand+Saddam... anyway) but now with the bolder coming at him can he really run fast enough? He's sure no Indiana Jones.
Watch this. Ignore his ad-hominem attacks and other rhetoric, it's pretty lame. But watch it and pay attention to the historical facts. Also, I gotta say this guy has some nuts. He would get respect from me no matter what his opinion because he has the courage to do some real freakin' journalism.
With the exception of perhaps Rwanda, which can be blamed mostly on the UN, these things were taken care of as well as can be expected.
Blamed on the UN who could not act because they were being blocked by the USA especially by the President who was...Mr Clinton.
"U.S. President Bill Clinton, who described U.S. inaction as "the biggest regret of my administration." At least he admits he did wrong. If Bush were to do the same, he would get the same respect. But he hasn't, has he?
With the exception of perhaps Rwanda, which can be blamed mostly on the UN, these things were taken care of as well as can be expected.
Blamed on the UN who could not act because they were being blocked by the USA especially by the President who was...Mr Clinton.
"U.S. President Bill Clinton, who described U.S. inaction as "the biggest regret of my administration." At least he admits he did wrong. If Bush were to do the same, he would get the same respect. But he hasn't, has he?
He did describe it as the biggest regret of his administration but only wrote 2 pages on it in his biography. I am not convinced that it was not a cynical act.
Only afterwards. If you are interested in Rwanda you HAVE to read Shake Hands With the Devil and A Problem From Hell. I also have a lot more sources, it is one of my specific areas of interest.
You know, another point I've noticed, is a lot of the ill will pointed at Bush is because how Clinton was treated when he was in office. If you do some reading into some of the allegations that were raised about Clinton from tax evasion to Murder. There was a Witch Hunt to discredit him. Arkansas ProjectTroopergateWhiteWaterClinton Chronicles
I mean if you do some research into a lot of these "scandals" you'll see that it was just a dog and pony show to try and discredit Bill Clinton. Coverage of these "allegations" were taken seriously (one of the reasons I don't believe the Media is biased in a right or left fashion, just a story bias) and in the end they were poppy-cock. After years of wasted government investigation money. Obviously there has been attempts to do this with George W Bush. At least none of those allegations of shady things in Bush's past where not things that cost the taxpayers money with needless investigation drummed up by people out to get him.
I used to walk into the voting machines with my mother during the two terms Clinton was in office (I turned 18 in 1998) She however didn't have a opinion and let me pick who to vote for and in fact I had her vote for "Ross Perot" But looking back I probably would have voted For Bill Clinton. And I would vote for him if he ran again. (if he could)
She however didn't have a opinion and let me pick who to vote for and in fact I had her vote for "Ross Perot"
This makes me so angry. I am literally trying not to break something right now. With the highest respect for your mother, people who give away their vote should just stay home. In my mind, it equals voting fraud.
Freedom to vote includes the freedom to make the determination of for whom to vote in any way you please. Letting your child, your political party, or a coin decide is perfectly valid.
Back during the '92 election, our school had its own mock election. Several teachers pledged at the start to vote for whoever won it.
(Clinton won by a large margin, followed by Ross Perot in a respectable second).
Freedom to vote includes the freedom to make the determination of for whom to vote in any way you please. Letting your child, your political party, or a coin decide is perfectly valid.
Back during the '92 election, our school had its own mock election. Several teachers pledged at the start to vote for whoever won it.
(Clinton won by a large margin, followed by Ross Perot in a respectable second).
Who was that third guy? Bob Dole. Back then he seemed like an also-ran. Now he seems pretty terrific compared to what we've got.
Dole ran in '96... In '92 Clinton ran against incumbent George Bush Sr.
pwn3d...
Also, Scott, you shouldn't quote an ENTIRE NESTED CONVERSATION just to make a little quip. Just quote the part you're responding to... After complaining so much about how other people used the quotes before, you're really setting a bad example. ^_~
We don't need the entire thread reposted every time someone says anything.
In '92 it was a three-way race between Bush, Clinton and Perot. Clinton won, but not by a majority. If Perot had not siphoned votes from Bush there would never have been a Clinton win in '92.
in '96 it was Perot, Clinton and Dole. Dole was never expected to win... Even still, Clinton did not win a majority of the votes.
What some of you may find interesting is that in the '96 election the Democrats looked very favorably on the Perot campaign. They wanted a repeat of '92 and often backed any request of the Perot campaign to take part in debates.
Every time something "new" happens politicians take note. The Perot campaign was a "gift" for the Democrats. It allowed them to fracture the Republican base without even trying...
Republicans "almost" got pay back when Ralph Nader ran for the presidency in 2000.
After the election of 2000 Many Democrats got off on calling Bush an "unpopular" president in that he did not win the "popular" vote. Well, for one thing the "popular vote" is worthless as we have an electoral college system AND Bill Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote either...
I said "in my mind" it's voter fraud - and I understand the discrepancy between the legal and idyllic implications of my statement. But by my reading of the that post, Cremlian voted twice. His mom "sold" her vote to him. That doesn't constitute IN MY MIND a responsible action by an adult. I abhor it. And by law, he should not have been allowed in the polling booth with her (at least in NY, OH, or IN where I have voted).
I love you (plutonically) Rym, but that was just shit for your teachers to do, too. Voting should be based on conviction and research, not on whim or chance. Voting should be taken seriously. I encourage everyone who can't make up their minds to stay home on Election Day. Conversly, I also encourage everyone who is going to pull a default partisan lever without researching the candidates' platforms to STAY THE FUCK HOME ON ELECTION DAY.
This is one area in which my wife, God take her, continually pisses me off. She asks me how I'm going to vote, then falls in line. Bad Lisa! Bad! Swat her nose with a rolled-up newspaper! BAM!
If Perot had not siphoned votes from Bush there would never have been a Clinton win in '92.
Later examinations have suggested that Republicans and Democrats were both equally likely to vote for Perot, and they doubt that he had any actual effect on the outcome of the election. It has also been suggested that a significant number of Perot voters would not have voted at all had he not been a candidate. (8 million fewer people voted in the '96 election than in '92, and several polls indicated bi-partisan support of Perot).
Regarding the popular votes:
Clinton won the '92 election by 6.1 million out of 104 million total votes. Clinton won the '96 election by 8 million votes out of 96 million total votes.
Bush won the '00 election by -600k out of 105 million votes. Bush won the '04 election by 3 million out of 122 million votes.
Vote-wise, Clinton was significantly more popular than Bush
Two in a row, I know - But Steve, Clinton won by a plurality, which is as it should be. Bush won by Electoral College votes, which is as it should be as well, because the USA is a republic, NOT a democracy. The EC is built into the Constitution. I think Rym used the same argument when talking about jury nullification being built into the justice system.
Voting should be based on conviction and research, not on whim or chance.
While I agree, I also believe that people should have the right to vote stupidly. The moment you restrict the reasons for voting, you're undermining the fundamental basis of democracy.
Clinton won the '92 election by 6.1 million out of 104 million total votes. Clinton won the '96 election by 8 million votes out of 96 million total votes.
Bush won the '00 election by -600k out of 105 million votes. Bush won the '04 election by 3 million out of 122 million votes.
Sources? I have trouble believe numbers and stats without seeing where they came from.
Clinton won the '92 election by 6.1 million out of 104 million total votes. (about 5% or 44.9M votes) Clinton won the '96 election by 8 million votes out of 96 million total votes. (about 8% or 47.4M votes)
Bush won the '00 election by -600k out of 105 million votes. (about 0.5% or 50.4M votes) Bush won the '04 election by 3 million out of 122 million votes. (about 2% or 62M votes)
Clinton may have won by a larger margin or percentage but... Who got MORE votes? Clearly Bush got more votes than Clinton did in each election. So... Didn't Bush win more popular votes than Clinton?
Your post clearly shows Clinton winning a larger percentage of the votes in any given election. More people voted for both parties in 2004 than in any previous election ever. Bush got the most votes of any candidate ever, and Kerry got the second most votes of any candidate ever.
By your logic, John Kerry was more popular than Bush, as he got substantially more popular votes in 2004 than Bush did in 2000. (John Kerry received ~59 million votes in 2004, while Bush received ~50 million in 2000).
Clinton won by significantly larger margins than Bush ever did.
"Vote-wise" essentially means "in regard to the votes." If we use your definition, then we can also say that "Vote-wise, Kerry was significantly more popular than Bush."
Which, once again, proves why you should not try to cover politics on your podcast.
All you've really proven is that you can make a petty pedantic argument instead of addressing the actual issue at hand. (Decimate?) ^_~
Aside from the fact that Clinton won his elections by much larger margins, his approval rating was incredibly high, remaining so even when he was impeached. There is no denying that he was a very popular president, and a compelling case can be made that he was in sum more popular than Bush.
Did I miss it, or did Scyrm ever get around to doing that full episode on jury nullification?
They haven't done it because they would get pwned.
As for voting "stupidly" (e.g.: using a Ouija board, asking your dog, etc.), I agree that it is a constitutional right. I also believe that it is not something that a responsible citizen does. Therefore, I respect the right, but I do not find it to be moral.
Comments
I mean if you do some research into a lot of these "scandals" you'll see that it was just a dog and pony show to try and discredit Bill Clinton. Coverage of these "allegations" were taken seriously (one of the reasons I don't believe the Media is biased in a right or left fashion, just a story bias) and in the end they were poppy-cock. After years of wasted government investigation money. Obviously there has been attempts to do this with George W Bush. At least none of those allegations of shady things in Bush's past where not things that cost the taxpayers money with needless investigation drummed up by people out to get him.
I used to walk into the voting machines with my mother during the two terms Clinton was in office (I turned 18 in 1998) She however didn't have a opinion and let me pick who to vote for and in fact I had her vote for "Ross Perot" But looking back I probably would have voted For Bill Clinton. And I would vote for him if he ran again. (if he could)
Back during the '92 election, our school had its own mock election. Several teachers pledged at the start to vote for whoever won it.
(Clinton won by a large margin, followed by Ross Perot in a respectable second).
Also, Scott, you shouldn't quote an ENTIRE NESTED CONVERSATION just to make a little quip. Just quote the part you're responding to... After complaining so much about how other people used the quotes before, you're really setting a bad example. ^_~
We don't need the entire thread reposted every time someone says anything.
Umm...I was four in '92 and I still remember/care.
in '96 it was Perot, Clinton and Dole. Dole was never expected to win... Even still, Clinton did not win a majority of the votes.
What some of you may find interesting is that in the '96 election the Democrats looked very favorably on the Perot campaign. They wanted a repeat of '92 and often backed any request of the Perot campaign to take part in debates.
Every time something "new" happens politicians take note. The Perot campaign was a "gift" for the Democrats. It allowed them to fracture the Republican base without even trying...
Republicans "almost" got pay back when Ralph Nader ran for the presidency in 2000.
After the election of 2000 Many Democrats got off on calling Bush an "unpopular" president in that he did not win the "popular" vote. Well, for one thing the "popular vote" is worthless as we have an electoral college system AND Bill Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote either...
I love you (plutonically) Rym, but that was just shit for your teachers to do, too. Voting should be based on conviction and research, not on whim or chance. Voting should be taken seriously. I encourage everyone who can't make up their minds to stay home on Election Day. Conversly, I also encourage everyone who is going to pull a default partisan lever without researching the candidates' platforms to STAY THE FUCK HOME ON ELECTION DAY.
This is one area in which my wife, God take her, continually pisses me off. She asks me how I'm going to vote, then falls in line. Bad Lisa! Bad! Swat her nose with a rolled-up newspaper! BAM!
Regarding the popular votes:
Clinton won the '92 election by 6.1 million out of 104 million total votes.
Clinton won the '96 election by 8 million votes out of 96 million total votes.
Bush won the '00 election by -600k out of 105 million votes.
Bush won the '04 election by 3 million out of 122 million votes.
Vote-wise, Clinton was significantly more popular than Bush
But Steve, Clinton won by a plurality, which is as it should be. Bush won by Electoral College votes, which is as it should be as well, because the USA is a republic, NOT a democracy. The EC is built into the Constitution. I think Rym used the same argument when talking about jury nullification being built into the justice system.
Same for 8 million.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1996
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2000
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2004
Clinton won the '92 election by 6.1 million out of 104 million total votes. (about 5% or 44.9M votes)
Clinton won the '96 election by 8 million votes out of 96 million total votes. (about 8% or 47.4M votes)
Bush won the '00 election by -600k out of 105 million votes. (about 0.5% or 50.4M votes)
Bush won the '04 election by 3 million out of 122 million votes. (about 2% or 62M votes)
Clinton may have won by a larger margin or percentage but... Who got MORE votes? Clearly Bush got more votes than Clinton did in each election. So... Didn't Bush win more popular votes than Clinton?
By your logic, John Kerry was more popular than Bush, as he got substantially more popular votes in 2004 than Bush did in 2000. (John Kerry received ~59 million votes in 2004, while Bush received ~50 million in 2000).
Clinton won by significantly larger margins than Bush ever did.
I don't deny the margins but... Your post clearly said:
Vote-wise, Clinton was significantly more popular than Bush
Which is entirely untrue.
Your new line:
Clinton won by significantly larger margins than Bush ever did.
However Is true as both a percentage AND a vote count.
Which, once again, proves why you should not try to cover politics on your podcast.
Aside from the fact that Clinton won his elections by much larger margins, his approval rating was incredibly high, remaining so even when he was impeached. There is no denying that he was a very popular president, and a compelling case can be made that he was in sum more popular than Bush.
As for voting "stupidly" (e.g.: using a Ouija board, asking your dog, etc.), I agree that it is a constitutional right. I also believe that it is not something that a responsible citizen does. Therefore, I respect the right, but I do not find it to be moral.