Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee - Wednesday | Main | McCain - Palin »

Daily Show: Bill Clinton







 

Comments

Now THAT, I liked. :) And, yes, I'd vote him back in office any chance I got.

A much better performance. but again with what a good guy McCain is. He seems to have a theory that that kind of thing gets votes.

"A much better performance. but again with what a good guy McCain is. He seems to have a theory that that kind of thing gets votes."

Well I think it's in part to help sell the authenticity of his support for Obama. Meaning he's trying to show that it isn't just mindless partisan support for why he supports Obama, because he likes the other guy as well. I'm not sure if that really works, but I really doubt it's hurting Obama at all.

He might be saying how great McCain is because on Thursday, McCain is addressing Bill Clinton's Global initiative program. heaven forbid Clinton say anything bad about mccain, otherwise he might threaten cancelling THAT too.

I'm not sure this is fair. I remember when all the Democratic candidates were still in play - he said they were all great - he just thought Hillary was the best - something like that.

But - didn't know McCain was addressing the program - that has to have an effect....

Remember, McCain is the GOP opponent, not the enemy. We the voters can think the GOP is the enemy - if we so choose - but the candidates and surrogates really should not go down that road.

Also, Jon made a good point about the speeches Hillary and Bill Clinton made at the DNC: the press talked more about whether there was enough love from the Clintons for Obama/Biden rather than cover the substance of their speeches. If you wish to perpetuate this modus operandi, so be it. I think Bill managed to hit the issues well for our side.

I'm nowhere NEAR as left as most of you guys on this site, but the size of my mancrush makes me borderline gay for Bill Clinton. He's the f-ing man.

ah, yes. we had a president who could complete whole sentences. may we soon have one again.

What in the hell is the matter with you all?

You all should be outraged.

Note that Clinton's first statement, after all the pie talk, is NOT to question the figure of $700 billion dollars.

He accepts the frame, he accepts the premise that the $700 000 000 000 is The Answer (tm).

Instead of asking WHERE the figure comes from, or WHETHER this enormous stick up is even constitutional, or HOW such a HUGE amount will help the economy, Clinton lazily accepts it. After all, he helped deregulate business.

Clinton's man, Robert Rubin is partly responsible for the fiasco.

*for those of you curious about the figure, see http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/24/19746/2465

I actually don't think it's Clinton's job at this point. I just don't see it.

If people were coming to me 8 years after I had a job and an incompetent had been running roughshod over it for those 8 years....I'm not sure how much I'd be willing to take on. Was there any changes he could've made in any policy between when he was in office and now? And, his man?

No matter whether you like Clinton or not, you can't think that he lazily accepts anything. That is not how the guy is wired.

He accepts the frame, he accepts the premise that the $700 000 000 000 is The Answer (tm)

The answer is regulation.

700 Billion is just the ransom we are paying wallstreet because they have the economic gun to America's head.

I don't know if wallstreet has a bullet in the chamber or this is all extortion from the greed mongers, but hey, I would love to give the bill to bush, because we know his haliburton stock is wortha fortune, but it ain't 700 bills.

RedSeven:

Why stop with regulation? Why not just embrace the nationalization of a few profitable businesses to offset the duds like AIG?

Our economy is already-

  • centrally planned

  • pseudo-nationalized

  • publicly funded

Call it what you will- but calling this a "free market" makes as much sense as calling Nader a libertarian.

And with all due respect to those beating the regulation drum, what is the Secretary of the Treasury, SEC and Fed if not regulatory agents?

In my head, the argument is akin to this:

"That mugger just grabbed my wallet, and that cop just held my arms behind my back while he did. Clearly, we need more cops to protect us."

In my head, the argument is akin to this:

"That mugger just grabbed my wallet, and that cop just held my arms behind my back while he did. Clearly, we need more cops to protect us."

No what just happened is that the DA sent mugger a letter asking him not to mug you and then the tax collector sent them guidelines suggesting that they should report all their income so they can tell if they stole any of it. The mugger ignored the letters.

Our economy is already-

*centrally planned
*pseudo-nationalized
*publicly funded

No, our Government is *Controlled by business interests *a Pseudo Corporate subsidiary *Extorted for cash regularly.

It may seem like a subtle difference, but its the difference between socialism and fascism.

If this was socialistic, our leaders would be trying to alter the economy to the benefit the people, not the corporations.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives