The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But the shows are on Comedy Central. They aren't trying to be a news show. They aren't running ads claiming to have great reporting and digging for the truth. Half of the show is literally fake news. I just don't see how you can compare a show on these cable news outlets to the Daily Show.

I mean is Chris Rock on the same level as Sean Hannitty if he discusses current political events in his routine on HBO?

Dude, you just cited the Daily Show as a source of information and commentary.

The Daily Show did a great piece mocking CNN for not once fact checking any of their guests over the course of a week. They let people just make up numbers on the air but then wanted to factcheck an SNL skit. But the Daily Show bit summed up what cable news is. Just a forum for people to voice opinions on the daily topics. That is why I can't consider any of those networks news. CBS fucked up by not authenticating that document, but these cable networks allow people to fling bullshit 24 hours a day with no punishment.

The Daily Show delivered a piece of information (that CNN didn't fact check any of their guests, yet fact-checked CNN) in a humorous and insightful way. What difference does it make what network it's on? The Daily Show would work extraordinarily well on a cable news network, and Colbert actually does a parody of a Glenn Beck/O'Reilly show (with real information delivered on the way). No, they're not exactly like Hannity or O'Reilly, but that may because Stewart and Colbert are the first wave of the next brand of talk show. Ten years from now, would it shock you to see a "Daily Show" style program on MSNBC or Fox News?

[larrymcg421]

Fox News did already attempt that very thing, and it was a complete failure.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The truck thing was NBC. What do you mean by ran Franken? I don't think he ever had a show on NPR, did he?

You're correct, Franken was on the Air America thing.

For pennance for not fact-checking myself on either issue, I will now refrain from posting in here for 24 hours. Unless I screw up that fact, too.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Fox News did already attempt that very thing, and it was a complete failure.

Yeah it was, but just because the show was a failure doesn't mean you can't succeed with the idea. It failed because it wasn't funny. In fact, it was fucking wretched (as are most conservative attempts at comedy). If Fox went with more of a libertarian bent, I'll bet it would work much better. Red Eye is amusing, and apparently is getting more of the 25-54 demo at 3 a.m. (202,000 viewers) than CNN's 8 p.m. (191,000) show with Campbell Brown.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Yeah it was, but just because the show was a failure doesn't mean you can't succeed with the idea. It failed because it wasn't funny. In fact, it was fucking wretched (as are most conservative attempts at comedy). If Fox went with more of a libertarian bent, I'll bet it would work much better. Red Eye is amusing, and apparently is getting more of the 25-54 demo at 3 a.m. (202,000 viewers) than CNN's 8 p.m. (191,000) show with Campbell Brown.

Is now a good time to explain why comedic theory makes it difficult for a conservative comedy program to work?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Is now a good time to explain why comedic theory makes it difficult for a conservative comedy program to work?

Sure! I think we hit threadjack about 40 pages ago, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

[JPhillips]

If I have time tomorrow I'll write up a bit on it.

[Grammaticus]

It's funny reading all the recent posts about fact checking as an attribute or condition of news. Isn't one of the issues with the Obama team in this whole Fox News attack, the fact Fox News fact checked the administration on a Sunday show? Obama's team got all indignant because fact checking them on a Sunday show is never done by the alphabet networks.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Dude, you just cited the Daily Show as a source of information and commentary.

The Daily Show delivered a piece of information (that CNN didn't fact check any of their guests, yet fact-checked CNN) in a humorous and insightful way. What difference does it make what network it's on? The Daily Show would work extraordinarily well on a cable news network, and Colbert actually does a parody of a Glenn Beck/O'Reilly show (with real information delivered on the way). No, they're not exactly like Hannity or O'Reilly, but that may because Stewart and Colbert are the first wave of the next brand of talk show. Ten years from now, would it shock you to see a "Daily Show" style program on MSNBC or Fox News?

Virtually talk show is a source of information and commentary. I learned that one of the Kardashian girls is marrying Lamar Odom by watching The Soup on E! one day. Is Joel McHale now the same as Anderson Cooper?

I have no doubt that the show would work great on a cable news network. That's because most of the stuff on cable news networks isn't news, it's entertainment. Fox could put a reality show on following Sarah Palin around and it would be the highest rated show guaranteed. That doesn't make her reality show a news program because it's on one of those networks.

And what they do is not new. It's been done by late night talk show hosts for decades. Do a quick routine, throw in a bit, then interview a guest. Not much different than what Leno, Letterman, etc have been doing. Stewart's is more politically focused, but it doesn't make it much different. But I guess in your views, Jay Leno is a news program because he made some jokes about Rod Blagojevich.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Yeah it was, but just because the show was a failure doesn't mean you can't succeed with the idea. It failed because it wasn't funny. In fact, it was fucking wretched (as are most conservative attempts at comedy). If Fox went with more of a libertarian bent, I'll bet it would work much better. Red Eye is amusing, and apparently is getting more of the 25-54 demo at 3 a.m. (202,000 viewers) than CNN's 8 p.m. (191,000) show with Campbell Brown.

Red Eye is hilarious but I don't know if I'd call it conservative. It leans to the right but I doubt the same people watching O'Reilly are watching that show. I'd bet there is quite a lot of crossover from the Daily Show crowd to Red Eye.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Virtually talk show is a source of information and commentary. I learned that one of the Kardashian girls is marrying Lamar Odom by watching The Soup on E! one day. Is Joel McHale now the same as Anderson Cooper?

I have no doubt that the show would work great on a cable news network. That's because most of the stuff on cable news networks isn't news, it's entertainment. Fox could put a reality show on following Sarah Palin around and it would be the highest rated show guaranteed. That doesn't make her reality show a news program because it's on one of those networks.

And what they do is not new. It's been done by late night talk show hosts for decades. Do a quick routine, throw in a bit, then interview a guest. Not much different than what Leno, Letterman, etc have been doing. Stewart's is more politically focused, but it doesn't make it much different. But I guess in your views, Jay Leno is a news program because he made some jokes about Rod Blagojevich.

The alphabet networks are entertainment based as well. Most of their programming is entertainment driven. I bet if someone did the math on all of their programming over 95% of it would be considered entertainment.

Edit: Although I do not agree with you that most of the cable news network shows are entertainment based. I think CNN, MSNBC and FOX all have opinion based hosts, but pundits are not entertainment. You don't have to call it hard news, but it is still very much news. Plus all of those networks have hard news programs as much as any other channel does.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

It's funny reading all the recent posts about fact checking as an attribute or condition of news. Isn't one of the issues with the Obama team in this whole Fox News attack, the fact Fox News fact checked the administration on a Sunday show? Obama's team got all indignant because fact checking them on a Sunday show is never done by the alphabet networks.

Actually, the administration went a step further and called out certain situations where they said Fox News didn't ask the hard questions about a few selected Republicans. Of course, Chris Wallace promptly showed footage where he asked tough questions of Republican leaders in the exact situation where the administration official said no hard questions were asked, making the attack by the administration official look pretty silly.

As several writers noted yesterday, the 'knife to a gunfight' comparison is pretty accurate. The Obama administration really made a terribly stupid move to engage in this campaign against Fox News. One wonders if they will ever realize it or continue to proceed thinking that it's actually a good idea in any way, shape, or form.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Interesting discussion going on about the official government website. It appears that the administration only cares about your opinion on health reform if you support the administration's position. There is a button on the front page where you can click on it to voice support for the bill, but no place to click if you want to voice your opposition. This wouldn't be a big deal if it was on the White House site, but they've set up a separate, taxpayer-funded .gov website to make it appear unaffiliated with the White House.

Health Reform

[JPhillips]

It's somewhat comforting to know we're back to the outrage of the day.

btw: I think the outrage would be better directed at the shitty clip art used on the front page.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Yeah it was, but just because the show was a failure doesn't mean you can't succeed with the idea. It failed because it wasn't funny. In fact, it was fucking wretched (as are most conservative attempts at comedy). If Fox went with more of a libertarian bent, I'll bet it would work much better. Red Eye is amusing, and apparently is getting more of the 25-54 demo at 3 a.m. (202,000 viewers) than CNN's 8 p.m. (191,000) show with Campbell Brown.

Isn't Glenn Beck a comedy show? I mean nobody takes him seriously, right? RIGHT? FOR THE LOVE OF GOD TELL ME I'M RIGHT!!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's somewhat comforting to know we're back to the topic diversion with no meaningful discusion post of the day.

Fixed.

[DaddyTorgo]

thanks for the link MBBF - I just went and voiced my support.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Fixed.

If you tell me what blog you poached your info from I'd be able to have a discussion directly at the source.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you tell me what blog you poached your info from I'd be able to have a discussion directly at the source.

I saw it on both MSNBC and on the non-opinion hours of Fox News. But you didn't want a legitimate source now, did you? You just wanted to practice the stupid tactic of attacking the source rather than the topic itself. It's not hard to figure out where you learned that ineffective tactic.

I won't hold my breath waiting for a legitimate response to the original post.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

thanks for the link MBBF - I just went and voiced my support.

Now THIS is a creative response. Well done.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I saw it on both MSNBC and on the non-opinion hours of Fox News. But you didn't want a legitimate source now, did you? You just wanted to practice the stupid tactic of attacking the source rather than the topic itself. It's not hard to figure out where you learned that ineffective tactic.

I won't hold my breath waiting for a legitimate response to the original post.

A legitimate response like it's no big deal? It happens all the time.

Even if it had come from the White House it would still be taxpayer funded.

It's certainly no different than Congressional mailings that are taxpayer funded.

You didn't seem to care when the Bush admin blocked searches on abortion on a government funded database or used SS mialings to help pitch privatization.

How is this any more of an outrage than spending taxpayer dollars on the First pet's website?

Would it be any better use of taxpayer dollars to set up a website where people could compare Obama to Hilter and Mao?

[miked]

YOU CAN'T KEEP BRINGING UP BUSH I ALWAYS TALK ABOUT REPUBLICANS DOING WRONG AND I'M IN THE MIDDLE AND POST THINGS WITH DIFFERENT VIEWS ALL THE TIME1!!@@2!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A legitimate response like it's no big deal? It happens all the time.

Even if it had come from the White House it would still be taxpayer funded.

It's certainly no different than Congressional mailings that are taxpayer funded.

You didn't seem to care when the Bush admin blocked searches on abortion on a government funded database or used SS mialings to help pitch privatization.

How is this any more of an outrage than spending taxpayer dollars on the First pet's website?

Would it be any better use of taxpayer dollars to set up a website where people could compare Obama to Hilter and Mao?

1. If it was on the White House site, it would be a different situation because it's directly from the source. Opinion occurs regularly on that site.

2 Congressional mailings are not the same situation. There's no limiting factor to only allow constituents to express approval/disapproval that fits that rep's opinion.

3. Did you post the information on those Bush incidents? If so, I would have been similarly opposed. I wasn't aware of either of those incidents. Just because I wasn't aware of them (hence I didn't voice my opposition) doesn't mean I would have been in favor of it. That's a very weak argument, even for you.

4. I don't see any issue with the First Pet website. Is there some form of partisanship on that site? I don't believe there is.

5. As far as the Obama comparison, I'd have to know the exact form of that comparison. If it's on a representative's website or on the White House website, they have free reign to express their opinion. This information was intentionally moved under the HHS to provide a more legitimate, non-partisan face to the website. That's fine if they want to do that, but it better be informational rather than partisan. Or at least be informational during the non-opinion hours of the website.

[miked]

6. Who the fuck really cares other than you and FoxNews (and they probably love it).

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by miked

YOU CAN'T KEEP BRINGING UP BUSH I ALWAYS TALK ABOUT REPUBLICANS DOING WRONG AND I'M IN THE MIDDLE AND POST THINGS WITH DIFFERENT VIEWS ALL THE TIME1!!@@2!

I love how he thinks anyone buys the shit he shovels.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

YOU CAN'T KEEP BRINGING UP BUSH I ALWAYS TALK ABOUT REPUBLICANS DOING WRONG AND I'M IN THE MIDDLE AND POST THINGS WITH DIFFERENT VIEWS ALL THE TIME1!!@@2!

JPhillips has every right to bring up Bush. It often weakens his argument for conservative posters like myself who didn't agree with some of the Bush policies. But he still has the right to try to make weak general arguments on a party basis if he so chooses. It just makes it easier to dissect his points.

[JPhillips]

http://johnboehner.house.gov/

OH NOES!!! Taxpayer dollars spent on partisanship! Why can't I also see the charts Congress does want me see? Why is there only an anti-Obama youtube video?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by miked

6. Who the fuck really cares other than you and FoxNews (and they probably love it).

Appreciate the opportunity to chat with you, Mr. Gibbs.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

http://johnboehner.house.gov/

OH NOES!!! Taxpayer dollars spent on partisanship! Why can't I also see the charts Congress does want me see? Why is there only an anti-Obama youtube video?

So you posted a site that backed my statement in an attempt to refute it? Interesting choice.

As I stated previously, the White House site and any rep sites are all full of opinion for obvious reasons. That's a much different situation than a department website which should be non-partisan.

[JPhillips]

Maybe this will be more productive than outrage about a web button. Stunning how the Republican party has fallen off a cliff and independents have soared since the tea parties started.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/par...trends=&lines=

I think a lot of the growth in independents is Republican leaning and will probably vote R in 2010. I wonder how much of the growth of independents comes from moderates and how much comes from the far-right.

edit: I guess I have to settle for a link. The upshot is that in June ID was around 36D/30R/33I and now the Pollster composite has it at 33D/21R/39I.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Stunning how the Republican party has fallen off a cliff and independents have soared since the tea parties started.

I think a lot of the growth in independents is Republican leaning and will probably vote R in 2010. I wonder how much of the growth of independents comes from moderates and how much comes from the far-right.

I'm not able to view this embed, but I'm assuming it's the study saying that the number of people who identify themselves as Republican is now something like 20%. For those that prefer to make discussions about party affiliation, I'm sure they'll find some importance in this poll. I think it's a reaction by people like myself who like the fiscal aspect of the party, but have absolutely no interest in supporting many of the social policies of the party, which are downright wacky in some cases and just don't make sense in others.

I agree with you that it likely doesn't change who they vote for in the election, despite the need to distance themselves from the Republican social mantra.

[DaddyTorgo]

yes - the embed isn't working right

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm not able to view this embed, but I'm assuming it's the study saying that the number of people who identify themselves as Republican is now something like 20%. For those that prefer to make discussions about party affiliation, I'm sure they'll find some importance in this poll. I think it's a reaction by people like myself who like the fiscal aspect of the party, but have absolutely no interest in supporting many of the social policies of the party, which are downright wacky in some cases and just don't make sense in others.

I agree with you that it likely doesn't change who they vote for in the election, despite the need to distance themselves from the Republican social mantra.

here's a legit question for you though - and I'd like to try to have a real conversation about this - you've stated that you agree fiscally with Republicans , yet you find Republican social policies "downright wacky" or "not making any sense."

I would contend that as far as STATED fiscal policy there are differences between Republicans and Democrats, but as far as ACTUAL fiscal policies there are minimal differences (leaving aside the balanced-budget of the Clinton years).

The deficit has continued to increase under both parties, neither party truly seems interested in reducing the size of government where it is overly bloated or eliminating wasteful spending, every elected member of government is trying to pork-barrel their way to reelection. Fiscal discipline is sorely lacking in both parties.

I would contend that (again aside from the balanced budget of the Clinton years - and for fuck's sake we could really use a balanced budget amendment) the financial aspect of the differences is less important than the social aspect - particularly because those social things often affect far more people far more profoundly.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't se a massive difference in fiscal policies (aside from the Democrats wanting to tax corporations better and not the middle class and the Republicans in favor of some form of supply-side economics and tax breaks for the rich to further promote that). Leaving aside the argument over supply-side economics and whether it is viable - the end result of tax-bracket changes is not likely to markedly affect anybody posting on this board in a material fashion (enough to change their standard of living), and the fiscal policies of the government are largely entrenched and apolitical at this point, so why would someone such as yourself not say "wait a second, I don't want creationism taught in schools and abortions outlawed and stem cell research prohibited and GLBT-Americans denied their civil rights" and vote Democrat?

Did the Bush years (and really the Bush I years also) not show that "fiscal discipline" in the current GOP is just lip-service thrown out there to try to broaden their voting base?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Did the Bush years (and really the Bush I years also) not show that "fiscal discipline" in the current GOP is just lip-service thrown out there to try to broaden their voting base?

In summary, I've already agreed with that point in this and other threads. I suppose the Republicans get pounded for it more because it is supposed to be their schtick, but I hold them equally accountable. I guess some Republicans might give the Bush adminstration some credit for ballooning the deficit 4X less than the first year of the Obama administration, but that's only levels of bad government in my eyes. Both are lousy.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

......so why would someone such as yourself not say "wait a second, I don't want creationism taught in schools and abortions outlawed and stem cell research prohibited and GLBT-Americans denied their civil rights" and vote Democrat?

Creationism is a non-starter. It will die away in the few areas that lend it credence. And I'm sure the courts would keep it out as well. Abortion is another situation where I feel it will never be removed. It's a good way for both sides to turn out the vote, but I can't see any situation where it's abolished. Stem cell research is a concern for me, but I do think you are seeing an emergence of the right wing who realizes that research can occur without 'killing baby fetuses' as some would lead you to believe. I also believe that rights regarding sex discrimination will happen. I think the fact that a Democrat president hasn't facilitated major change yet indicates that there is still work to be done, but it will happen. You can't snap your fingers and sign a piece of paper and expect change to resolve years of bias.

[Kodos]

Are you comparing Bush's first year with Obama's there, or Bush year 8 versus Obama year 1? Source please.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

In summary, I've already agreed with that point in this and other threads. I suppose the Republicans get pounded for it more because it is supposed to be their schtick, but I hold them equally accountable. I guess some Republicans might give the Bush adminstration some credit for ballooning the deficit 4X less than the first year of the Obama administration, but that's only levels of bad government in my eyes. Both are lousy.

I know you've agreed with the point (and IMHO I think Republicans certainly do get pounded for it more and deserve to get pounded for it more because it is their schtick - at least with a Democrat you know (Clinton aside to date) you won't see a huge reduction in deficit spending), but that then raises the larger question - if the central attraction of the Republican party to you is this "fiscal responsibility" which is a myth, then what is holding you there? You've seemed to indicate you don't necessarily agree with the religious-right on social issues.

I guess I'm just trying to understand.

Are you hoping that fiscal responsibility returns? Because in that case I'd argue that you're probably equally as likely to have that happen under a Democrat at this point (see Clinton, Bill), as it seems to be much more a function of an individual rather than a serious plank in either party's platform.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Are you comparing Bush's first year with Obama's there, or Bush year 8 versus Obama year 1? Source please.

I'm going off the top of my head. Bush was around $400B+ near the end and Obama' first year was around $1.8T. If those aren't spot-on, feel free to correct. As I stated, no level of defecit is acceptable in my eyes. It's just levels of stupidity.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Are you hoping that fiscal responsibility returns? Because in that case I'd argue that you're probably equally as likely to have that happen under a Democrat at this point (see Clinton, Bill), as it seems to be much more a function of an individual rather than a serious plank in either party's platform.

I'd note that there was a Republican congress in session for much of his presidency. It seemed to work well, though I'd note that Bill Clinton was a MUCH different Democrat than Barack Obama. I don't think that a return to a Republican congress under Obama will yield similar results to the Clinton administration setup.

FYI.....I did add more edited notes into my previous post. Sorry for the late edit that may have been missed.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I know you've agreed with the point (and IMHO I think Republicans certainly do get pounded for it more and deserve to get pounded for it more because it is their schtick - at least with a Democrat you know (Clinton aside to date) you won't see a huge reduction in deficit spending), but that then raises the larger question - if the central attraction of the Republican party to you is this "fiscal responsibility" which is a myth, then what is holding you there? You've seemed to indicate you don't necessarily agree with the religious-right on social issues.

I guess I'm just trying to understand.

Are you hoping that fiscal responsibility returns? Because in that case I'd argue that you're probably equally as likely to have that happen under a Democrat at this point (see Clinton, Bill), as it seems to be much more a function of an individual rather than a serious plank in either party's platform.

My answer to this would be that at least the Repubs are giving away my money to people who create jobs, while the Dems want to give away all my money to people who have shown very little initiative to do anything with it other than throw it away. Sure, their spending indirectly creates jobs, but it's still a lousy investment.

Now, I'd rather find someone that gets government out of many of the businesses it has stuffed itself into (like the Libertarians if they'd shut down the insane side of their party, and for the record I HAVE voted Libertarian in some local races), but until we do I'll back the party that does less harm with the money they are wasting than the party that does more harm.

[Kodos]

Where does the war in Iraq fit on the more harm/less harm scale?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'd note that there was a Republican congress in session for much of his presidency. It seemed to work well, though I'd note that Bill Clinton was a MUCH different Democrat than Barack Obama. I don't think that a return to a Republican congress under Obama will yield similar results to the Clinton administration setup.

FYI.....I did add more edited notes into my previous post. Sorry for the late edit that may have been missed.

There's a serious misunderstanding of Clinton, IMO. When he came in in 1992 he was generally to the left of what Obama has done. He was for gays in the military immediately, tax increases across the board, universal, single payer healthcare, cuts to the military, etc. In almost any way you want to measure Clinton was to the left of Obama.

It's almost like the success that Clinton had as president demands that his policies be seen as more conservative than they actually were.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There's a serious misunderstanding of Clinton, IMO. When he came in in 1992 he was generally to the left of what Obama has done. He was for gays in the military immediately, tax increases across the board, universal, single payer healthcare, cuts to the military, etc. In almost any way you want to measure Clinton was to the left of Obama.

It's almost like the success that Clinton had as president demands that his policies be seen as more conservative than they actually were.

His success was that he was able to work with Congress at some level to reach an agreement. If Obama can't even get a Democrat-led Congress to agree with each other and him, how will he achieve it with a Republican-led Congress?

[JPhillips]

No. He failed on healthcare. Passed his tax increases only with Gore's vote. Got hammered on gays in the military. Forced a government shutdown in a dispute with Gingrich and the GOP.

Oh, and got impeached.

He had terrible relations with Congress throughout much of his presidency and was frustrated by his inability to pass his agenda.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Where does the war in Iraq fit on the more harm/less harm scale?

Are you talking to me? I'm on the record firmly as saying that al-Qaeda is now very busy hitting us over there rather than over here, and nothing has changed my mind on that.

[gstelmack]

The only reason Clinton was considered a success was because he inherited an improving economy (Bush got voted out while the recession was already ending) and presided over an era of economic prosperity that turned out to be based on lots and lots of fraud.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The only reason Clinton was considered a success was because he inherited an improving economy (Bush got voted out while the recession was already ending) and presided over an era of economic prosperity that turned out to be based on lots and lots of fraud.

There was an internet bubble, but there were great gains in productivity in the 1990s. Saying it was all fraud is wrong.

And does this give me permission to say Reagan inherited the Carter boom?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Oh, and got impeached.

He did?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'm on the record firmly as saying that al-Qaeda is now very busy hitting us over there rather than over here, and nothing has changed my mind on that.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

He did?

Yes. He wasn't convicted by the Senate, but the House impeached him.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yes. He wasn't convicted by the Senate, but the House impeached him.

Innocent until proven guilty, no?