...starting about the time of R.R. the media is in the far right camp.

What did I say that is different that what you posted above?

With respect.

Steve, what you said was that ALL media was to the left. I said that THE media (meaning the average of all media) started to the right (from the left) at about the time of RR. Their are still liberal media out there (remember the bru-ha-ha recently when Al Franken tried to start the only left style radio show that the right has used for decades), but on the AVERAGE the media is right of center.

Pancho

Thank you, thank you. I see now what you meant. I never picked up on the "average" part of your view. Sorry.

I take you for your word, I have nothing to dispute it. I would have to research it and I have no desire to do so.

Yes we need a funny break, seerex.

Pancho and Carl

This is a New York post about Bill Clintons take.

In it he says " democrats shouldn't be at all that discourged."

Actually, I cannot disagree with that. I think the rest is good too.

That is hard for me to say about Bill Clinton about which I did not agree on a lot of his things. I always respected Bill for being a skilled politition. I never

berated him ever on any site with foul hate speech. You are going to have to take my word on that.

www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/31816.htm

Steve & anyone else:

I did berate Clinton on some issues, just as i do GWB on some (OK, many) issues. 1st Amendment gives us that privilege to use as each of us sees fit. My motto has always been use it or lose it.

Having read the link that you provided ( Thanks, BTW) I can also say that I agree with much of what was said except the " democrats shouldn't be all that discourged" line.

However, I do caution that as a politician and the spouse of a likely democrat candidate in 2008, he may have an ulterior motive for his "get over it and look to the future" statements. Clinton and spouse didn't do much to support Kerry in this election because a 2nd Bush term (in 04) fits better into Hilary's political aspirations (in 08) than having to sit through a 2nd Kerry term (in 08) before she would get her shot at the brass ring (in 2012).

Darn it Carl, I have to concede to you again about your use it or lose it motto. That includes all words at any time.

All words, by all people. It's one of those thngs that make our country different from (and IMO better than) many others.

Steve, I read the artical. Think he is pretty close, but not completely correct.

You may think I'm a one ticket voter. Not true, I'm an independent voter. The kind both parties try to influence.

My take on Clinton (voted for 1/2 the times) is he did a very good job, but was as shady as they come. Glad two terms are the max.

GWB (never voted for him, but did for his daddy), I like him as a personality, but his policies are hurtful to the country. Also glad two terms are the max (though there is a good argument for single term limit here).

I've always felt that absolute power corrupts absolutly, and so have always tried to make sure that one party does not control everything.

My wife is fom Mexico and has told me about politics in MX under the PRI party for about 80 years. Not something we would want here.

The republicans again control the presidency, the senate, the house, and the court (which will be re-stocked with fresh meat by this prez. Scary!).

GWB wants to "reach out" to all americans. Why, the opposition is not capabile of doing anything except blocking changes to the constitution. The 49% of americans are at the total mercy of the 51%.

The "Great Uniter" has his work cut out, but as I see whats on his agenda for this term (all with snappy misleading names) I don't see his reaching out as being any more then his first term.

Both of you are independent? No wonder you are tough foes. :classic:

I think we will have a new thread to start as soon as Arafat dies. But not to get into it here. I think I will probably be right with you on the new issues it will present.

This topic is disturbing, to be specific, Billramseys avatar needs a feed, a big feed :lick:

If you take every sentance uttered or written by Clinton that has the word "IS" in it, you have to throw it out, because he has stated publicly that he does not UNDERSTAND that word, Then If you take every sentace written, or spoken to him and do the same(because he does not UNDERSTAND "IS"). How effective can he be, or more importantly how deep does his desire to mislead, misinform, and befuddle the American People and the world run-he continues to use a word he does not understand.

Mrs Clinton has done absolutely nothing to correct this-I would not vote to continue this cycle even if she peronsonally promised to pay of the National Debt, abolish Federal Taxes, and play Monica Lewinsky to every male on the planet who wanted some. She IS not willing or able to make this one tough decision that would show her understanding, and commitment to do right thing for her constituents. She has a full understanding that illegal activity in the presidency goes with no punishment. She understands about teeth and claws, but knows a President IS above them. My belief IS that she will act accordingly, and she would be another president who forgets anything that relates to accountability, and justice-I mean she IS a Lawyer after all!

I think she IS intitled to all of her freedoms as listed in the constitution, and I hope The rest of the American population remembers her seemingly admirable, but misplaced support, of a lier, and cheat, and a thief. (He commited purgery to cheat the justice system to steal his past presidential benefits-and that is just what has been proven in a court of law)

Somebody, please explain this to President Clinton, I used "IS" about eight or ten times, and in some-what complicated contexts-in his own words, there IS no way he could understand this without help...

Will

Hey leave Bill alone, he already has a couple huge strikes against him, in the most basic sence, he is "Bill from Arkansaw"-how easy could life be?

You keep that chin up Bill(Ramsey)!

Will