Bill Clinton Has a Few things to Say

[Mos_Chillin]

On The current administration

 

Bill, Bill...You are talking to FOX NEWS!

[Crux]

Oh fuk! It was like, man, there I was dancing toe-to-toe with the Fuher, and I said, like, "Hey there Adolf baby! What's up with all this crap about Jews n shit? Puttin 'em in ovens and all that? You are such a fukin piece of shit! Why don't you just be nice?" And then, next thing I know, the Fuher is tellin' efferbody that I'm an appeasor and a fornicator and a maggot-kyke and a no-good enemy of the fatherland and all that shit. Can ya fukin believe it?

 

[olyclimber]

This video has been removed at the request of copyright owner Fox News Network, LLC because its content was used without permission

[counterfeitfake]

Weird, I thought the whole point of youtube was to violate copyright...

[Crux]

On the other hand, it seems *Bill* knew who he was dealing with when asked on Fox News Sunday why he didn't "do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business" when he was president:

 

CLINTON: ...If anybody wants to say I didn't do enough, you read Richard Clarke's book.

.

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir?

.

CLINTON: No, because I didn't get him.

.

WALLACE: Right.

.

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried. So, I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted [by the Bush administration].

.

So, you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit-job on me, but what I want to know --

.

WALLACE: Now, wait a minute, sir, I asked a question. You don't think that's a legitimate question?

.

CLINTON: It was a perfectly legitimate question. But I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you've asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, "Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?" I want to know how many people you asked, "Why did you fire Dick Clarke?" I want to know how many people you asked about this.

.

WALLACE: We asked -- we asked. Have you ever watched Fox News Sunday, sir?

.

CLINTON: I don't believe you asked them that.

.

WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of --

.

CLINTON: You didn't ask that, did you? Tell the truth, Chris.

.

WALLACE: About the USS Cole?

.

CLINTON: Tell the truth, Chris

.

. Media Matters -- "Wallace falsehood..."

 

Chris Wallace never did tell the truth. As it is, in its 34 interviews with senior Bush administration officials, not once has Fox News Sunday asked those questions. In only one interview, with Donald Rumsfeld on 2004 March 28, did Wallace ask any questions whatsoever about the administration's pre 9-11 committment to fighting terrorism. Rumsfeld replied simply, "It sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority."

 

Out of this, once again, these questions remain: Why did the Bush administration not try to do anything about Al Qaeda and bin Laden during the eight months prior to 9-11? Why did the Bush administration discontinue the Clinton anti-terror program? Why did the Bush administration ignore Clinton's battle plans to attack the Taliban and bin Laden, even after the FBI and CIA certified that Al Qaeda had attacked the United States Navy?

 

[ZimZam]

If memory serves me correctly the pre 9/11 Bush administration was more concerned with pulling the tail of the Chinese tiger.Their burgeoning economy, ever increasing military strength, and nationalist tendencies were of greater concern to W. Bam the Twin Towers crumble.

[Fairweather]

I haven't heard Clinton so angry since the last time he.....lied.

 

 

...but I'll admit; the question was politically loaded. And it's always nice to see someone show some spine.

[TREETOAD]

BILL ROCKS!!

 

George is incapable of speaking that long without displaying to the world what a dribbling idiot he is. Bill on the other hand pretty well explained to that little Goebels wannabe everything that has been obvious to the rest of the world for years. Unfortunately the masterminds behind fascist takeover of your democracy will probably serve up a little terror sauce on your freedom fries just before voting time.

[JayB]

Pretty soon the government's power will grow so unchecked, and the populace so complacent, that the government will be able to come up with a scary-sounding term like "Hate Speech" and grant itself the right to fine or imprison anyone who expresses convictions that the government deems unacceptable in public.

 

Pretty frightening prospect...eh.

[olyclimber]

what are you talking about jay? in reference to billy C's interview?

[TREETOAD]

I think this is more frightening.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5005994.stm

[whidbey]

How is this frightening?.. We have known all along that the guy is a dipshit and rules by fear and bullshit. The interview was great... I don't really care if Bill got pissed.... don't blame him for it. Wish a few others could do the same when it comes to right wing bullshit.

[olyclimber]

don'tcha get it? the report isn't true!

[whidbey]

OH my... I can see him trying to pronounce some hard work like decide or something like decider about now..... god damn I feel safe now!

[underworld]

OH my... I can see him trying to pronounce some hard work like decide or something like decider about now..... god damn I feel safe now!

 

NICE!

 

spelll rong win macing fum uf busch

 

[Fairweather]

what are you talking about jay? in reference to billy C's interview?

 

I believe he is referring to a certain DNC Kool-Aid guzzler named Crux - who just recently proposed putting network executives in prison for an ABC docu-drama written and produced under the protections of the first amendment.

 

 

Post #601332 - written by Crux:

Now, regarding your news that Senate democrats are talking about pulling Disney's FCC license, that is definitely predictable: I have argued it is a violation of federal law for public sector resources to be allocated for the purpose of dissemination of propaganda for political purposes. The public airwaves thusly abused by Disney/ABC present not only grounds for revocation of the broadcasting license but for criminal prosecution under the provisions of the respective statutes.

 

Any modicum of respect I had for the guy evaporated with this paragraph. True colors revealed - and I don't think Crux is alone in his interpretation of what 'free speech' really means. Scary shit if the Dem's take charge. Really.

Edited September 27, 2006 by Fairweather

[KaskadskyjKozak]

what are you talking about jay? in reference to billy C's interview?

 

I believe he is referring to a certain DNC Kool-Aid guzzler named Crux - who just recently proposed putting network executives in prison for an ABC docu-drama written and produced under the protections of the first amendment.

 

 

Post #601332 - written by Crux:

Now, regarding your news that Senate democrats are talking about pulling Disney's FCC license, that is definitely predictable: I have argued it is a violation of federal law for public sector resources to be allocated for the purpose of dissemination of propaganda for political purposes. The public airwaves thusly abused by Disney/ABC present not only grounds for revocation of the broadcasting license but for criminal prosecution under the provisions of the respective statutes.

 

Any modicum of respect I had for the guy evaporated with this paragraph. True colors revealed - and I don't think Crux is alone in his interpretation of what 'free speech' really means. Scary shit if the Dem's take charge. Really.

 

Amen brother. The fascists are on the left - listen up TREETOAD, i'm talking to you.

 

[JayB]

what are you talking about jay? in reference to billy C's interview?

 

I believe he is referring to a certain DNC Kool-Aid guzzler named Crux - who just recently proposed putting network executives in prison for a recent docu-drama written and produced under the protections of the first amendment.

 

Actually talking about the current state of affairs in Canada for the benefit of the arboreal amphibian, who may not be familiar with his own laws.

 

 

 

 

"In short, it was necessary for the Crown in this case to prove that the respondents, by communicating statements other than in private conversation, wilfully promoted hatred against a section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin..."

 

You can evidently say what you will in private, but if the government deems that you've said something in public that shows that you have "wilfully promoted hatred against a section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin," then you could very well be fined or imprisoned.

 

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2005/2005scc7/2005scc7.html

 

 

 

"Criminal Code

PART VIII: OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION

Hate Propaganda

 

Public incitement of hatred

 

 

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

 

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

 

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

 

Wilful promotion of hatred

 

 

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

 

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

 

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

 

Defences

 

 

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

 

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

 

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

 

© if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

 

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

 

Forfeiture

 

 

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

 

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities

 

 

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

 

Consent

 

 

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

 

Definitions

 

 

(7) In this section,

 

“communicating”

 

« communiquer »

 

 

“communicating” includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

 

“identifiable group”

 

« groupe identifiable »

 

 

“identifiable group” has the same meaning as in section 318;"

 

 

 

Some other eye-openers for TT:

 

 

"PART II: OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Sedition

 

Seditious words

 

 

59. (1) Seditious words are words that express a seditious intention.

 

Seditious libel

 

 

(2) A seditious libel is a libel that expresses a seditious intention.

 

Seditious conspiracy

 

 

(3) A seditious conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to carry out a seditious intention.

 

Seditious intention

 

 

(4) Without limiting the generality of the meaning of the expression “seditious intention”, every one shall be presumed to have a seditious intention who

 

(a) teaches or advocates, or

 

(b) publishes or circulates any writing that advocates,

 

the use, without the authority of law, of force as a means of accomplishing a governmental change within Canada.

 

R.S., c. C-34, s. 60."

 

"PART V: SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT

Offences Tending to Corrupt Morals

 

Corrupting morals

 

 

163. (1) Every one commits an offence who

 

(a) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatever; or

 

(b) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, sells or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation a crime comic.

 

Idem

 

 

(2) Every one commits an offence who knowingly, without lawful justification or excuse,

 

(a) sells, exposes to public view or has in his possession for such a purpose any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatever;

 

(b) publicly exhibits a disgusting object or an indecent show;

 

© offers to sell, advertises or publishes an advertisement of, or has for sale or disposal, any means, instructions, medicine, drug or article intended or represented as a method of causing abortion or miscarriage; or

 

(d) advertises or publishes an advertisement of any means, instructions, medicine, drug or article intended or represented as a method for restoring sexual virility or curing venereal diseases or diseases of the generative organs.

 

Defence of public good

 

 

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the public good was served by the acts that are alleged to constitute the offence and if the acts alleged did not extend beyond what served the public good.

 

Question of law and question of fact

 

 

(4) For the purposes of this section, it is a question of law whether an act served the public good and whether there is evidence that the act alleged went beyond what served the public good, but it is a question of fact whether the acts did or did not extend beyond what served the public good.

 

Motives irrelevant

 

 

(5) For the purposes of this section, the motives of an accused are irrelevant.

 

(6) [Repealed, 1993, c. 46, s. 1]

 

Definition of “crime comic”

 

 

(7) In this section, “crime comic” means a magazine, periodical or book that exclusively or substantially comprises matter depicting pictorially

 

(a) the commission of crimes, real or fictitious; or

 

(b) events connected with the commission of crimes, real or fictitious, whether occurring before or after the commission of the crime.

 

Obscene publication

 

 

(8) For the purposes of this Act, any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and any one or more of the following subjects, namely, crime, horror, cruelty and violence, shall be deemed to be obscene.

 

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 163; 1993, c. 46, s. 1."

 

 

"Criminal Code

PART V: SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT

Offences Tending to Corrupt Morals

 

Immoral theatrical performance

 

 

167. (1) Every one commits an offence who, being the lessee, manager, agent or person in charge of a theatre, presents or gives or allows to be presented or given therein an immoral, indecent or obscene performance, entertainment or representation.

 

Person taking part

 

 

(2) Every one commits an offence who takes part or appears as an actor, a performer or an assistant in any capacity, in an immoral, indecent or obscene performance, entertainment or representation in a theatre.

 

R.S., c. C-34, s. 163."

 

 

Plenty more where these came from:

 

http://canlii.ca/ca/sta/c-46/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those who live in glass houses......

 

 

[olyclimber]

what are you talking about jay? in reference to billy C's interview?

 

I believe he is referring to a certain DNC Kool-Aid guzzler named Crux - who just recently proposed putting network executives in prison for an ABC docu-drama written and produced under the protections of the first amendment.

 

 

Post #601332 - written by Crux:

Now, regarding your news that Senate democrats are talking about pulling Disney's FCC license, that is definitely predictable: I have argued it is a violation of federal law for public sector resources to be allocated for the purpose of dissemination of propaganda for political purposes. The public airwaves thusly abused by Disney/ABC present not only grounds for revocation of the broadcasting license but for criminal prosecution under the provisions of the respective statutes.

 

Any modicum of respect I had for the guy evaporated with this paragraph. True colors revealed - and I don't think Crux is alone in his interpretation of what 'free speech' really means. Scary shit if the Dem's take charge. Really.

 

With anything that Crux has said aside, wasn't it you that pointed out the exact same reaction by the Republican for the "docudrama" about Reagan? I think it is worth comparing these two reactions before getting too bent out of shape...anyway, both have aired, correct? I doubt anyone's opinions have been swayed by either, though global warming might be blamed on the amount of hot air expelled by both parties.

[underworld]

global warming should be blamed on canadians using stolen ATM info

[olyclimber]

what are you talking about jay? in reference to billy C's interview?

 

I believe he is referring to a certain DNC Kool-Aid guzzler named Crux - who just recently proposed putting network executives in prison for an ABC docu-drama written and produced under the protections of the first amendment.

 

 

Post #601332 - written by Crux:

Now, regarding your news that Senate democrats are talking about pulling Disney's FCC license, that is definitely predictable: I have argued it is a violation of federal law for public sector resources to be allocated for the purpose of dissemination of propaganda for political purposes. The public airwaves thusly abused by Disney/ABC present not only grounds for revocation of the broadcasting license but for criminal prosecution under the provisions of the respective statutes.

 

Any modicum of respect I had for the guy evaporated with this paragraph. True colors revealed - and I don't think Crux is alone in his interpretation of what 'free speech' really means. Scary shit if the Dem's take charge. Really.

 

Amen brother. The fascists are on the left - listen up TREETOAD, i'm talking to you.

 

 

JEEZUS!!! Read up on what the label fascism really means. It applies in part to either side of the political extreme....a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism....

 

sounds like you listen to too much one sided talk radio vitriol

[Dechristo]

sounds like you listen, tutu.

...much one sided talk radio vitriol

 

 

geez, Oly, did ya really need ta call him a ballerina? You feckin fascist

[Alpinfox]

Say what you will about the tennets of National Socialism, but at least it's an ethos.

[Dechristo]

My buddies didn't die face down in the muck just so some draft-dodger could wag his boney finger in the face of Chris Wallace!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

what are you talking about jay? in reference to billy C's interview?

 

I believe he is referring to a certain DNC Kool-Aid guzzler named Crux - who just recently proposed putting network executives in prison for an ABC docu-drama written and produced under the protections of the first amendment.

 

 

Post #601332 - written by Crux:

Now, regarding your news that Senate democrats are talking about pulling Disney's FCC license, that is definitely predictable: I have argued it is a violation of federal law for public sector resources to be allocated for the purpose of dissemination of propaganda for political purposes. The public airwaves thusly abused by Disney/ABC present not only grounds for revocation of the broadcasting license but for criminal prosecution under the provisions of the respective statutes.

 

Any modicum of respect I had for the guy evaporated with this paragraph. True colors revealed - and I don't think Crux is alone in his interpretation of what 'free speech' really means. Scary shit if the Dem's take charge. Really.

 

Amen brother. The fascists are on the left - listen up TREETOAD, i'm talking to you.

 

 

JEEZUS!!! Read up on what the label fascism really means. It applies in part to either side of the political extreme....a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism....

 

sounds like you listen to too much one sided talk radio vitriol

 

ah definitions, definitions. they never stopped you left-wingers from throwing the term around indiscriminantly. what comes around, goes around.

 

the idea that government should censor speech is supported in actuality by repressive regimes on both sides of the traditional political "spectrum" (I don't believe there is such a thing as a traditional two-dimensional political spectrum - too simplistic). Crux's suggestion above is clearly a proposal that moves towards repression, whether it is of the "fascist" or "left-wing" variety.