Bill Clinton shows anger! How dare he shows he is Human!

[Eye See You]

Republicans couldn't answer Bill Clintons counter-charges so what do
want you to focus on? His emotions! When Bush shows anger toward
reporters at news conferences, that is a sign of strength but when
any Democrat shows that same strenght, they are insane! If you seen
any members of a cult, any cult, what is the common denominator? They
are all blissed out and constantly lauging! This a tall telling sign
they are brainwashed. This is part of social engineering: atrifical
happiness! Anger is a emotion that signifies rebellion. When Jesus
knocked the tables of the money changers in the temple, he was pissed
off. Anger toward conformity is very healthy. If you suppress any
emotions then you eventually blow up!
All this anti-emotions nonesense emanates from WASP stoicism.
Hitlers gestapos were big on this. In the Nazi death camps when Jews
were slaughtered, the camp guards were cold as ice or had a good
laugh on the victims suffering. What the Republicans want is we act
like emotionless robots and do our masters bidding. That is why white
racists hate blacks, jews, or any non-aryan, it is because we are
open with our emotions. A lot WASP bottle it up inside and considered
it to be civilized!
I wish so-called liberals would go ape shit instead trying to prove
to right wingers they are nice gentlemen and ladies. This is no time
to be civil or polite. Conservatives act like parents and they have
the right to show anger but we children have to behave. Bill Clinton
should have slapped Cris Wallace in the face. Republicans are afriad
of anger. During anti-war protest in the 60's/70's Nixion use to hide
under his desk trembling when there was demostations in front of the
white house!
It anger is not evil or dangerous, it just an energy. When you are
pissed then you are motivated to accomplish more tasks. One way to
control someone is to give them false contentment. Why do you think
Bush gave us a $300 dollar rebate?

Strike on Oct.5th!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Enronscam/
Check out this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTPTWbm6uK0

[sui generis]

1. yeah - I hate schoolmarm mode

unfortunately we're just as prone to it. Nancy Pelosi you had me at oh hell no. You could have just said NOTHING instead of waking up and going on about Chavez as if.

Now if only you had been so vociferous about "effective questioning" . . . I could give a flipping crap about Chavez' posturing, and it makes it harder to defend Clinton to the bashers when our own are willing to eat each other for not being polite enough.

[pat_k]

2. Letters to a couple so-called "journalists"

To: [e-mail]
Re: Report on President Clinton's FOX interview (Mike Taibbi)

--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Taibbi
NBC News


Dear Mr. Taibbi,

Your coverage of Chris Wallace's interview of President Clinton -- the fragments of the interview you selected and presented out of order -- created a dishonest picture of what occurred.

It is one thing if President Clinton had been non-responsive, but it is apparently the President's responsiveness in setting the record straight that upset Chris Wallace and prompted him to impatiently and frequently interrupt the President, at times argumentatively.

President Clinton's reaction was warranted when put into context, but the level of intensity of his response is actually the most trivial aspect of the exchange.

You left out President Clinton's review of his efforts to capture or kill those who committed terrorist acts against us (and the Republican ridicule and refusal to fund anti-terrorism). You left out Chris Wallace's impatient, dismissive interruptions and badgering. You left out the facts about the context the President spoke of ("ABC just had a right-wing conservative run in their little Pathway to 9/11, falsely claiming it was based on the 9/11 Commission report, with three things asserted against me directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report.").

Instead of a report that fairly characterized the exchange, what remained was an out of context and deliberately distorted picture of someone who angrily evaded an interviewer's simple question.

Given the number of Wallace's argumentative interruptions between his initial, nearly 200 word "simple question," and the minor portion of Clinton's response that you presented, your report managed to construct the opposite of reality.

Of course, you are not alone. Your coverage presents a "narrative" consistent with what your counterparts at countless other news outlets parroted. It is the spread of this type of so-called "journalism" -- devoid of fact checking, evaluation, and substance -- that made it possible for the nation to be terrorized into a catastrophic war of aggression by threats of mushroom clouds in 45 minutes.

I'm not sure what prompted me to respond to your report in particular. Perhaps because I expect more of your pieces. Perhaps because I think there is a shot that you will actually consider what I have said. Or perhaps I am confusing you with your son.

Sincerely,


Patty Keeshan
Westfield, NJ

cc:
Media Matters ([e-mail])
Matt Taibbi ([e-mail])

And here's what I sent to Howie Kurtz on Sunday
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2212104&mesg_id=2212104

[ShortnFiery]

3. While Condi "boils over" instead of "a tirade of LIES" :( eom