Clinton to go on Fox tomorrow

[JohnRM]

Meh, I know that a lot of you may find this surprising, but I sympathize with old Billy Boy. I mean, its not like he said, "Bin Laden is going to fly airplanes into the WTC and the Pentagon in 2001, but I just don't feel like tackling this issue, right now." I do believe that Clinton did everything he thought was legal, ethical, and pragmatic to tackle the situation. Was it enough? No. Was he naive? Absolutely. Does he deserve to be crucified? No.

Of course, he shouldn't take this so personally. The movie was not about him. It was about our enemies. If it was anyone else in the White House, at the time, it probably would not have made a difference, but Clinton needs to admit that not EVERYTHING that could have been done, was done.

 

[JonnyB]

He did admit it.
question "do you think you did enough?"
answer "no, because I didn't get him..."

 

[JohnRM]

He did admit it.
question "do you think you did enough?"
answer "no, because I didn't get him..."

I know that. I did not intend to imply otherwise. Thus, why I sympathize with him.

 

[Phlegmak]

Breaking news, that's not particularly amazing! Fox censors Clinton interview from Youtube.

http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2006/09/25/fox-and-the-clinton-interview/

No doubt, ultraconservatives on this forum will defend Fox's actions to the death.

 

[JerichoHill]

Bill Clinton was a better President and had a better adminstration for the economy of the United States than what we currently have.

He was also President during the right time, as he was helped greatly by the booming IT buzz, but still, all other things being equal, he handled economic issues with a clarity we are currently lacking.

 

[El_Machinae]

Breaking news, that's not particularly amazing! Fox censors Clinton interview from Youtube.

http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2006/09/25/fox-and-the-clinton-interview/

No doubt, ultraconservatives on this forum will defend Fox's actions to the death.

While I support their right to enforce copyright over their material, I'm a bit shocked too.
I'm glad I saw it before it was taken down, given all the buzz.

 

[MobBoss]

Breaking news, that's not particularly amazing! Fox censors Clinton interview from Youtube.

http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2006/09/25/fox-and-the-clinton-interview/

No doubt, ultraconservatives on this forum will defend Fox's actions to the death.

?? Either they had a right to do so or they didnt. Apparently youtube agrees they have a right to do so. Btw, protecting your copyrighted material is not the same as censorship. But then again, your probably realized that.

 

[Phlegmak]

While I support their right to enforce copyright over their material, I'm a bit shocked too.
I'm glad I saw it before it was taken down, given all the buzz.

The part that's insulting is that Fox's actions are hypocritical. They don't demand that O'Reilly's shows are removed from Youtube, for example.

?? Either they had a right to do so or they didnt. Apparently youtube agrees they have a right to do so. Btw, protecting your copyrighted material is not the same as censorship. But then again, your probably realized that.

I was 100% certain you would write this. Read my retort above.

 

[Adamb0mb]

you can still see it on google videos, search "clinton fox" should be at the top.

 

[MobBoss]

The part that's insulting is that Fox's actions are hypocritical. They don't demand that O'Reilly's shows are removed from Youtube, for example.

Different producers, different standards/methods maybe? Who knows?

 

[El_Machinae]

The part that's insulting is that Fox's actions are hypocritical. They don't demand that O'Reilly's shows are removed from Youtube, for example.

They're being inconsistent, not hypocritical. Hypocritical would be mocking another news station for removing clips from Youtube, while removing their own.

People should have save the file, it seems, if they wanted evidence. That said, it IS their show (I think the O'Reilly clips tend to be 'fair use' since they're often analysis). As well, the fact that they don't want it publically available says reams about their opinion of the interview.

 

[MobBoss]

They're being inconsistent, not hypocritical. Hypocritical would be mocking another news station for removing clips from Youtube, while removing their own.

People should have save the file, it seems, if they wanted evidence. That said, it IS their show (I think the O'Reilly clips tend to be 'fair use' since they're often analysis). As well, the fact that they don't want it publically available says reams about their opinion of the interview.

Also who is to say they may wish to treat different intellectual properties differently? They may handle Chris Matthews one way, and then someone like Bill O completely different.

Be that as it may, at least you are not one of Phlegmaks' "raging ultraconservatives" that agree that they have the right to control their property the way they wish.

 

[El_Machinae]

I am a raging ultraconservative! :rawr!:

That said, I still think it stinks that they pulled it. It seems pathetic in some ways; unless they intend to profit off of it. I mean, they're supposed to be the news. News gains value by dissemination.

 

[Phlegmak]

Also who is to say they may wish to treat different intellectual properties differently? They may handle Chris Matthews one way, and then someone like Bill O completely different.

Be that as it may, at least you are not one of Phlegmaks' "raging ultraconservatives" that agree that they have the right to control their property the way they wish.

Yes, they can do whatever they want with their property. I'm not disputing that. I am saying that it's totally hypocritical of them to censor the Clinton interview but not all the other clips from their network.

Sorry, El_Machinae, but I don't accept that it's merely "inconsistent."

By the way, MobBoss, since you don't like considering any evidence of anything from a biased source, does that mean I should never pay attention to a word that you write? Just curious.

 

[El_Machinae]

Most of the Youtube clips of O'Reilly make him look like an ass; you'd think that he would much prefer to have them taken down via some legitimate means.

I don't see how it's hypocritical, unless they've said before that they don't mind youtube distributing their product.

 

[JollyRoger]

Different producers, different standards/methods maybe? Who knows?

Different level of people getting a chance to mock Fox.

 

[.Shane.]

Copyright holders have YouTube remove stuff all the time. So, I'm thinking Fox is within their rights.

But, that doesn't mean its not a weenie move. Gotta love the irony of a newschannel trying to prevent people from seeing the news. Its not like leaving it on YouTube was going to cut into sales of that new Chris Wallace DVD Boxset.

Plus, this kind of stuff always backfires. The video is out in the wild and they won't be able to reign it in. In fact, the more they try, the more attention they'll bring to it.

And, as pointed out, its odd given that they allow so much other of their IP to sit on YT unchallenged. They must feel extremely embarrassed by the interview.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

That was a great interview. I enjoyed seeing Clinton tear Chris Wallace a new one. That interview reminded at how good Clinton was public speaking. I miss having a competent President like Bill.

 

[ThePhysicist]

Excuse me? Personally attack you? Where? I did no such thing. Oh...you call me pointing out your use of fear to be exactly the same thing you accuse the administration of as a personal attack? Funny.

As for the GOP method of winning elections /meh. If you really think only the GOP relies on ad hominem attacks, well...then you have some oreo cookies to throw in Maryland.



Sorry, but your allegation is as weak as it is baseless. I have never said any such thing.



Thats true. Kerry most definitely needed more than "I won three purple hearts".



Oh. My. God. You are kidding right? Clintons little bus had its wheels popping off. The man couldnt even control himself.



Again. Oreo cookies anyone? The degree to which you blind yourself to think only the GOP does this is truly amazing.



By that analogy you place Clinton in higher esteem than any president who sat during a war. As for my opinion, I believe the liar to be the worse of the two, because sometimes a leader has to order men to die, intentional or otherwise. History will be the judge...not you, nor me.

Mobboss, it's really starting to get ridiculous, arguing with you.

I will point out to you that....

Implying that I idolize a "weasel" is a personal attack in my opinion. Perhaps you forgot you said that. The comment suggesting irony in my fear was nonsensical, so I ignored it...that was not what I alluded to as a personal attack, it was the former statement.

The GOP will be spending 90% of it's ad campaign cash on negative advertisements, and Ken Mehlman has said something to the effect that the ads will concern whatever personal info they can dig up on Democratic house candidates. I'd call that an ad homenim strategy.

Please, just quit it with the personal attacks...I don't see what they add to the conversation. If they make you feel better, just say so...atleast then I'll know why you do it.

 

[MobBoss]

Implying that I idolize a "weasel" is a personal attack in my opinion. Perhaps you forgot you said that.

Perhaps you should go back and read it a few more times. Notice I said "if" Bill Clinton was your hero you need to set your sights higher; and then I went on to say the man was a weasel. Afterwards you clarified that Bill C wasnt your hero...well then alls fine. There was no personal insult.

The GOP will be spending 90% of it's ad campaign cash on negative advertisements, and Ken Mehlman has said something to the effect that the ads will concern whatever personal info they can dig up on Democratic house candidates. I'd call that an ad homenim strategy.

And what would you call democrats throwing oreo cookies at the black republican candidate in Maryland?

Please, just quit it with the personal attacks...I don't see what they add to the conversation. If they make you feel better, just say so...atleast then I'll know why you do it.

Again, I have not personally attacked you. Perhaps it makes you feel better to make such allegations, but it doesnt improve your debate one whit.