Punished the environment twice? Piffle, he was just being business-friendly. Your little fluffy bunnies don’t put meat on the table you know. The fact that the company sued for not being able to enact those anti-business restraints of trade enabled him to further reward wealth-creating powerhouses by nobbling other anti-business programmes.
picmr
DavidB:
No he isn’t. The point was (in my understanding) that those who level these criticisms of Texas against Bush are hypocritical for having supported Clinton, about whom the same or similar criticisms of Arkansas could have been leveled.
That is assuming, of course, that anyone who acknowledges these factoids as correct or even “not entirely false” voted for Clinton.
Also, I remember similar lists talking about Arkansas’ rankings in things such as education and per capita wages when it was him against the other Bush.
As such, I wouldn’t throw any stones here. The GOP house has just as much glass in it as the Democrats, you know.
Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, three days, 19 hours, 56 minutes and 11 seconds.
6273 cigarettes not smoked, saving $784.15.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 18 hours, 45 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **
I read an article once that talked about how Texas can be geographically divided into two regions, and if you treated each region as a separate state, the eastern one would have one of the highest per-capita incomes in the U.S., be in the top 10 as far as literacy, unemployment, etc. while the western part would be ranked last among all states. Southwest Texas REALLY brings down the averages for the rest of the state, it’s poorer than Puerto Rico and has double-digit illiteracy rates.
Thanks, Satan, for responding to CMK. I was going to point the same thing out (and, frankly, I DON’T think that’s the reason the comparison was used anyway – I think it was used because astorian doesn’t understand how to hold a logical discussion).
I really get annoyed with people who debate by saying, “Well if you think that’s bad, what about the other guy?!” as if I was defending the other guy.
Oh, and thanks for the quote in your sig. 
David B…
::smacks forehead:: D’oh, it seems so obvious now. Thanks, though. The things I learn when I’m not in school!
Satan…
Perhaps it’s a reference to the types of people who vote strictly by party lines? “He’s a Republican, so I hate him.” “He’s a Democrat, so he must be up to no good.” I’d imagine that there’d be a good number of people like that running around, just because it’d an easier way to throw your ballot on election day (in theory).
And you’ll be having similar lists running around when I’m running for President in twenty years. (Did I mention I cancelled my bid for the presidency this year? Some stupid rule about having to be 35… that’s age discrimination, I tells ya!)
I came upon this, quoted by Demise
[italics are mine] This struck me as pretty funny, considering the meaning of the poster’s name.
[Please don’t stone me for the hijack].
SPOOFE said:
No prob. Thanks for being willing to ask and learn, unlike some people around here.
In fact, I see that one in particular has run away yet again when a rational, logical argument was used against him. That makes two in a row within about a week. Not a good record for him…
DavidB and Satan:
Your opinion of astorian aside, I think it is entirely valid to compare this year’s criticisms of Bush’s governorship with reactions in 1992, by equivalent groups, to similar facts (or factoids) about Clinton’s governorship (and vice versa).
I’m still incredulous over the fact that earlier this year (I think it was shortly before or during the Republican Infomercial, I mean Convention) that Clinton slammed Bush based on the fact that his only experience in public office is as governor of a Southern state, and I didn’t hear anyone challenge him by pointing out that before he bacame president, the same could have been said about him.
Chaim Mattis Keller
I still disagree, unless the discussion is SPECIFICALLY about comparing criticisms. This one was about whether the Bush stuff was true or not. Responding with the equivalent of “So’s your old man” is not part of a reasonable discussion.
Also, I’d like to see an actual quote and citation for the bit about Clinton saying that in regards to Bush. It sounds too good to be true. And you know what they say about things that sound too good to be true…
Not that I think you are lying, Chaim, but do you have a cite for this?
Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, four days, 15 hours, 31 minutes and 55 seconds.
6305 cigarettes not smoked, saving $788.23.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 21 hours, 25 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **
I’m having trouble finding the full quote, but here’s how Time Magazine, August 14, 2000 reported it:
As I recall from hearing it on the radio, the full quote was something like, “How bad could I be? I’ve been governor of Texas, my daddy was president, I ran a baseball team, they like me down there…”
His implication, clearly, was that Bush was asking for people to vote for him, based on the listed qualifications, which are insufficient, and that he’s really just saying “it’s our turn now.” But the fact that Bush was governor of Texas is certainly no worse than the fact that, as of 1992, Clinton was governor of Arkansas. And the fact that Clinton neither ran a baseball team nor had a father who was president makes him better than Bush??? Clinton’s mockery of Bush’s experience was, to my ears, absurd, but no one seemed to pick up on it.
Chaim Mattis Keller
So, in other words, the quote wasn’t actually anything like what you originally said, but you perceived it to be that way.
Well, I think you’ve answered your own question as to why the media didn’t pick up on Clinton saying this – it’s because he, well, didn’t.
DavidB:
Yes, what I wrote was my perception of the quote. However, I stand by my interpretation. It was clear from the context and tone (remember, I didn’t just read it, I heard it) that he was mocking Bush’s qualifications, which in fact were pretty much identical to (or additional to) his own prior to his election to the presidency.
Oh, so now you’re going to get all skeptical on me? This ain’t an “Up the butt, Bob” thing, David. I might not have yet been able to retrieve the entire quote for you, nor replicate the tone of his speech on a message board, but that snippet from Time magazine is from the very statement I’m referring to, and I’m sure I could probably turn up something more complete with a bit more time (if that would do anything for you anyway).
Chaim Mattis Keller
Chaim, are you referring to the incident preceding Bush Sr. suggesting that Clinton should stop mocking his son? (Daddy-O got lots of jokes at his expense on Leno and Letterman a couple months ago).
Chaim, I don’t “get all skeptical” – I’m always that way.
But I think you missed my point. When you first posted what Clinton supposedly said, it was an outright statement that certainly would have been picked up by the news because it was so obviously silly. But when you then came back and explained further, it’s not nearly so bad (though you may think it is). So, what you originally claimed he said was not what he said after all. That’s all I was saying.
SPOOFE Bo Diddly:
Yep, that’s the one.
DavidB:
I know that. Intentional ironic statement. 
Okay, I see your point. However, I do think that Clinton’s statement should have raised some eyebrows even amongst the non-Rush Limbaugh-listening crowd.
Chaim Mattis Keller
I actually did not interpret Clinton’s statements that way at all. I think he did not mean that Bush’s qualifications were insufficient for the job of president. Rather he was claiming that Bush was entirely relying on his paper qualifications, as if to say “father + baseball team + governor = president”. This, of course, in contrast to himself, who (in his opinion) had alot going for him beyond his resume.
I don’t know whether Bill Clinton mocked Bush for not being qualified enough, but I do know that Bill Maher sure did (and a bunch of other late-night comics, until they ran it into the ground :D).
Oh, sure, and who are they to mock? Like they’re more qualified! Hmph!
(Well, okay, some of them probably are more qualified…)