Hey, jshore, we heard you the first time! 
I’m terribly sorry to hear you are starving, but once you’ve found something to eat, perhaps you could come back and provide a factual basis for the premise you’ve sort of obliquely laid out above. At least then there might be something worth debating in this thread.
::finishing dinner::Ahhh…
Thanks, El, for your concern. I do feel better now that I ate. Perhaps, though, you could give me a pass on the factual basis for my premise pending the factual basis for the premise of yours, which I was parodying, in which you put words in the (often most amusing) mouth of our friend Milum.
I would be much more inclined to believe she felt she was helping protect America from the possible consequences of Iraq having WMD, than she was in giving “blowjobs to Bushies.”
Hey, don’t mind me; I was just trying to suss out what exactly Milum wanted to discuss here, since his OP didn’t make a whole lotta sense as a debate topic. I figure if he disagrees with the premise as I put it, he can help me understand where I got it wrong. Cheers.
rjung, I am greatly disappointed to find that you have vastly overrated milum’s wit, intelligence, and honesty.
Cheers to you as well, my friend.
We are all friends here, right? If not, my apologies. 
While they may share similar artistic inspirations, dear departed dec was markedly more technically adept.
Yeah, but not nearly as funny!
[Moderator Hat ON]
Guys, if you want to discuss at length a poster’s shortcomings while adding nothing substansive to debate, do it in the Pit. Munch, do NOT call posters a troll. Milum, did you actually have something to debate? If you just want to annouce that Bill Clinton’s book got a bad review, that should be in Cafe Society.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
One debate point could be whether or not the reviews in the “elite, liberal media” are to be believed.
Another could be whether or not the Clinton haters are so outraged at the popularity of Clinton and the book’s obvious attraction to the public that they will have group apoplexy.
And if she’d been employed by the Bush Administration, or by a right-wing congressperson or think-tank, she would have had every justification for doing so in a manner as uncritical as hers.
But she was - in theory, at least - a reporter. And with that job comes checking facts, ensuring that your stories are adequately sourced, and stuff like that.
But if she just wants to be a stenographer for the folks on one side of the political spectrum, I understand the Washington Times, Fox News, and the WorldNetDummy occasionally have openings.
Pardon me Adminstrator Gaudere, but I am not sure that you understand the situation. I have four counts of misconduct pending over in Cafe Society for simply asking if a guy who was promoting Slick Willie’s book if he was a shill. He said he wasn’t and the Moderator over there believed him, so I think it best for the time being to limit my posts to Great Debates where the Moderators (such as you) are more understanding.
Please accept this addendum to my Opening Proposition…
** Will the liberals of this board (and their numbers are legion ) pan Bill Clinton’s book because the liberal but erudite New York Times Book review has pronounced the book bad?
or
will they pan the book because it is bad
or
will they pan the book to keep Kerry front stage so that he has a chance to beat Bush?**
I myself say that most will pan Clinton’s book because it is dull and only an anal few will bother to read the 957 rambling pages to the finish. 
So it’s your position that even though most of the countries in the Middle East, Europe, the U.N. the CIA, the FBI, Bill Clinton, and GWB all had apparently erroneous information (which may or may not be the case as Iraq could still have shipped their WMD elsewhere), she, as a reporter, should have been able to discern the real truth, and thus reported her stories based on her abilities as a fortune teller…I suppose.
Well, Milum, since you’re clamoring for my opinion on all this…
Couldn’t care less. Don’t know anybody who gives a shit, and I know a lot or liberals, radicals, and bears (oh, my!).
Ex-President, feh. Next President, now there’s an issue.
Let me see if I have this straight. The Bushites pan a movie they haven’t seen (Fahrenheit 911). They pan a book they haven’t read…(My Life) and they do this purely on words of others.
Bush isn’t the only puppet here folks.
You seem to misunderstand something.
Liberals don’t get behind their chosen figure and hail him as an emperor, like you’re used to doing with Ronnie (RIP) and Bushie. Many liberals (and most leftists) were fairly displeased with Clinton.
Also, apparently unlike yourself, we tend to like to read things on our own (that means without help from mommy and daddy) and make our own opinions, instead of getting told what to do by our favorite magazine, newspaper, or talking head. It may be a hard thing for your mind to understand, by please try to bear with us as we take the time to get to know what we’re talking about before doing a victory dance and popping the bubbly.
Maybe so, I frankly don’t care.
However, I bet Bush’s will be 87 pages in size 4 font colored red, with coloring pictures for you to do when your attention wanders from the hard to read words.
You give duhbya to much credit. He won’t write it at all. Hell, I doubt he remembers much about it. But it will be a ghostwritten coloring book.
How do you form your opinions and beliefs, Reeder? I would be willing to bet it’s by reading, watching television, listening to the input of others you know. It’s the same with movies and books. It isn’t absolutely necessary to have first-hand experience regarding a particular subject, otherwise I doubt you’d be qualified to hold most of the opinions and beliefs you do.
Let me try to explain to you why this is so. Most Republican presidents *stand *for something. They have particular beliefs regarding what is right and wrong, certain moral standards, and by and large and to the degree they are able to do so and still work with Congress, etc., they hold to them, even if it ultimately puts their re-election in peril.
Democrat presidents, on the other hand, seem to have very little in the way of pre-existing morals and/or established personal beliefs. Much like Clinton, they govern to win last night’s polls and next year’s election.
The supporters of Republican presidents know what to expect from them, are in agreement with their positions on most things, and know they count on a Republican president to try to accomplish what they want him to.
Democrat presidents, because of the reasons I point out above, are constantly going in and out of favor with their constituents because their positions and stances on the various issues are so ephemeral. They can’t be counted on or trusted to do what they say they’ll do.
Republican presidents are voted on by virtue of their character and beliefs. For the most part, democrat presidents are voted in, not because of their character and beliefs, but because of the social issues it is believed they will champion.
Therefore, Repbulican constituencies tend to be more loyal and supportive of their presidents than do Democrat constituencies that at best have to just *hope *their man will do what they thought he’d do, but often doesn’t because to do so is no longer politically expedient.