This Sunday President Clinton appeared on FoxNews (first time ever) to promote his global health initiative. As you might expect, the interview didn't stay on that topic very long.

About a third of the way through the interview, Chris Wallace brings up the standard FoxNews talking point of blaming Clinton for 9/11 by not killing Bin Laden in the 1990s. Well, President Clinton wasn't having any of that. What follows is our ex-president giving Chris Wallace of FoxNews a good ol' fashioned verbal ass-whoopin'!

It's a joy to see and the link is here:

• http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/

Perhaps just as funny (on a slightly baser level) is the taunting website that has just appeared, ridiculing FoxNews:

• http://www.foxnews.justgotowned.com/

X

At some point the Democrats are going to have to share power with Republicans - this is a democracy after all. However, the Republicans have earned themselves a timeout for bad behavior.

They need to sit quietly in the corner while the adults fix some of the nation's more pressing problems. After a suitable period of time (maybe 1 1/2 years), more equitable parliamentary rules can be introduced.

General Jack O' Neil could wipe the floor with those sissy Jacks any day of the week.

In Texas it is considered a sexual offense to engage in “sexual contact” with anyone younger than 17 to whom you are not married. Sexual contact is defined as touching the anus, breast or genitals, including touching through clothing, with the intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire. (Penal Code Ch. 21, Section 21.11)

So, basically, a couple of 16 year olds messing around in the back seat are guilty of sexual offenses.

It is an affirmative defense if the perpetrator is not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex and not a licensed sex offender.

But I've always wondered--if both are 16, who is the perpetrator and who is the victim??

I wonder if people who say things like, "the conclusions of modern science are not to be trusted" fly in airplanes? It seems to me that flying in an airplane requires an awful lot of...um...faith in modern science, if you'll pardon the word. I also wonder if he takes medicine, uses a cell phone, drives a car and, on the whole, enjoys the, oh dear, "fruits" of modern science. I don't think you can have it both ways. If modern science has so botched the job with evolution, then surely airplanes shouldn't fly, nuclear bombs shouldn't explode, and I shouldn't be instantaneously transmitting my thoughts halfway across the continent on my slick new laptop...which just happens to be an Apple :)

Hey Dan. How's it hangin? I hope you're not being too tempted by the forbidden fruits of knowledge here at Salon.

So you said, "But evolution is not science. Neither is archeology and much of astronomy." I seem to recall a couple of fellows named Galileo and Copernicus (early astronomers perhaps?) that got into trouble with the church for saying things like the earth is not the center of the universe. The reason the church had a problem with these radicals (probably liberals) is because their crazy scientific theories contradicted many parts of the bible like below:

Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and Chronicles 16:30 state that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." Psalm 104:5 says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."

Now I don't want to be the one to pee in your garden of Eden, but it seems to me that the bible got this one wrong. And if the bible is wrong about the earth being the center of the universe, there's a good chance that the bible just might be wrong on the whole evolution thing as well. When it comes to science, the church always seems to be about 400 years behind.

>> but every woman needs other "breeders" to replenish the the society that supports you, oh Selfish One, in your old age.

Hang on a second! I've been paying school taxes for nigh on ten years now, and will continue to help put YOUR children through school until I die. I also subsidize the student lunch program, city playgrounds, the V-Chip and a whole host of other child-friendly government programs that benefit me not at all. And to top it off, you get a nice tax deduction for every kid you make.

I'm more than happy to help out our nation's future, but how dare you accuse me of being selfish for collecting a little Social Security in my old age when I've spent my entire life subsidizing your little rug rats you ungrateful son of a bitch!

I usually love being around kids. They make life worth living...but when you have 300+ people crammed onto a 767 on a 10+ hour flight across the Atlantic, and there's that one child screaming at the top of their lungs the ENTIRE trip, I want to rip his adorable little head off and drop-kick it into First Class. Please, for the love of God, do not put your fellow man/woman through this hell! If you must travel with a baby, entertain it, medicate it, gag it, I don't care. Think of it as your contribution to world peace.

Let's also not forget other successful protests like the March for Womens' Lives in 2004 where over a million people marched on the capital to support a woman's right to choose:

http://www.now.org/history/slideshows/march2004/

Protesting is alive and well in the U.S, but you only get serious network time if there is violence associated. Regardless of whether or not the mainstream media deigns to turn their cameras in your direction, I highly recommend everyone do at least one good protest in their lives. Protests are one of the purest forms of democracy in action, and you become an active part of history in the making.