The vast Left Wing Conspiracy

Let's count

from JoeUser Forums

Ok, how many charges, and or convictions has the Bush Administration had.  Numbers anyone?  Please list.

Now, how many charges and convictions did the Clinton Administration have.  Shall we compare notes?

Hmmm, seems that if there is a VRWC and a VLWC, the Right has more oomph and firepower!  And more facts! 

Garsh!  But then most intelligent people already knew that.

politics
6,894 views 25 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
well ummm, errrrrrr ummmmmm, well, I ummm dunno/.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

well ummm, errrrrrr ummmmmm, well, I ummm dunno/.

How about 0 for Bush, and googles for Clinton?

Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush is the biggest criminal ever, look what he has done to this country.

Wake up fool.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush is the biggest criminal ever, look what he has done to this country.

Wake up fool.


Tell ya what we'll do. We'll wake up, when "you" go to sleep!
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Bush is the biggest criminal ever, look what he has done to this country.

Wake up fool.

You are the fool.  Name a crime.  Not a disagreement with what he has done, but a crime.  And dont give me lying.  Your fool is the biggest liar of any president.

You cant.  What a fool you are.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Tell ya what we'll do. We'll wake up, when "you" go to sleep!

I guess that means we are awake, as they have been zombies for about 13 years now.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Clinton Administration? Was the Clinton administration charged with anything or was Clinton charged?
I think if we compare notes neither administration was charged with anything criminal.

Compare what the two administrations did for the country. When Clinton left office the US had the largest surplus
in its history. George Bush, thanks to his costly war in Iraq, turned the largest surplus into the largest defect, and for what?

It's not as though Iraq posed a threat to the United States. Iraq couldn't succesfully invade Iran when the US and Russa was supporting Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction found and there are no links between Saddam's regime
and Al Qieda. You'll notice now that instead of talking about wmd's, the purpose of the US in Iraq is to bring democracy to the Middle East. I can't help being sceptical about Washingtons claims when I look at US history in bringing democracy to other parts of the world, such as South America.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I never understood why Clinton was classified as Left. He's a Right winger who talks the talk of the Left. So he bought a copy of a few Left-wing texts and then regurgitated them, that doesn't make him Left.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I never understood why Clinton was classified as Left. He's a Right winger who talks the talk of the Left. So he bought a copy of a few Left-wing texts and then regurgitated them, that doesn't make him Left.


Looking south, I see two parties. The right wing, socially conservative capitalist party, and the Republicans.

But seriously, from the outside looking in, the sorry ass excuse for a left in America does seem to suck pretty bad.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Clinton Administration? Was the Clinton administration charged with anything or was Clinton charged?
I think if we compare notes neither administration was charged with anything criminal.


No the Clinton administration itself was never charged with anything. Clinton himself was charged with perjury. But then again neither has the Bush administration nor Bush himself been charged either.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's not as though Iraq posed a threat to the United States.

That is the most telling statement you make.  It shows you in the mindset of Neville Chamberlain.  By your definition, unless they are bombing the white house, no one is a threat.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

I never understood why Clinton was classified as Left. He's a Right winger who talks the talk of the Left. So he bought a copy of a few Left-wing texts and then regurgitated them, that doesn't make him Left.

He is very left, who tacked to the center to get elected and re-elected.  Socialized Medicine is not a right concept.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

But seriously, from the outside looking in, the sorry ass excuse for a left in America does seem to suck pretty bad.

Well, we do agree on one thing then.

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Clinton himself was charged with perjury.

And he has the distinction of being the only elected president to be impeached.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
By your definition, unless they are bombing the white house, no one is a threat.


Can you explain how Iraq was dangerous or posed a threat to the United States?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

"It's not as though Iraq posed a threat to the United States."

That is the most telling statement you make.  It shows you in the mindset of Neville Chamberlain.  By your definition, unless they are bombing the white house, no one is a threat.


I never understood the wisdom of waiting until somebody becomes a threat before you take him out, especially when the somebody is a known mass murderer.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Can you explain how Iraq was dangerous or posed a threat to the United States?

Directly?  You dont consider US Pilots to be american?  Bad form.  Why dont you define what an American is then.

Indirectly, do you condone sponsoring suicide bombers?  If so, please check your brain at the nearest toxic dump.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

I never understood the wisdom of waiting until somebody becomes a threat before you take him out, especially when the somebody is a known mass murderer.

That is because you understand that evil men exist, and to do nothing just empowers them to do more.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
First off, if a country is willing to attack countries that don't threaten it, then what are the guidlines for invading a country? Obviously the US didn't invade Iraq simply because Saddam is evil and he needs to be removed for the people of Iraq. If this were true then the US wouldn't support and encourage countries like Ubekistan, Equatorial Guinea or Turkmenistan.
It's also interesting to point out how Reagan and Bush 1 supported Suddam while he was commiting crimes against his own people.
And to say that the US invaded Iraq because Iraq was dangerous towards US fighter pilots is completely outlandish. The US goes to war to put it's military less at risk? And nevermind suicide bombers attacking America, what documented evidence is there that Saddam sponsored suicide bombers at all?
What has the US gained from invading Iraq? The US has lost billions of dollars in resources that could have been spent elsewhere.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
what documented evidence is there that Saddam sponsored suicide bombers at all?


This is an easy reply. Saddam gave $25,000 to every Suicide bomber's family in Israel.Link
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's also interesting to point out how Reagan and Bush 1 supported Suddam while he was commiting crimes against his own people.


In contrast to widely held opinion among the left it is not important what is "interesting to point out" (and I don't argue that it is "interesting") but what is fact and can be proven.

I herewith challenge your statement and ask you if you can back up your claim AND tell me what it would take for you to accept that you are wrong.

As for Iraq's sponsorship of suicide bombers, I find it sad that there are people who have a strong opinion about Iraq and the invasion yet did not bother to read as much about it as it takes to even know what was on television. If all the left form their opinions like that, how can I take them seriously at all??? (Perhaps someone on the left can answer that?)
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

And nevermind suicide bombers attacking America, what documented evidence is there that Saddam sponsored suicide bombers at all?

Probably the $25,000 in the bank account of their familes after the fact.  Just a minor detail.

You can equivocate all the reasons and justifications you want to.  You can even liberate Saddam if that is your idea of justice.  But the facts remain.  You wanted them, you got them.  At least you switched to trying to trivialize the facts after being presented with them.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

This is an easy reply. Saddam gave $25,000 to every Suicide bomber's family in Israel

Beat me to the punch!  I should have read farther.

Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

I herewith challenge your statement and ask you if you can back up your claim AND tell me what it would take for you to accept that you are wrong.

I think he is referring to the Iran war.  Which since we did not bomb them into oblivion meant we supported what he was doing.

I guess then by his logic, the UN supports genocide in Sudan and Rwanda?  Nice outfit the UN.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
First off, if a country is willing to attack countries that don't threaten it, then what are the guidlines for invading a country? Obviously the US didn't invade Iraq simply because Saddam is evil and he needs to be removed for the people of Iraq. If this were true then the US wouldn't support and encourage countries like Ubekistan, Equatorial Guinea or Turkmenistan.
It's also interesting to point out how Reagan and Bush 1 supported Suddam while he was commiting crimes against his own people.


Got any proof?


And to say that the US invaded Iraq because Iraq was dangerous towards US fighter pilots is completely outlandish. The US goes to war to put it's military less at risk? And nevermind suicide bombers attacking America, what documented evidence is there that Saddam sponsored suicide bombers at all?
What has the US gained from invading Iraq? The US has lost billions of dollars in resources that could have been spent elsewhere.


Outlandish "you" say? So a complete violation of a "CEASE-FIRE" agreement means what exactly? Less than nothing in your book right?