OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 maybe because it's 2005 and Clinton isn't the President? Also, if you have been paying attention the past four or five years, Clinton is not "my boy" Wow - a clear admission of bias and hypocracy. Finally. Thank you for finally admitting that you are absolutely incapable of conducting honest debate. It's either that or you just simply don't get it, which is also pretty sad and pathethic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 You mean the way clinton's old enemies seemed to alwasy get a visit from the taxman? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I'll remember this post next time you call left wingers crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I'll remember this post next time you call left wingers crazy. All you need do is type "clinton" and "IRS" in google http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/newsletter/2002/0602c.shtml Clinton IRS Targeted Conservative Causes Liberal Groups Ignored Bill Clinton didn’t invent the politics of personal destruction, but he most certainly perfected the "art." During his tenure, and by any means necessary, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Al Gore threatened, intimidated and investigated their political opponents. Borrowing a page from the Nixon playbook and the Kennedy brothers, a central role in this strategy was reserved for the Internal Revenue Service. It all started back in 1996. Perceived Clinton adversary Joseph Farah and his conservative Western Journalism Center had begun to ask some very tough questions about the questionable circumstances surrounding the death of Clinton friend, business partner and White House Counsel, Vince Foster. Just as the media heat on the Clintons approached the boiling point, Bill Clinton personally ordered an audit of the WJC, and a cutthroat campaign to destroy Joseph Farah and the WJC was launched. Judicial Watch, as it has done for a number of Clinton targets, came to the WJC's defense. The Clinton IRS was first run by Hillary Rodham Clinton protégé Marjorie M. Richardson, who received a curious promotion from a volunteer in the Clinton-Gore 1992 campaign to IRS Commissioner. In addition to the targeting of the WJC, dozens of conservative activists and groups have been the subject of IRS harassment, including, the National Rifle Association, the Heritage Foundation, and Judicial Watch clients Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, former White House Travel Office Director Billy Dale, and Katherine Prudhomme, to name just a few. At the same time, liberal groups have been ignored. Not one liberal activist organization was audited by the IRS, including Jesse Jackson's Rainbow-Push Coalition, despite the fact that Jackson's mistress received thousands in "hush money" payments from the organization. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the conservative groups were audited, while every single liberal group escaped scrutiny," said Larry Klayman. "I’m not sure which is worse; that Bill Clinton's IRS committed this heinous violation of the law, or that the Bush Justice Department doesn't seem to care." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Meanwhile, I still want the names of the Senators/Congressmen who gave this story to the press Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 The point is, even though he can do this, he shouldn't. Not even to prevent a terrorist attack? And you wonder why People call liberals the enemy within. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Well under our administration the word terrorist is thrown around so loosely and conveniently, I wouldn't be suprised if the ACLU did show up.Everything is in the name of terrorism these days. Tommy Chong - We did it for terrorism Quakers protesting the war - Al Qaeda Apologists Medical Marijuana - the drug of choice for the rejectionists Don't want to reform Social Security - Saddamist Not for redefining the tax code - Stop spitting on our Troops Nice. When in doubt, just make stuff up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Nice. When in doubt, just make stuff up. Revisionism is a left-wing specialty much in the same way that being delusional is a left-wing characteristic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Not even to prevent a terrorist attack? And you wonder why People call liberals the enemy within. :doh:Normal people don't call liberals "the enemy within" right wing extremists do. Walk into a bar full of normal people and say that...then have someone else ask them what they think of you later when you are gone. It will be a valuable lesson in "most people think extremists from both sides are nuts" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Normal people don't call liberals "the enemy within" right wing extremists do. Walk into a bar full of normal people and say that...then have someone else ask them what they think of you later when you are gone. It will be a valuable lesson in "most people think extremists from both sides are nuts" Actually, normal people would say that, yes, it is better to save human lives than adopt a narrow, defeatist, factually incorrect (despite what the terrorist apologists in the media say), and radical leftist agenda-driven interpretation of FISA. God, I wish the left would just jump off the side of the mountain. Oh wait, they already have... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Actually, normal people would say that, yes, it is better to save human lives than adopt a narrow, defeatist, factually incorrect (despite what the terrorist apologists in the media say), and radical leftist agenda-driven interpretation of FISA. God, I wish the left would just jump off the side of the mountain. Oh wait, they already have... So then in your mind normal people sound exactly like you? Interesting theory. I'll stick with mine and say average Joe America thinks poorly of political wing nuts from both sides. This would explain why all Presidential hopefuls run to the center and try to pretend to be moderates come election season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 So then in your mind normal people sound exactly like you? Interesting theory. I'll stick with mine and say average Joe America thinks poorly of political wing nuts from both sides. This would explain why all Presidential hopefuls run to the center and try to pretend to be moderates come election season. So your definition of a "political wing nut" is someone that doesn't agree with the statement that it is better to save human lives from an impending terrorist attack, than it is to adopt a narrow, self-defeating, revisionist, cowardly, dangerous, baseless, and politically motivated interpretation of FISA? Ok. Maybe if you live in Cuba or Syria. Please Destino, do us all a favor, and purchase that one way ticket to Damascus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 So your definition of a "political wing nut" is someone that doesn't agree with the statement that it is better to save human lives from an impending terrorist attack, than it is to adopt a narrow, self-defeating, revisionist, cowardly, dangerous, baseless, and politically motivated interpretation of FISA? Ok. Maybe if you live in Cuba or Syria. Please Destino, do us all a favor, and purchase that one way ticket to Damascus. I was very clear....I would define people that label their political opposition as "the enemy within" as political wingnuts. If I need someone to put words in my mouth I'll let you know Oakton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OaktonSkins/BushFan Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 I was very clear....I would define people that label their political opposition as "the enemy within" as political wingnuts. If I need someone to put words in my mouth I'll let you know Oakton. That's called a logically valid inference. Make your bed, now sleep in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 That's called a logically valid inference. Make your bed, now sleep in it.I disagree. What that is, is obvious intellectual dishonesty on your part. Like I said, I was clear. If you failed to understand that the first time, I have at this point repeated it. Continue to pretend otherwise and you will only strengthen my conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Id have to agree that anyone that quotes Michael Savage as a norm is not in the 89%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 The hyperbole on this board really is getting pretty bad. I wish folks would tone the rhetoric down a bit. Even if we vehemently disagree, that is not a reason to ditch civil discourse. It is starting to make this a far less attractive place to discuss issues in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.