Quote:

Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

PJP said:
Oh and they probably would have pardoned Vince Foster if they didn't murder him in his office.



The same can be said of then-DNC-Chairman Ron Brown, who died in a plane crash over Bosnia. Right after he was in danger of being indicted, and said: "If I'm going down, I'm not going down alone."



Quote:

the G-man said:
Now, now, PJ, that hasn't been proven.

(Of course, the fact that allegations against Republicans are unproven has never stopped MEM)



Pretty much. Although it's not proven in a court of law, it is annoying that Dems hold Republicans to a higher standard than they hold their own to.

Any conspiracy theory about Republicans is always assumed to be fact by liberals.
But if Republicans even mention the possibility that liberals are involved in conspiracies, it's considered malicious and right-wing-whacko.

When I mention these conspiracy theories about Democrats (Vince Foster, Ron Brown, etc.) I at least do it in the context that while I beleive it to be true, it hasn't been proven.

Would that liberals here and elsewhere would do the same, when attacking Republicans.
Instead, they just repeat the allegation, until sheer repetition makes the average person on the street believe it's absolute fact.



Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Same old same old from the Bush pom pom squad. One minute so righteous about "Republicans do it too" until it's convenient to trot out "Dems do it too". Plus the usual BS allegations. tsk tsk.



Maybe you were addressing someone else, MEM, because I never mentioned George W. Bush in my quoted comments. My comments were about Clinton, and the standard of evidence, of both parties, during Clinton's administration.

I simply pointed out that these are allegations against Democrats (the deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster, that conveniently prevented the Clintons from being indicted or implicated). I (and other conservatives) made clear the difference between proven and un-proven, allegations, and that while I believe the allegations, I can (and clearly did) acknowledge and make clear that they are not proven.

What you label as "B.S. allegations" are clearly defined by me as allegations (and not proven in court or evidence).
But where you spin it as B.S., I make clear that while the crimes cannot be proven, I don't believe Clinton and his administration are innocent. Just that conclusive evidence of their crimes does not exist.

And I didn't play ambiguous "Republicans/Dems do it too" games.
Both sides do play their dirty tricks.
But I find the Democrat side much more cynical and malicious, in their repeating unprovenallegations about Republicans as if they were fact.
("Bush knew", "blood for oil", "October surprise"...)
And repeating them relentlessly, through sheer repetition of the allegation, to the point that all but the most informed accept these unproven allegations as if they were proven.

To some degree, both sides play the same rhetorical political games.

But the Democrats are far more prone to vicious personal attacks, and smearing their opposition with unproven allegations.

You should tsk tsk yourself.

  • from Do Racists have lower IQ's...

    Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.

    EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.