Why do Conservacrooks always talk about Clinton when I ask them about Bush?

Question

Clinton lied - In answer to questions he never should have been asked. About something he did in private that was not illegal. There is no proof of any other allegations.

Bush lied (I'm tired of cutting and pasting links to the VOLUMES of proof of it, google it yourself concrooks. IT IS A FACT) about things that resulted in our troops dying, billions wasted in a pointless "war", torture of innocent civilians who were held without due process, and so many other things it makes my stomach churn. Oh - and he broke his oath.

The sheer magnitude of the differences in Clintons "crime" vs Bush's absolute flat out f*cking us up the @ss is unbelievable. Yet you still defend the crook. He IS going to be impeached or prosecuted for his crimes. Bet on it.

Bring it on babypussy!

Ace - learn to spell - maybe that why your name is so short......

wmichgoon - Google it and stick it up your @ss

insaneaxar..whatever - Prove it. Liar!

Another brilliant comeback from DoucheSquirter

Schoolisanegrope - Where the f*ck did you learn that? Bubbas Truck Drivin and Divinity school?

Pig poop - thanks - I'll remember that. Red herring

joey - the number after your name has to be your IQ. The republitards on here can count it out on their toes. Marry me.

Answer 1

Because they do not have an argument. It is that simple.

When they turn the tables on you and if you fall for it, the focus is off of their guy. Dishonest ppl do this. We, democrats, are honest ppl and we seek honest answers when we ask a question about why or how or when... that is why they catch us off guard sometimes with this deceiving defense.

Here is what I say as soon as I hear or see the word Clinton, "Did you know Clinton was not president anymore?... just wondering because I thought I'd let you know that since you keep talking about him... once again, Clinton is NOT president so you know..."

You can also counter their ignorance by bringing up Reagan's Iran/Contra scandal or Bush Sr.'s World Bank scandal and the fact that both of them used trickle down economics that never trickled and left us with a record breaking deficit. They both also dropped the ball big time on Iraq... there was an actual attempt at a revolution in Iraq in the 80s.. revolution is when you actually DO INVADE because that is when the ppl are asking for help. They both chose to sit on the sidelines.

Also, Reagan armed B.Laden in Afghanistan because Laden was fighting a Russian, communist at the time, invasion there. Reagan's main goal was to bring down communism.. that is why he did this. You could say that Reagan actually armed the terrorist that hate us today.

Bush did lie to those answerer's who are ignorant to facts and politics.

If you would like proof of this with CIA, Bush offices and high ranking military personnel interviews who were involved in giving Bush the information... they have gone on record as saying he knew he was lying in the 2002 State of the Union address about WMDs, then watch
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

Frontline is the most credible news source in the world and practically every year wins the truth in journalism award.

Answer 2

It is rather easy to answer your question.

The cons cannot respond logically and defend their idol, because they know what the Bush junta does is plain wrong. They cannot argue 130000+ people back to life. They cannot say anything to make the 300+ billion that were sunk into Iraq reappear. They do not have a spell to let Osama bin Laden show up in handcuffs on Fox "News", no matter how much they like it.

Talking about Clinton has multiple reasons.
A) They knew he was one of the best presidents this country ever had and tearing down his image (psychologically) weakens the position of the democratic voters.
B) He had sex outside his marriage, which in the minds of the bible thumpers is a grave offense since they obey the law and the bible always. Well... let's conveniently forget about all those bible thumping priests that got with the little kids.
C) Deflection. By talking about something else, like Clinton, they can deflect discussion about their failures.
D) If they would rip on Bush they would deny their voting and by that assume guilt. If a puppetdent such as Bush is an idiot, liar, war criminal and thief, they would be as guilty if they would waver in their support. Perfectly according to: "If one follows and prays to an idiot, what does that make this person?". So in order for them not to be accused of being idiots, liars, war criminals and thieves, they have to defend the Bush junta.

Answer 3

Obama's camp change into calling the Clintons racists merely many years in the past, my how issues replace. So what if Romney has no courting with Bush? Bush chooses to stay an fairly quiet life at the moment. it really is his decision.

Answer 4

A friend of mine has two kids and other 10 month and when the older one is caught in some mismatch asked the answer is either baby also does it or mon also does it or dad also do it.

Since they cant defend they tend to play a blaming game.

That also shows their priorities.

For them a BJ is more of an issue than someone lying and getting 2000+ soilders and 100000+ innocent people killed over bunch of lies so that guys from Haliburton can make money.

Answer 5

They used to pull the same stunt during the Watergate scandal. They would bring up Ted Kennedy whenever anyone went after Nixon. It is an old playground tactic we learn in childhood. Divert attention from the issue at hand, and try to put the focus on something else. It's called a "red herring." They use this tactic, when they have no intelligent answer to your question.

Answer 6

Cons try to change the subject to Clinton because they know Bush is a war criminal.

Conservatives are actively supporting Christian terrorism with these wars.

We must eliminate both Islamic and Christian terrorism through non-violent ways and that is to vote for a candidate who is for peace.

Answer 7

How true. How true. Those idiots cannot think. Some fool just asked a question about Clinton and Monica. They STILL want to talk about Clinton to keep ignorant people from focusing on Bush trying to rule the world, or destroy it trying. God help us.

Answer 8

You make it sound so simple which it isn't. First, Clinton lied UNDER OATH, which is an impeachable offense - the very basis of our justice system.

I don't agree with you that Bush lied - but even if you do believe that - Bush did not lie UNDER OATH. Lying is not illegal if it is not under oath. Policemen do it every day of the year in order to get someone to admit to a crime. It is not illegal to lie unless it is under oath. Otherwise we would all be in prison.

Answer 9

Actually it is a straight forward way of answering a question called a "comparison".

Clinton was actually on the job in his office when he did it.
There are many people who had proof against Bill and Hillary that have mysteriously died or disappeared. Hundreds of them from Arkansas on.
Bush believes in the war against terror.

Answer 10

Smokescreens. They have faith in Bush; faith is believing in what you cannot see, and implies ignoring what you can see. You are deal with religious fervor.