You blame things on the bush administration

what do they do

turn and blame it on the Clinton administration!

When does this stop. With this logic, what is the point of presidency? I mean, is everything Clinton's fault even when you had an 8 year term in office? Such bullshit.

McCain comes to thought on his blaming N. Korea on Clinton admin. I thought he was a fair and balanced guy at one point. WTF dude? So, everythings clintons fault now!?!?

Boy, those GOPs' will do anything to protect their asses!


[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 1:04 AM. Reason : .]

10/11/2006 12:49:30 AM

hello and welcome to politics.

10/11/2006 12:51:11 AM

I think it's funny how you only think that politics suck because the Republicans try to blame the Democrats for everything and then fail to take a step back and realize that politics also suck because the Democrats try to blame the Republicans for everything.

Both parties are so busy trying to assign blame, and let's not forget about fighting over taking sole credit for things that the public views as favorable, that real productive things don't get done.

^ditto

10/11/2006 7:35:45 AM

WHEN WILL YOU PEOPLE REALIZE A TWO PARTY SYSTEM DOESNT WORK

10/11/2006 11:24:14 AM

"nowadays" would imply that politics havent always sucked?

10/11/2006 11:30:26 AM

just dont vote....THAT WILL SHOW THEM!!

10/11/2006 11:32:10 AM

Grapehead, nothing works really well. There is political scandal and restlessness under ALL party systems.

Besides, nothing says we have to have a two-party system. Go vote for a third party!

10/11/2006 11:34:41 AM

Quote :

" Besides, nothing says we have to have a two-party system. Go vote for a third party!"

It's kinda hard to do when the public mass gets all their info from the TV and a third party can't muster the funds to get their fair share of air time.

10/11/2006 11:42:38 AM

lets vote...even though the candidates are all money grubbing liars! lesser of two evils is the only choice!

10/11/2006 11:45:33 AM

bush hasn't been the best president or even a great one

but I can only imagine what would have happened if something like 9-11 had fallen on gores lap

10/11/2006 11:54:06 AM

What do you honestly think would have happened?

10/11/2006 12:14:02 PM

I don't know, but I can't see him doing any more than Bush has to prevent it


none of us know what he, or anyone else, inlcuding ourselves would have done

but damn, the biggest event to happen since pearl harbor is a hell of an issue to deal with

I don't completely agree with Iraq, but I do realize what he has on his plate and i do give him some benefit of the doubt

10/11/2006 12:20:48 PM

We need more parties, and by that, I mean 20 million dollar ones, celebrating our victory in the soap box.

10/11/2006 12:25:34 PM

^^ So you don't know what he would have done, but you do know that he wouldn't do more than Bush.

So which is it, you do or you don't know?



About your second comment, it's pretty hard to do more than president Bush. I can't imagine any other person starting a war with a country that had zero to do with 9/11 and wasn't a threat to the American people.

10/11/2006 12:28:07 PM

Quote :

"Boy, those GOPs' politicians will do anything to protect their asses!"

don't pretend it's only one side that does this...

10/11/2006 12:32:19 PM

Give me a more prevalent situation where Dems did it as much as Gops'!

This administration has blamed every fault on the Clinton admin. Its terrible. I know this is politics,and both sides point fingers but, damn.

And a third party system wouldnt be the answer. People just need to realize that taking office means taking responsibility.

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2006 12:55:18 PM

It's almost funny, but more just sad. Clinton was no saint, but he didn't kill 50,000 people for no good reason.

10/11/2006 12:57:25 PM

Bush killed 50,000 people

10/11/2006 1:01:32 PM

Actually, much more than that.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/index.html

"Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths"

10/11/2006 1:02:28 PM

^Maybe they should subtract from that number the amount of births that have taken place in Iraq if they are going to go down some of those paths for counting.

[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 1:06 PM. Reason : -]

10/11/2006 1:05:56 PM

If they're gonna play "blame" politics then we need to have another FDR in office. Four terms would be good enough, keep everything stable.

10/11/2006 1:07:42 PM

So Bush personally killed 655,000 people

Don't blame the actual bombers or insurgents or anything

10/11/2006 1:11:05 PM

Commander in chief baby, gotta love him.

10/11/2006 1:19:23 PM

he's the easiest one to blame when its convenient for you

10/11/2006 1:26:51 PM

What alternative would you suggest? Maybe Clay Aiken? Wait... Ceaser Milan: The Dog Whisperer. Man, I must not be thinking, I keep coming back to the Commander in Chief. Oh well.

10/11/2006 1:31:28 PM

make that 10K'th post count

10/11/2006 1:34:51 PM

If you are hell bent on blaming one person for every death in Iraq you might as well point the finger at Adam, possibly Eve.

10/11/2006 1:35:17 PM

I'm not blaming all the deaths on one person, that's just what treetwista would have you believe, and you do.

10/11/2006 1:43:37 PM

JFK killed so many people in Vietnam

10/11/2006 1:46:50 PM

Actually, if you're talking about North Korea, you could chain the blame all the way back to the Franklin Roosevelt or even the Teddy Roosevelt administration.

FDR gets flak because some idiot in his map office didn't quite grasp the concept of Korea being a single nation and thus drew a line down the middle, giving the northern half to the Soviets.

Teddy gets flak because he let the Japanese occupy Korea in the first place, thus helping to create the hotbed of resentment that gave Kim Il Sung, the Dear Leader's father, enough of a reputation so he could take over the North.

10/11/2006 2:20:58 PM

Quote :

"McCain comes to thought on his blaming N. Korea on Clinton admin. I thought he was a fair and balanced guy at one point. WTF dude? So, everythings clintons fault now!?!?"

what?

please stop now.


Blaming the Clinton administration for one thing, in this case, North Korea =/= "everythings clintons fault now"


And being fair and balanced doesn't mean "accepting responsibility on the part of the right for all the worlds problems."

10/11/2006 2:59:20 PM

In case you haven't heard, the Clinton admin was even blamed for 9/11
the entire bin laden fiasco
now this

earth to you, AxlBonBach

Quote :

" And being fair and balanced doesn't mean "accepting responsibility on the part of the right for all the worlds problems.""

It also dosn't mean blaming it on someone who hasn't been in power for nearly 8 yrs or 2 terms.

This is obviously Bush's fault. No one did anything when he lauched rockets off the coast of Japan a couple of months ago. He's going to go as far as WE let him.

If Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, it would be different case. He made this huge policy against wmds', eastern threats, when it wasn't called for. Now he has a case (N. Korea), in return he's done nothing. But blame the clinton admin. wow.


[Edited on October 11, 2006 at 3:16 PM. Reason : .]

10/11/2006 3:07:52 PM

Quote :

"Teddy Roosevelt"

is the only good thing I read in this thread. I'd support him (or a clone of his) for dictator-for-life.

10/11/2006 4:42:21 PM

Assigning blame seems like a human trait more than a 2 party trait. I'm not against having more parties, I even think there are some virtues associated with having more parties, but having a 3 party system would just be more people to assign blame to.

10/11/2006 5:19:27 PM

your hate for bush completely and totally skews your opinions of reality

thus missing the point of my post entirely.

10/11/2006 6:57:18 PM

Quote :

"It also dosn't mean blaming it on someone who hasn't been in power for nearly 8 yrs or 2 terms."

I believe it was Clinton and Co. who gave them our light-water reactors in the 90's, on the condition that they not use them for making bombs.

10/11/2006 7:23:32 PM

^yep...Madeline Albright went over there and made it happen...1994 IIRC

10/11/2006 7:37:37 PM

Quote :

"So Bush personally killed 655,000 people"

No, about 200,000:

Quote :

"The survey suggests that most of the extra deaths - 601,000 - would have been the result of violence, mostly gunfire, and suggests that 31% could be attributable to action by US-led coalition forces."

10/11/2006 9:09:50 PM

New war, same old story.

10/11/2006 9:13:16 PM

It's simply the built-in either-or fallacy of the two-party system. What do you expect with only two realistic choices?

10/12/2006 6:58:11 AM

Quote :

"FDR gets flak because some idiot in his map office didn't quite grasp the concept of Korea being a single nation and thus drew a line down the middle, giving the northern half to the Soviets."

But...but...that paralell...it just goes across the middle. If they had PowerPoint in the 1940s, I guarantee that would be like one of the best slides ever.

10/12/2006 10:18:54 AM