Is this Clinton's fault too?

Question

the sinking of the titanic? Is it Republicans?

Is it Clinton's fault that Bush is the dullest tool in the shed?

Answer 1

All the anti-Clinton talk that you and I see here is the result of Rush Limbaugh's decade of drug dependence. It has distorted his moral and political judgment and destroyed enough brain cells to reduce the fat man to a jibbering idiot who can think in only one mode, all the time. His mind is stuck on a loop repeating the highlights of his shows from the Clinton years. Those close to him aver the fat sack of fertilizer doesn't know it's 2000 yet.

And as Rush goes, so goes the neocon puppet retard nation.

Answer 2

It's nuts! This whole politics game. It is not about running the country fairly or squarely, but about playing the game of politics.
We would all be in better shape if those in power did their job.. which is running the country in the best way they HONESTLY see fit and stop going after the money ( for re-election ). Time to kick this game board over.
I am joining a third party. Both Dems and Reps need an awakening call.

Answer 3

We could go back in history ad nauseum and find fault with every president for something. Clinton is no exception....but the recent trendiness of blaming him for everything under the sun is getting old. Did he screw up several key issues? Yup, no doubt. But he is not sitting in the Oval Office right now. Rather than frothing about hypothetical shoulda-woulda-coulda's, it seems to make more sense to look at who is presently in charge and ask why THAT person isn't doing what is in their power to do right now to improve things. We can't go backwards, people, and blaming current situations on someone who no longer has the power to do anything about anything seems rather counter-productive, IMO.

Your point is well taken, but really only serves to stir the muck.

Answer 4

Actually, Bush getting elected could be seen as being Clinton's fault. If Clinton hadn't been so tainted by scandal, then it would not have dribbled down and hurt the public opinion of Gore, then maybe Bush would not have been elected in the first place.

Answer 5

we republicans are just learning from the best "bush lied, kids died", "Hurricane Katrina is all Bush's doing!" "so is world hunger" we don't blame clinton for half as many things as Dems blame Bush for! if you would read some sort of news, you would know this.

Answer 6

Yep, that's clinton's fault too. Just like iluv you said, the USS Cole and Mogadishu is clinton's fault too. so was rangel's dilemna about the hottest babe in Congress, pelosi or hillary.

Answer 7

Good question! This kind of reminds me of a stupid question that a Republican posted not too long ago in which he tried to make the point that Democrats were ruthless warmongers. What example did he use? The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, believe it or not! Instead of trying to find a more recent example, this person had to look all the way back to 1945. And not only that, but this person seemed to forget the reason why we dropped the atomic bombs in the first place.

Answer 8

Brittle steel, bulkheads that didn't go full height of the hull, and an owner that wanted to set a new speed record.

Answer 9

Ask the Sailors and Marines who died on the USS Cole what they think of Bill.

Ask the Rangers and Delta Force troops that died in Mogadishu what they think of Bill.

Oh right, they can't.

Answer 10

What surplus cannon ball?

The government has been borrowing the Social Security surplus and spending it on general government programs for several years. The net effect has been to disguise the true size of budget deficits in past years. For example, in fiscal year 1995, the government experienced a $226.4 billion deficit in its operating budget. However, since the Social Security Trust Fund had a surplus of $62.4 billion that year, the government simply borrowed the Social Security surplus and spent it as part of it general operating budget. The $62.4 billion Social Security surplus was deducted from the $226.4 billion deficit and the government reported an official deficit of only $164 billion.
In 1997, since there was a surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund of $81.4 billion, the actual $103.4 billion on-budget deficit was reduced by that amount and the government reported a total deficit of only $22.0 billion. It was in 1998 that the American people first had the wool pulled over their eyes on a grand scale. In that year, the operating budget of the federal government was still in the red with an actual deficit of $30 billion. It was the $99.2 billion surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund that enabled the government to report a budget surplus of $69.2 billion. During a year in which the United States Government spent $30 billion more than it collected in general revenue, it announced that there was a $69.2 billion overall surplus!


From that point on, the American people seemed to believe that there truly was excess money in the federal budget, and cunning politicians began building schemes to further mislead the people into believing that money was available for new programs and/or for cutting taxes. Any reader who has doubts about whether the government had a deficit or surplus in 1998 need only check out the size of the national debt in 1997 and 1998. The United States Treasury Department maintains a web site on the internet that provides public debt figures updated on a daily basis.
The total debt at the end of 1997 was $5,369.7 billion ($5.37 trillion). By the end of 1998, the debt had risen to $5,478.7 billion ($5.48 trillion). How could the national debt rise by $109 billion if the government had a $69.2 billion surplus? It couldn’t. The United States Government had to borrow $30 billion to pay the on-budget deficit. In addition, since the Social Security Surplus was all invested in United States Treasury securities as required by law, the governments debt to the Social Security fund also went up.