We don't BASH Carter, we don't BASH Clinton. We simply ask you why you liberals can overlook their failed policies and justify them in your liberal kind of way, and yet, you seem to think everything from a broken garden hose, to a bridge collapse is Bush's fault. We use Clinton and Carter in our arguments that you have a double liberal standard and are nothing but hypocrites. Other than that, I have no use for Clinton or Carter.
2007-08-17 03:20:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by libsticker 7
·
6⤊
5⤋
I guess you will have to look at the Republicans for an example of what to did since they had the same problem after they no longer had Bill (I love cigars) Clinton to blame everything on. It is all politics no matter which side you are on. Your question implies that the Reps are somehow different from the Dems. The only difference is the Dems take money from the middle class and "give" it to the poor for more votes and the Reps take the money from the middle class and give it to business and special interest groups for votes. They both want illegal aliens to become citizens, Dems for votes and Reps for cheap labor. They are both sure they can spend your money better than you can. They both have the best ways to solve every problem in the world when they are not in power and become suddenly stupid when they get the power. Two sides of the same coin, they are both in it for the power.
2007-08-17 03:30:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by georges10 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Liberals don't really play the blame game, that's a Rove Republican theme.
By B.D.S., I believe you mean Bush derangement syndrome? That's an old old talking point. For the last three years it's been extremely apparent that many of our problems are, in fact, due to the dangerous path that Bush has put us on.
2007-08-19 21:54:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Lets flip it around and take a look.
Who did GOP'ers blame for all of Bush's failures?
Ding Ding Ding!!!
That's right - Clinton!!!
Years after he was gone!!! Why? Because of a BJ!!!
The difference is that Clinton handed Bush a budget surplus, and a vibrant, sustainable economy. Maybe not perfect, but a hell of a lot better than Dubya's train wreck.
Anyone still blaming Bush years after he leaves will actually have a valid argument, since we are still going to be stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, and over half a trillion dollars in debt - just for this misguided invasion and occupation.
2007-08-17 03:30:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
BDS will be around for a while and Bush will still get blamed after some one else is in the oval office.
2007-08-17 03:14:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
You guys still blame clinton after 7 years. So we will use bush for just as long.
2007-08-17 07:43:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Kevy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bush, ultimately, may be responsible for the deaths of millions of Americans.
According to recent reports by the US Department of State and a consensus of America’s 16 Intelligence Agencies, our continuing presence in Iraq is only making the situation there worse; Bush Administration policy is responsible for making terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda larger, stronger, and more popular then ever – and for breeding an entire new generation of anti-America radical Islamic terrorists.
And, that is a bizarre question considering conservatives have blamed Clinton for every lame decision and stupid move Bush has made for the last 7 years. Maybe once Bush is out of office he will receive the just blame he deserves for his treasonous actions against the American people and his general pathologically criminal buffoonery.
2007-08-17 03:24:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋
Well, since you right-wing nuts are still blaming Bill Clinton six years after he left office... Jimmy Carter 26 years later... LBJ 38 years later... JFK 43 years later... FDR 62 years later... I figure the harmful effects of the Bush maladministration will still be around for many years, so we can still blame him. You'll notice we don't blame Ronald Reagan (18 years out of office) for arming Iran, Iraq and the proto-Taliban nearly as much as you guys blame Carter and Clinton for "enabling" them. So we, as usual, have the moral high ground.
2007-08-17 03:36:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
They will blame it on the obstructionist Republicans in Congress and Right-wing radio. They will also blame Bush. You do not hear Bush constantly piss and moan about what Clinton did or did not do but if Hillary is elected (Allah willing) you can count on her constantly blaming Bush for all her inadequacies in dealing with problems.
2007-08-17 03:20:05
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
Give it 8-12 years before the memory of Bush fades. In 08', if Rudy or Fred take office it'll be GDS or TDS. You can take that to the bank.
2007-08-17 03:23:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Democrats could follow the Republican lead, who still blame the Carter (!) administration, from 30 years ago, and, the Clinton administration on a wide number of issues. Otherwords, blame Bush for any problems...
2007-08-17 03:19:35
·
answer #11
·
answered by alphabetsoup2 5
·
2⤊
2⤋