Why is everything the President's fault?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit
Wow, isn't it amazing how Clinton never received similar treatment, then again, perhaps I'm just a partisan hack.

to what treatment are youi referring?
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
He is reffering in case you are too young to remember the ENDLESS b1tching about everything by righties over a 8 year period, blah blah the sky is falling "I had to pay sales tax today for motor oil, dagumit! its clinton!"

Difference is foxnews and limbaugh and the other right wing smear machines were on 24/7 attack ON the administration, now righties act like talking sh1t about the prez makes you a traitor or something.

Thing is clinton was a idiot for getting his d1ck sucked and getting caught, whearas bush gets people killed and wanders around with 0 accountability making all americans look likes asses.

So yeah, people complain, matter of fact people worldwide are downright p1ssed.

Plenty of good ideas how to better things, but the right wing corporate smear machine does not give a voice and would rather put the same dumbazz weak public figures up for basiclly making idiots out of them

Do you ever think you would see people with real gripes and thought out arguments like how you righties get owned in here daily on fox, not on your life, all you see is bashing of hillary, and dean going yaaargh! the right owns the stage and sets the play, its up to partisan fools to follow along and state that the left has no ideas from a biased view of what the right shows you, ignorance is bliss.

One of the big differences you see is the lack of critical thinking from the right, when clinton was screwing up the lefties would admit it, laugh at his foolishness and carry on, same reason you dont see lefties endlessly defending hillary, WE ALL know the 2 party system is crap, and the canidates handed us are BS, sadly the right comes in here daily and defends the president like you owe him something regardless if he is shafting you, its like some faith based cult, which is why terms like fascists get thrown around, unfaultering buying of bs like our future is some football game, gooo team.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,080
5,452
136
Don't forget that limbaugh aka "anal cyst my way out of Viet Nam" mercilessly attacked Chelsea as well, I think she was around 12 at the time. What a big man he is...
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,757
11,378
136
Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Don't forget that limbaugh aka "anal cyst my way out of Viet Nam" mercilessly attacked Chelsea as well, I think she was around 12 at the time. What a big man he is...

Literally, he is quite a big man.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
He is reffering in case you are too young to remember
LOL.. there you go with your assumptions again. I'am plenty old enough to remember, as my first presidential vote was for Bush Sr. vs. Clinton...

That said, I believe that you are sortof comparing apples and oranges. On one hand you had a President committing obviously criminal acts (adultery, illegal campaign financing, unethical pardons, etc), while on the other you have a President walking the fine line of legalities in a time of war; a time when all laws shift in favor of the President in terms of what he is or is not allowed to do with his power.

Clinton = caught in, and admitted to, blatant criminal activities.
Bush = accused of running roughshod with power; but, as of now, hs not commited a blatant crime, or a proven one.

apples and oranges in my book...
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,757
11,378
136
And the "Oranges" was the most thoroughly investigated president in history. What did they get him on? Not campaign financing, not murder, not lying us into a war, not blowing the cover of a CIA agent, not illegal wiretapping. No, they got him on getting a BJ from a fat chick. Oh no. You're absolutely right. Rotten Apples and Oranges.

Fine line of legalities. HA!
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74

Bush = accused of running roughshod with power; but, as of now, hs not commited a blatant crime, or a proven one.

Just wait, his turn is coming. He is so hated that I'm sure once things have changed politcally that people will support going after him after he's no longer President.
 

DZip

Senior member
Apr 11, 2000
375
0
0
When you have no solutions of your own, blame someone else. This works with spouse, parents, boss, and even the President of the United States.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: DZip
When you have no solutions of your own, blame someone else. This works with spouse, parents, boss, and even the President of the United States.

Gee, that sounds just like what Bush does!!
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,757
11,378
136
Originally posted by: DZip
When you have no solutions of your own, blame someone else. This works with spouse, parents, boss, and even the President of the United States.

Shinseki, Clarke, Brown, ........ The list continues.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
Is this how it has always been? I was too young to remember anyone before Bush.

& what I mean is that everyone blames the President for everything.

SO whose fault is it, Clinton's??
 

tommywishbone

Platinum Member
May 11, 2005
2,149
0
0
Mission accomplished.

Car Bombers Kill 14 Near Baghdad Airport By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer
34 minutes ago, May 15, 2006.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A pair of suicide car bombers killed 14 people Sunday in the biggest insurgent assault in months on the main road to Baghdad's airport, and other attacks killed a dozen more Iraqis and two American soldiers elsewhere in the capital.

A weekend of stepped-up violence across Iraq, which included six attacks on small Shiite Muslim shrines and the bombing deaths of two British soldiers near recently restive Basra late Saturday, came as politicians again failed to agree on a new Cabinet.

There had been hope that Prime Minister-designate Nouri al-Maliki would fill at least some Cabinet posts when parliament convened Sunday in Baghdad's heavily guarded Green Zone, perhaps even taking on for himself contentious roles such as the interior and defense ministries.

Al-Maliki's mandate to form a Cabinet expires May 22. Should he fail to do so, President Jalal Talabani would have 15 days to name a new nominee to try to form a Cabinet. The constitution is unclear on whether he could pick al-Maliki again.

Lawmakers have struggled since Dec. 15 parliamentary elections to put together a national unity government, which many Iraqis and the U.S. government hope will lessen sectarian tensions and undermine support for the Sunni Arab-dominated insurgency.

The negotiations have bogged down in squabbles over the allocation of key Cabinet jobs, unable to bridge sectarian and political divisions.

As the 275-member parliament convened, a party loyal to firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr threatened to propose its own Cabinet list if other groups did not scale back their demands for roles in the new government.

Legislator Bahaa al-Araji of the United Iraqi Alliance denounced what he called U.S. meddling in the talks and set a deadline of two days to settle the matter. But the Shiite bloc has only 130 parliament members, which isn't enough votes to seat a Cabinet.

A coalition of three Sunni Arab parties holding 44 seats warned that it would withdraw from the political process if it did not get at least one key post such as the Defense Ministry.

That threat came several days after Shiite party with 15 lawmakers pulled out of the Cabinet talks because it was not given the Oil Ministry.

The surge in violence came one day before the resumption of Saddam Hussein's trial after a three-week break. The deposed leader and seven co-defendants are on trial for the killings of 148 people from Dujail after a 1982 assassination attempt in the town against Saddam.

The U.S. command said a roadside bomb just after dark Sunday killed two U.S. soldiers in east Baghdad. The military gave no other details on the deaths. At least 2,439 U.S. military personnel have died since the Iraq war began in 2003, according to a count by The Associated Press.

Late Saturday, a roadside bomb killed two British soldiers and wounded one as they patrolled in an armored vehicle near the southern city of Basra, Britain's Ministry of Defense said. A total of 111 British military personnel have died.

Baghdad's deadliest attack Sunday involved the twin suicide car bombs that exploded near a main checkpoint on a four-lane road leading to Baghdad's international airport. The blasts killed at least 14 Iraqis and wounded six.

Twelve other Iraqis were killed in Baghdad by four roadside bombs, three that targeted Iraqi police patrols and one that exploded in an open market. At least 10 people were killed in the city Saturday.

The attack on the airport road was the most serious in months. Attacks had decreased since last year because of increased security along the six-mile stretch of highway leading from central Baghdad to the airport ? often considered the most dangerous road in the world.

The weekend also saw attacks on a string of small Shiite Muslim shrines east of Baqouba, capital of the religiously mixed Diyala province 35 miles northeast of Baghdad that has been a flash point of sectarian violence.

"These shrines are not only visited by Shiite Muslims, because they are not only Shiite imams but they are imams for all Muslims," Diyala Gov. Raid Rashid al-Mula Jawad said.

He said the shrines, often the size of a room or smaller, had "no protection because they are simple ones that some people use as graveyards."

The attacks were the latest in a surge of sectarian violence that erupted with the Feb. 22 bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra, an escalation that has worsened security and led to fears of civil war between Sunnis and Shiites.

"Such acts anger God and hurt the feeling of all honest Iraqis," Shiite cleric Adnan al-Rubaie said in Baqouba on Sunday. "The goal is clear ? to ignite civil strife. God's curse on everybody who tries to create sedition in this country."

___

Associated Press writers Qassim Abdul-Zahra, Tarek El-Tablawy and Bushra Juhi contributed to this report.

Off the Wires
Forty killed in day of Iraq carnage AFP, 10 minutes ago US soldiers with mental problems kept in Iraq AFP, 21 minutes ago , May 15, 2006.
 

FrancesBeansRevenge

Platinum Member
Jun 6, 2001
2,181
0
0
Originally posted by: Slick50
Gonna have to report this site to the idf's main sight.

Originally posted by: Slick50
make that the FBI tipline too.

Hey, look, one of those infamous 'Enemies of Freedom' the administration keeps referring to has actually shown up in a thread on this very forum!

Personally I fear people like this far more than any terrorist.

What separates people like this, other than era and nation, from those who called the SS to 'report a Jew', or those who called the KGB to 'report anti-communist activity'?

How did some of us turn into what we all once hated so damn quickly? :(
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Clinton = caught in, and admitted to, blatant criminal activities.

He lied about getting a blow job. A ridiculous question to make someone testify under oath abou, and guess what? Nobody gave a ******, and his approval ratings stayed the same. You know why? It just wasn't relevant to the job he was doing as president.

As for Bush, you claim he's never commited a blatant criminal activity? What about the secret warrantless wiretaps? The Constitution comes above the "patriot" (ie: traitor) act. Also, what about his claims about WMDs in Iraq? Or links between Saddam and Al-Queda? Both were false, and he definately knew the claims about Saddam and Al-Queda were false. Maybe its not criminal because he didn't testify under oath while saying those lies, but does that really make it any better?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Maybe its not criminal because he didn't testify under oath while saying those lies, but does that really make it any better?

umm, yes. yes it does.

allegations vs. proven crimes.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Because politics is a team sport. When one team gets into the whitehouse the other team sets about trying to gain that seat back through any means necessary. One of the more popular tactics is to blame the person in that seat for everything that goes wrong.

When Carter was prez, everything was his fault. The crappy economy, gas lines, the hostages in Iran... everything.

When Reagan was prez everything was his fault. Homelessness, the deficit, AIDS...

Bush 41, same thing... and a recession.

Clinton, everything was his fault too. Hell, for a lot of people everything is still his fault. And all the scandals were fun to chase after.

It doesn't mater who is president, everything is his fault. Nevermind the complicity of congress in creating the problem... or some unexpected outside force... or a natural disaster.... or whatever. When the stock market goes up it's because of A, B & C. When it goes down it's because of the president's failed economic policies.

It's just how the game is played.

 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
On one hand, Bush is so fvcking dumb he can't even chew on a pretzel without coming close to killing himself.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Maybe its not criminal because he didn't testify under oath while saying those lies, but does that really make it any better?

umm, yes. yes it does.

allegations vs. proven crimes.

Clinton's blow job=Millions of dead sperm

Bushes excellent adventure in Iraq= Billions of dollars spent and over 20,000 American casualties and many more Iraqi casualties.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Clinton's blow job=Millions of dead sperm

Bushes excellent adventure in Iraq= Billions of dollars spent and over 20,000 American casualties and many more Iraqi casualties.

Sorry but Congress voted for the war so it is America's war, not Bush's war. Nice try lib.
 

LcarsSystem

Senior member
Mar 13, 2006
691
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
He is reffering in case you are too young to remember
LOL.. there you go with your assumptions again. I'am plenty old enough to remember, as my first presidential vote was for Bush Sr. vs. Clinton...

That said, I believe that you are sortof comparing apples and oranges. On one hand you had a President committing obviously criminal acts (adultery, illegal campaign financing, unethical pardons, etc), while on the other you have a President walking the fine line of legalities in a time of war; a time when all laws shift in favor of the President in terms of what he is or is not allowed to do with his power.

Clinton = caught in, and admitted to, blatant criminal activities.
Bush = accused of running roughshod with power; but, as of now, hs not commited a blatant crime, or a proven one.

apples and oranges in my book...


LOL @ Palehorse thinking adultery is a crime....:laugh:


Ohhh yah and whereas you say Clinton unethically pardoned people, you have the Rabid Bush that kills everyone on deathrow and I believe holds the record for Texas. Gee, who's more unethical? Methinks not everyone on deathrow deserves to be there seeing as how a lot of death row inmates are being exonerated today because of advances in forensic technology.
 

FrancesBeansRevenge

Platinum Member
Jun 6, 2001
2,181
0
0
Originally posted by: LcarsSystem
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
He is reffering in case you are too young to remember
LOL.. there you go with your assumptions again. I'am plenty old enough to remember, as my first presidential vote was for Bush Sr. vs. Clinton...

That said, I believe that you are sortof comparing apples and oranges. On one hand you had a President committing obviously criminal acts (adultery, illegal campaign financing, unethical pardons, etc), while on the other you have a President walking the fine line of legalities in a time of war; a time when all laws shift in favor of the President in terms of what he is or is not allowed to do with his power.

Clinton = caught in, and admitted to, blatant criminal activities.
Bush = accused of running roughshod with power; but, as of now, hs not commited a blatant crime, or a proven one.

apples and oranges in my book...


LOL @ Palehorse thinking adultery is a crime....:laugh:


If you followed the thread about Mexico's drug laws you'd have seen Palehorse has a serious issue seperating morality and legality.
 

LcarsSystem

Senior member
Mar 13, 2006
691
0
0
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
Originally posted by: LcarsSystem
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
He is reffering in case you are too young to remember
LOL.. there you go with your assumptions again. I'am plenty old enough to remember, as my first presidential vote was for Bush Sr. vs. Clinton...

That said, I believe that you are sortof comparing apples and oranges. On one hand you had a President committing obviously criminal acts (adultery, illegal campaign financing, unethical pardons, etc), while on the other you have a President walking the fine line of legalities in a time of war; a time when all laws shift in favor of the President in terms of what he is or is not allowed to do with his power.

Clinton = caught in, and admitted to, blatant criminal activities.
Bush = accused of running roughshod with power; but, as of now, hs not commited a blatant crime, or a proven one.

apples and oranges in my book...


LOL @ Palehorse thinking adultery is a crime....:laugh:


If you followed the thread about Mexico's drug laws you'd have seen Palehorse has a serious issue seperating morality and legality.

I just tend to skim his posts since they lack any factual evidence.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Originally posted by: Aimster
Is this how it has always been? I was too young to remember anyone before Bush.

& what I mean is that everyone blames the President for everything.

In the modern US government the president is the main driver for domestic, foreign, and economic policies.

Bush and Reagan are the only presidents in the last 50 years who have not taken full responsibility for the actions of their adminstrations.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,137
225
106
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Clinton's blow job=Millions of dead sperm

Bushes excellent adventure in Iraq= Billions of dollars spent and over 20,000 American casualties and many more Iraqi casualties.

Sorry but Congress voted for the war so it is America's war, not Bush's war. Nice try lib.



Yeah, you are ok with bush admin LIEING about WMD's "the whole reason for going"? Nice try yourself. The commander and chief is the one to blame here...

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Clinton's blow job=Millions of dead sperm

Bushes excellent adventure in Iraq= Billions of dollars spent and over 20,000 American casualties and many more Iraqi casualties.

Sorry but Congress voted for the war so it is America's war, not Bush's war. Nice try lib.
That's the sad part, we as Americans, including the Congress,s were misled into supporting the Dub's ill advised invasion and ill planned occupation or Iraq by the Dub and his handlers. So you are correct that it is our fault for trusting those lying Pieces of Sh!t. But like the Chimp said"Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice..err...err..err your not going to foll me again" unless your some backwoods hick from Kansas or Oklahoma.

BTW, like the some of other 70% of Americans who believe this war was a mistake, I'm not a Liberal.