Another attack?

[lazur]

So ... assuming that a democrat takes office after Bush, and that we're attacked again (9/11 style) under the new President, my question is ... would you blame the current, sitting President at the time, the way democrats now blame Bush because it happened "during his (or her) watch", or would democrats blame former President Bush, the way republicans now blame former President Clinton (and for similar reasons) for "letting Osama get away" and because 9/11 was being planned during Clinton's Presidency?

I ask because I will refer back to this post when another President is elected, particularly if a democrat, and if we're attacked again not under Bush, but under the new President (god forbid).

 

[Ronny Shade]

Stingrays!!

 

[Mee]

I'd blame the school system.

 

[Immortalfire]

We can't be discussing this. Why would we, when Cindy Margolis is going to be in Playboy, and Reese and Ryan split up?

 

[Erzengel]

Reese and Ryan broke up!?!

 

[SpiderJerus]

Blaming anyone for 9/11 is ****ing ******ed as would be blaming anyone for any future attacks. The sooner the people in the US realise that they will never, ever be able to wipe out terrorism the better off they'll be. You could do whatever you wanted; wipe out organized religion, build a giant wall around the country, etc. There will always be disagreements and there will always be some people willing to take them to extremes. The war on terror is the most foolish goddamned thing I've ever heard of.

 

[lazur]

Blaming anyone for 9/11 is ****ing ******ed as would be blaming anyone for any future attacks. The sooner the people in the US realise that they will never, ever be able to wipe out terrorism the better off they'll be. You could do whatever you wanted; wipe out organized religion, build a giant wall around the country, etc. There will always be disagreements and there will always be some people willing to take them to extremes. The war on terror is the most foolish goddamned thing I've ever heard of.

Right. So this question isn't for you. This question is for the other 90% of the population who likes to blame the "other guy" for all of the problems of the world and who completely contradict themselves when their own guy might be to blame for the very same thing.

 

[tomahawk53]

Of course Bush will be blamed. Just as Clinton is blamed now.

It's going to be an interesting time on the Hype the next time a Democrat is elected president.

Wait and see. It will all be reversed to a degree.

For example

Now - a lot of Republicans like to blame Clinton for a lot of what's gone on under Bush. Democrats say that you can't blame the past president for what's happening now.

Then - a lot of Democrats will blame Bush for a lot of what's gone on under that president. Republicans will say that you can't blame the past president for what's happening now.

AND very few of us will find it all amusing. LOL

 

[jaguarr]

No matter what, I am always going to blame lazur.

jag

 

[maxwell's demon]

well that certainly is a misleading and loaded question there, ain't it?

 

[Darthphere]

So ... assuming that a democrat takes office after Bush, and that we're attacked again (9/11 style) under the new President, my question is ... would you blame the current, sitting President at the time, the way democrats now blame Bush because it happened "during his (or her) watch", or would democrats blame former President Bush, the way republicans now blame former President Clinton (and for similar reasons) for "letting Osama get away" and because 9/11 was being planned during Clinton's Presidency?

I ask because I will refer back to this post when another President is elected, particularly if a democrat, and if we're attacked again not under Bush, but under the new President (god forbid).

Ill always blame the man in charge at the time.

 

[SpiderJerus]

Right. So this question isn't for you. This question is for the other 90% of the population who likes to blame the "other guy" for all of the problems of the world and who completely contradict themselves when their own guy might be to blame for the very same thing.

Dude, did someone on these boards **** you and then leave you? Did you fall in love with him only to find that he was married to a beatiful woman and that your affair was simply him getting something out of his system? Are you heartbroken? Because your post is filled with a bitterness that should be reserved for scorned lovers or neutered pets, and pets can't type.

 

[lazur]

well that certainly is a misleading and loaded question there, ain't it?

How so? Republicans blame Clinton for 9/11, for his failure to capture Osama. Democrats blame Bush because it happened on his watch.

So, if another 9/11 style attack by Osama/Al-Qaida happens AFTER Bush, will Bush be blamed by democrats because he failed to capture Osama, or will the new President, a democrat we'll say, be blamed? We already know that republicans, clinging to party lines, will blame the new guy (or gal), but how will the democrats, specifically those on this board who NOW say that 9/11, being that it happened during Bush's Presidency, is therefore Bush's fault. I mean, if they blame Bush, the former President, won't they be contradicting what they're saying NOW about not blaming a former President for today's problems?

How is that loaded? That's a pretty straight question, which simply requires a pretty straight answer.

 

[lazur]

Dude, did someone on these boards **** you and then leave you? Did you fall in love with him only to find that he was married to a beatiful woman and that your affair was simply him getting something out of his system? Are you heartbroken? Because your post is filled with a bitterness that should be reserved for scorned lovers or neutered pets, and pets can't type.

I asked a simple question. I did not personally attack you. So why don't you offer the same courtesy?

 

[Darren Daring]

My Future Half Brother-In-Law knows Reese, he msut be devestated

 

[maxwell's demon]

How so? Republicans blame Clinton for 9/11, for his failure to capture Osama. Democrats blame Bush because it happened on his watch.

So, if another 9/11 style attack by Osama/Al-Qaida happens AFTER Bush, will Bush be blamed by democrats because he failed to capture Osama, or will the new President, a democrat we'll say, be blamed? We already know that republicans, clinging to party lines, will blame the new guy (or gal), but how will the democrats, specifically those on this board who NOW say that 9/11, being that it happened during Bush's Presidency, is therefore Bush's fault. I mean, if they blame Bush, the former President, won't they be contradicting what they're saying NOW about not blaming a former President for today's problems?

How is that loaded? That's a pretty straight question, which simply requires a pretty straight answer.

how so? what did Clinton due during his tenure to greatly piss off most countries in the world? Waht did Bush do?


it's not an apples to apples comparison Lazur and if yo say it is, well then you're just being obstinate or stupid. And i know you're not stupid.

I'll answer the question, IF it happens and base my decison ON WHAT happened between now and then, what could conceivably have been done to stop it by each president, and what was done that possibly incited it BY EACH PRESIDENT. That and other factors i will take into a count IF, god forbid, it ever occurs.

to blindly decide NOW, without knowing those things, well that's just pointless.


so yeah. THAT is how its misleading and loaded question.

 

[SpiderJerus]

I asked a simple question. I did not personally attack you. So why don't you offer the same courtesy?

I'm not your parent and I'm not in the habit of patronizing people, sorry.

 

[AllThingsComic]

Article in todays Daily News that Ryan cheated on Reese with this chick he filmed a movie with.

 

[Darren Daring]

Noone cares, AllThingsComic.

 

[maxwell's demon]

If Reese leaves another Guy after Ryan, will people blame Ryan or Samuel L Jackson?

 

[lazur]

how so? what did Clinton due during his tenure to greatly piss off most countries in the world? Waht did Bush do?

I'm not arguing about WHY republicans now blame Clinton. The simple fact is that MOST republicans DO blame Clinton for 9/11. I don't care about the how and why.

it's not an apples to apples comparison Lazur and if yo say it is, well then you're just being obstinate or stupid. And i know you're not stupid.

I think the two are comparable. Under Clinton, Osama attacked the USS Cole and countless overseas U.S. targets, did he not? All 9/11 was was an escalation of what he was already doing, was it not?

I'll answer the question, IF it happens and base my decison ON WHAT happened between now and then, what could conceivably have been done to stop it by each president, and what was done that possibly incited it BY EACH PRESIDENT. That and other factors i will take into a count IF, god forbid, it ever occurs.

Well, that's the response of a logical person. But you and I know that MOST people who vote aren't logical. They vote along party lines and blame the OTHER party for the problems.

But that same logic dictates that Clinton *shares* responsibility for 9/11, which is my belief. Is that your believe also?

to blindly decide NOW, without knowing those things, well that's just pointless.


so yeah. THAT is how its misleading and loaded question.

Nah, I think that when you consider the animal here, the 90% of voters who blindly support their party no matter what, it's a very relevant question.

 

[maxwell's demon]

I'm not arguing about WHY republicans now blame Clinton. The simple fact is that MOST republicans DO blame Clinton for 9/11. I don't care about the how and why.



I think the two are comparable. Under Clinton, Osama attacked the USS Cole and countless overseas U.S. targets, did he not? All 9/11 was was an escalation of what he was already doing, was it not?



Well, that's the response of a logical person. But you and I know that MOST people who vote aren't logical. They vote along party lines and blame the OTHER party for the problems.

But that same logic dictates that Clinton *shares* responsibility for 9/11, which is my belief. Is that your believe also?



Nah, I think that when you consider the animal here, the 90% of voters who blindly support their party no matter what, it's a very relevant question.

well that's great. Lazur. you're really working for a better tomorrow here.

you're like the guys in the bible who used to try to trap Jesus.

 

[lazur]

I'm not your parent and I'm not in the habit of patronizing people, sorry.

I see. So asking you to be courteous on a public message board system is asking you to be my parent or to be patronizing to me?

What grade are you in anyway? I assume you're a child with that kind of attitude.

And while being courteous isn't a requirement of this board, NOT insulting people is. You may want to keep that in mind.

 

[lazur]

well that's great. Lazur. you're really working for a better tomorrow here.

you're like the guys in the bible who used to try to trap Jesus.

And you're dodging the question.

 

[Darren Daring]

I'm rooting for max