Quote:
Originally Posted by tooblue
The pattern of your behavior is puzzling. Many posts over the past couple of weeks have been about Obama and there is not ONE response from you. Suddenly you start a thread about Bush? Bush is no longer relevant. The only thing that is relevant is what is the current president doing in regards to any constitutional violations etc. etc. I bet if you looked Cali you might find that such subjects might have been brought up in one way or another. Perhaps you were busy -- life happens. But the reality is your actions suggest you don't want to talk about what Obama is doing now, you'd rather talk about what Bush did ... that's obfuscation.
"Perhaps we aren't talking about Obama in this thread because it isn't at all relevant to the subject?" How exactly can he not be relevant to ANY conversation about American politics?
Wow!
|
Several points in response to your nonsensical post.
First, the entire thing is a red herring. The topic of the thread is clearly established in the first post. You don't want to discuss that topic, so you keep meandering off point and wandering into irrelevant territory. Ironic, given your conclusions about topic avoidance above.
Second, am I under some sort of obligation to respond to every thread written? I have been working a lot and, consequently, not posting much on here or reading much on here (of course, there hasn't been much to read either since the new forum was created).
Third, "American politics" is an extremely broad category you are establishing for the topic of conversation here. To say that this topic is about American politics and, therefore, all issues pertaining to American politics are relevant to this conversation, is absurd. This is the simple "If all A are also B, then all B must also be A" fallacy. Yes, conversations about constitutional violations committed by Bush do fall into Group B (American politics), but that certainly doesn't mean that everything involving American politics also falls into Group A (discussion about Bush's constitutional violations). I find it astonishing that this really needs to be explained. Believe it or not, it is entirely possible to have a conversation about the Bush presidency and actions undertaken by Bush without needing to discuss Obama, or Garfield, or Adams, or Buchanon.
Fourth, I find it exceptionally amusing that you suddenly think I am afraid to discuss Obama and his policies, especially given quotes by you, Arch and others on here for the past two years that I do nothing EXCEPT write about Obama.
Are you just incredibly uneasy discussing this topic or any topic involving Bush, and making the assumption that I must, therefore, also be uncomfortable discussing Obama?