So how do Bush supporters feel about the information contained in the released memos?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...U5MTk2YTIxNTQ=


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew...romise-funding



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/


There's all of this to talk about and YOU bring up Limbaugh and Bush?

So start your own thread.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So start your own thread.

Memo to Cali: Bush is no longer President. Limbaugh doesn't hold public office of any kind.

Are you frightened by what we might discover if we discuss current issues? Many threads have been started and you ignored them and then post a flurry of threads about a president who is no longer in office and a radio talk show host -- you're worse than repubs who still complain about Clinton!

Seriously, move on.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Memo to Cali: Bush is no longer President. Limbaugh doesn't hold public office of any kind.

Are you frightened by what we might discover if we discuss current issues? Many threads have been started and you ignored them and then post a flurry of threads about a president who is no longer in office and a radio talk show host -- you're worse than repubs who still complain about Clinton!

Seriously, move on.

Nonsense. What Bush did deserves scrutiny, and plenty of it. Are you really suggesting that no issue is worth discussing if it involves a prior president?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Nonsense. What Bush did deserves scrutiny, and plenty of it. Are you really suggesting that no issue is worth discussing if it involves a prior president?

Let's discuss Andrew Jackson then.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Let's discuss Andrew Jackson then.

Start up a thread if there is something about him you want to discuss of interest.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Start up a thread if there is something about him you want to discuss of interest.

He's certainly a lot more interesting than Bush and he certainly abused his presidential powers more than possibly any other president.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

He's certainly a lot more interesting than Bush and he certainly abused his presidential powers more than possibly any other president.

Intriguing. So Bush supporters, in response to evidence that Bush used the Constitution as toilet paper, offer the following in rebuttal:

1. How dare you talk about him! He isn't even the president! You can only talk about the current president!

or

2. But look at Andrew Jackson. He was WAY worse!

You guys may need to brainstorm a bit more.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Intriguing. So Bush supporters, in response to evidence that Bush used the Constitution as toilet paper, offer the following in rebuttal:

1. How dare you talk about him! He isn't even the president! You can only talk about the current president!

or

2. But look at Andrew Jackson. He was WAY worse!

You guys may need to brainstorm a bit more.

No, it's more like I said earlier: I don't find all of this hypothetical "what Bush might've done" an interesting discussion. Apparently you believe if you keep screaming loud enough and long enough it makes it important or interesting.

I'm interested in reality, not theory. That's why I'm a statistician, not a mathematician.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

No, it's more like I said earlier: I don't find all of this hypothetical "what Bush might've done" an interesting discussion. Apparently you believe if you keep screaming loud enough and long enough it makes it important or interesting.

I'm interested in reality, not theory. That's why I'm a statistician, not a mathematician.

For someone not at all interested in the discussion, you certainly spend a lot of time in this thread discussing it.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Nonsense. What Bush did deserves scrutiny, and plenty of it. Are you really suggesting that no issue is worth discussing if it involves a prior president?

It seems clear that the most common tactic of liberally minded individuals will be to talk about Bush instead of the sitting president and current issues. Bush is irrelevant -- a foot note -- history. He ALONE did not run the country. A Congress and House of Representatives principally controlled by Democrats for the last two years of his presidency ran the country.

Bush scrutiny as you call it is cowardly and a dodge ... and only underscores just how tenuous your faith in Obama is.