Originally posted by vivifyAre you trying to draw an equivalence to GW and Obama here?
Your article was created two years *before* the one I posted. What CNN said may have been true in 2013, that wasn't the case when Bush spoke in 2015.
Where is Bush's organization that Sabotaged Obama? A specific Bush created and supported organization.
Originally posted by EladarWhodey claimed that Bush tried to not be a critic of Obama. I merely pointed out that this, like most things he says, was false.
Are you trying to draw an equivalence to GW and Obama here?
Where is Bush's organization that Sabotaged Obama? A specific Bush created and supported organization.
Originally posted by vivifyTried? Just because he failed years later didnt mean he didn't try. The article I linked is evidence he tried and succeeded for a time.
Whodey claimed that Bush tried to not be a critic of Obama. I merely pointed out that this, like most things he says, was false.
Originally posted by vivifySo, on the one hand, you say that "W" kept quite because he was butt hurt, but then say he spoke out 7 years later, why?
Um, no. Bush was so hated (his approval ratings in 20's) by the time he left, he made it a point to keep a low profile. In fact, W stayed out of the spotlight for so long, news outlets noticed this. You can Google "Bush" and "low profile".
In short, Bush's lack of criticism was due to being considered the worst president of all time. He isn't in a po ...[text shortened]... f Iraq too quickly in 2011, though Obama has insisted his hands were tied on the matter.[/quote]
How can you have it both ways?
Secondly, which do you find more politically expedient? Is it better to shut up or make an ass of yourself?
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyDidn't you read Eladar's post? Bush tried, but failed...just like his presidency...and your point.
So, on the one hand, you say that "W" kept quite because he was butt hurt, but then say he spoke out 7 years later, why?
How can you have it both ways?
Secondly, which do you find more politically expedient? Is it better to shut up or make an ass of yourself?
That all depends on the situation. Even you'll agree that never before have we had such a colossally incompetent president (amazing, since we once had Bush). Never before have SO MANY people been given cabinet positions with zero experience for them. In fact, never before has there been a president with as little political experience as Trump. Never before has a president alienated allies (like Australia and Mexico) only by being offensive.
And I can go on for days with "never before" and Trump; but the scariest of them, is never before has there been a president who caused this much of a clusterfck in just THREE GODAMN WEEKS.
Is it better to "shut up or make an ass of yourself"? Here's a better question: Should we shut up when the President of the United States is making an ass of himself?
Originally posted by vivifyShould we shut up when a former president works to undermine the present president?
Didn't you read Eladar's post? Bush tried, but failed...just like his presidency...and your point.
[b]Secondly, which do you find more politically expedient? Is it better to shut up or make an ass of yourself?
That all depends on the situation. Even you'll agree that never before have we had such a colossally incompetent president (amazing, since ...[text shortened]... n: Should we shut up when the President of the United States is making an ass of himself?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by Eladara) Whodey claimed Bush never criticized Obama; this was wrong. Succeeding "for a time" doesn't make Whodey any less wrong. OJ went a long time without killing anyone. That doesn't make him innocent.
According to your words whodey was right.
You didn't answer my question of equivalence.
b) No, I wasn't "trying to draw equivalence". I was simply refuting Whodey.
Originally posted by EladarStephen Miller would agree with you.
http://nypost.com/2017/02/18/obama-linked-activists-have-a-training-manual-for-protesting-trump/
Obama is the first former President who has made it a point to sabotage the sitting President.
Obama really needs to be prosecuted as a traitor.
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarDo you know what changing goalposts means?
Your words, now you change rhe goal posts.
YOU responded to something I said to Whodey (and said something incorrect). I corrected you regarding what was said to him (wrongly claiming Bush didn't criticize Obama). At some point, you forgot that this is what we've been talking about, and now you're claiming I'm moving goalposts.
Your age is showing.
Originally posted by vivifyI think that point was when you misrepresented the discussion.
Do you know what changing goalposts means?
YOU responded to something I said to Whodey (and said something incorrect). I corrected you regarding what was said to him (wrongly claiming Bush didn't criticize Obama). At some point, you forgot that this is what we've been talking about, and now you're claiming I'm moving goalposts.
Your age is showing.
Will you agree that for Obama's first term Bush remained silent and did not attempt to undermine Obama?
3 edits
Originally posted by EladarAs the least popular president in U.S. history (until Trump), Bush *couldn't* undermine Obama, even if he wanted to. Bush went into hiding; he wasn't trying to criticize anyone, being one of the most reviled men on earth. He didn't stay quiet out of "class", but fear of public backlash.
I think that point was when you misrepresented the discussion.
Will you agree that for Obama's first term Bush remained silent and did not attempt to undermine Obama?
It's possible that Bush only stayed quiet as long as he did, because it took him that long to get the courage to finally criticize Obama in front of an audience.