And yet I am able to defend Obama as well, even though I don't agree with his politics. Something you were unable to do for Bush. The irony is palpable. :hihi:
Untrue. I always said that Bush handled Afghanistan very well before getting distracted. And I always commended him on his rare environmental achievements, like establishing the biggest marine preserves in the world. But on the Iraq debacle and the failed economy . . . nothing there to defend, except for Bush apologists like SabaFan. Bush deserved deep criticism. First of all, Obama hasn't done anything to apologize for yet. Secondly, you forget I was for Hillary. Obama has some things to prove to me, too. See, Bayou is smarter than you guys! :grin:
Of course Bush deserved criticism and you of course know I am not speaking of any of the things you mentioned. The topic at hand was a sensational, misleading, headline that casts a negative light on someone. In this case, Obama, who you rushed to defend. I pointed out that you did no reciprocal action for Bush, and that is true. Changing the parameters of the topic doesn't help you.
Well, . . . so what? I thought he was a lousy president and deserved most of his bad headlines. You haven't given an actual example of one of these "misleading" Bush headlines, you know.
I don't need to provide one, though Sabanfan did. Sensational headlines are as common to newspapers as ink. And again, you can deflect saying that Bush deserved it if you like. It does not detract from my original point. You rose to Obama's defense when he was slammed, but never did for Bush - when it comes to sensational headlines. It is amazing how you can go on and on, without ever acknowledging the truth about yourself. Try to stay on point.
Did you hear me just say "So what?" It is perfectly ridiculous to expect me to defend Bush against "the media". :insane: It would be perfectly ridiculous for me to expect Sourdoughman to defend Obama against the media. You get outraged about the silliest things.
No, I didn't miss it. I also didn't miss you proclaiming that it was nonsense that you didn't defend Bush. After unsuccessfully trying to change the parameters of the argument, you now state the idea as a "so what"? So what? The point I made is how ironic it is that I came to this thread and defended Obama, a man I disagree with fundamentally, and you proved you could not render the same service for Bush. But you are the middle of the road moderate... Talk about ironic. :insane: Really? Has this become your new fallbackIcan'tdefendmyselfposition? So I will just paint the other person as emotional or outraged? And you deduce that from these posts? Maybe you need to have your glasses checked, because those emoticons are meant to symbolize laughter :lol:, not anger o:, and laughter is what I expressed. Do you see the difference? Of course you do, but it's better to focus on misdirection, in the hopes that everyone will forget what the original thread was about. In your own words, it's a poor debate technique. And very ironic. :hihi::hihi::hihi: <----this is laughter btw.
