So how do Bush supporters feel about the information contained in the released memos? - Page 6 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

tooblue · 03-05-2009, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Let me get this straight:

I start a thread about constitutional violations under GWB. You respond saying that anything he ever did is totally irrelevant and the only appropriate discussion we can have in this forum is about Obama. Then you accuse me of "obfuscating" Obama's record because I am not discussing his record in a thread expressly about Bush's constitutional violations?

You are an odd man, Tooblue. Perhaps we aren't talking about Obama in this thread because it isn't at all relevant to the subject? Should I accuse you of obfusaction as well, given that under my own arbitrary standards, we should only be talking about how delightful Pepsi Jazz tastes, and you refuse to address that topic at all?

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!

All-American · 03-05-2009, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Sounds like something Chris Buttars would say.

in what sense, praytell, does it sound like something buttars would say?

Tex · 03-05-2009, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by All-American

in what sense, praytell, does it sound like something buttars would say?

It was a joke, AA. By making the comparison, I satisfy my own made-up law .... oh, nevermind.

Truth be told, I have no idea who Chris Buttars is, other than he is some Utah government guy, and that Lebowski likes to invoke him a lot when he wants to "zing" somebody.

Jeff Lebowski · 03-05-2009, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

It was a joke, AA. By making the comparison, I satisfy my own made-up law .... oh, nevermind.

Truth be told, I have no idea who Chris Buttars is, other than he is some Utah government guy, and that Lebowski likes to invoke him a lot when he wants to "zing" somebody.

IOW, I brought him up once last week.

He's your soulmate, Tex. You would love him.

Cali Coug · 03-05-2009, 03:10 PM

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?