He was called an alcoholic, stupid, compared to a monkey, called a liar, booed during a 2004 State of the Union Address, Democrats howled, hissed and shouted "No!" during a 2005 State of the Union Address when Bush pushed for Social Security reform, he was called a murderer, was compared to Hitler and called a Nazi, was cussed out in a restaurant, was heckled many, many times while giving speeches, he was mocked at Obama's Inauguration, he was called a draft dodger and on and on and on. I'm sure if you do some googling, you'll find plenty.

 

One more example of how we've lost respect for the office.

^ Heck, several of those things have happened to me.

Does that make it any less disrespectful or personal for Bush?

Does that make it any less disrespectful or personal for Bush?

 

Nope. Just makes me feel a bit more important, that's all.

 

And I don't think I was personally guilty of any of those accusations, other than to (correctly) point out that my IQ is higher.

Nope. Just makes me feel a bit more important, that's all.

 

And I don't think I was personally guilty of any of those accusations, other than to (correctly) point out that my IQ is higher.

 

To be fair, your IQ higher than most citizens of the US, elected official or otherwise.

He was called an alcoholic, stupid, compared to a monkey, called a liar, booed during a 2004 State of the Union Address, Democrats howled, hissed and shouted "No!" during a 2005 State of the Union Address when Bush pushed for Social Security reform, he was called a murderer, was compared to Hitler and called a Nazi, was cussed out in a restaurant, was heckled many, many times while giving speeches, he was mocked at Obama's Inauguration, he was called a draft dodger and on and on and on. I'm sure if you do some googling, you'll find plenty.

 

If you (or anyone) get bored and have a few hours of free time, check out these snopes.com pages on Presidents Obama and Bush. Pres. Obama has more than 200 hits in 2 years of office and Pres. Bush has just under 200 in 8 years. As it is, I just don't see the Bush accusations being more personal than the Obama ones.

 

Obama

 

Bush

He was called an alcoholic, stupid, compared to a monkey, called a liar, booed during a 2004 State of the Union Address, Democrats howled, hissed and shouted "No!" during a 2005 State of the Union Address when Bush pushed for Social Security reform, he was called a murderer, was compared to Hitler and called a Nazi, was cussed out in a restaurant, was heckled many, many times while giving speeches, he was mocked at Obama's Inauguration, he was called a draft dodger and on and on and on. I'm sure if you do some googling, you'll find plenty.

Let's make a comparison here ... were the Bush "attacks" ever considered as credible as the ones on Obama have been, or been espoused by as many people, especially since we have a cable television news network intent on broadcasting any of the anti-Obama stuff that comes down the pike?

Let's make a comparison here ... were the Bush "attacks" ever considered as credible as the ones on Obama have been, or been espoused by as many people, especially since we have a cable television news network intent on broadcasting any of the anti-Obama stuff that comes down the pike?

The attacks on Bush were not credible because they were mostly untrue... The attacks on Obama are credible because they are mostly true.... And no, I don't mean the ridicules ones like where he was born,etc... Plus the fact that Obama has far more news networks and publications extolling his highness..

The attacks on Obama are credible because they are mostly true.... And no, I don't mean the ridicules ones like where he was born,etc...

Which ones?

Which ones?

Which ones are untrue??

Which ones are untrue??

You said that most of them are credible and true ... I'm asking you which ones. If you're going to make a claim, back it up.

Let's make a comparison here ... were the Bush "attacks" ever considered as credible as the ones on Obama have been, or been espoused by as many people, especially since we have a cable television news network intent on broadcasting any of the anti-Obama stuff that comes down the pike?

You made the claim that they weren't, prove it.

The attacks on Bush were not credible because they were mostly untrue... The attacks on Obama are credible because they are mostly true.... And no, I don't mean the ridicules ones like where he was born,etc... Plus the fact that Obama has far more news networks and publications extolling his highness..

 

I'm not an Obama fan, and I don't think the attacks on Bush were credible either but I'l take a stab at how it works (similar to attacks on Obama).

 

*Bush was/is an alcoholic. He has refrained from drinking because of his past battles with that demon. He openly admits that he had issues with substances and should be applauded for overcoming them. But he is an alcoholic who does not practice.

 

*He was called stupid. He wasn't stupid. But anyone who watched him for 8 years knows his command of the English language was one of the lowest of a President. He made LBJ look articulate. He was a very shrewd and intelligent politician but we've all seen people whose speech made the appearance of stupidity a problem.

 

*He was called a Nazi which was unfair. But let's just talk facts. In 1939 the Germans invaded Poland and did so with the excuse that the Polish infantry had "attacked" a German unit on their borders. Of course that ruse was false but the invasion began and Poland was quickly conquered. In 2003 Bush said their were WMD's in Iraq and so the US invaded. (I'm not arguing here whether they were present at one time or no) After a quick war on the ground the Iraqi government toppled and yet no WMD's were found in totality. I'm sure you see how enemies of Bush (unfairly) called him a Nazi or a Hitler.

 

I think what's behind the Tea Party ire for the most part is disgust with Washington on the political front and a complete sense of helplessness with cultural change on the societal front. It translates into a "protest party." The key will be whether they can morph into a group that is now "for something" rather than just "against something."

You made the claim that they weren't, prove it.

I don't know that you can prove that attacks on someone are more "personal" than those on someone else.

 

Cammando, on the other hand, is claiming that many of the claims about Obama ... I'm asking him which ones.

I don't know that you can prove that attacks on someone are more "personal" than those on someone else.

 

Cammando, on the other hand, is claiming that many of the claims about Obama ... I'm asking him which ones.

No, I'm asking you to prove the attacks on Bush aren't as credible as the attacks on Obama. Also, are you trying to tell me we didn't have any cable or other news networks doing the same to Bush? Does Dan Rather ring a bell?

No, I'm asking you to prove the attacks on Bush aren't as credible as the attacks on Obama. Also, are you trying to tell me we didn't have any cable or other news networks doing the same to Bush? Does Dan Rather ring a bell?

I didn't say the specified attacks on Bush mentioned above were credible, just as I don't think many of the ones on Obama are.