Bush. The man’s record runs from mediocity to utter failure. Look at every company he’s ever run, it gives you a glimpse of what kind of executive he is. Obama’s record speaks well of him even before he took elected office in ‘96.

You’re a poet/philosopher!
Who knew?

Logic and reason are mere arsenic-laced cupcakes for the nerds of the world.

When someone responds to irrational people by imitiating them, there is no clarification. There is just more noise. Bashing bashers in kind, is an example.

I understand the temptation. Too often I end up arguing against the arguer instead of sticking to the topic. But it’s a self perpetuaing cycle. ,
Because Bush bashers overdo it, overdoing the bashing of Bush bashing just creates chaos.

There is a lot to be said for leading by example.

I think you are wrong about ‘most folks’. Most folks will listen to reasonable arguemtns and respond in kind – but not if they’re being attacked or labeled for having a certain view. I once commented about certain kinds of oratory by using Bush as an example, and out came the BDS darts. By now, one can’t even voice an opinion about his choice of ties without earning that epithet. It starts the minute you tepe in the letter B.

Got me, domajot, as I have done neither here, so I don’t know where you get that. Better read it through again.

Fact is that most folks couldn’t care less, just as most folks couldn’t care less about Clinton’s draft-dodging and non-inhalation technique. They’re not going to be voting for either of them again, so who give a flying Ferdinand? But apparently those obsessed with such trivia feel a great need to rationalize their obsessions.

Fact is, no one really cared about Bush’s record, just his image.

Is that Bush or Obama you are thinking of?

One can, at the same moment, not be a Bush supporter, yet “defend” him based on fairness alone.

That’s how most of us are. The irrationality (along with immaturity) remains almost exclusively with the Bush-haters. Bush is a dead, not merely lame, duck these days and they still exhibit pathological (diseased) hatred of him (similar to what the Left felt toward Reagan) and outrage over everything he says or does.

One might also speculate on the possibility of questioning Mr. Bush and not have it thought unfair by a dozen people.

Bush was questioned during the 2000 campaign and did not answer. Obviously something was being hidden.

Fact is, no one really cared about Bush’s record, just his image.

Inducing a riot is not an accomplishment to be proud of, IMO.

Getting back to Bush’s past., his enormous influence (some would say: catastrophic influence) makes him a legitimate subject of interest, of wanting to know what kind of person is at the helm. How to weight the information gleaned in the overall picure is another matter, one that we should discuss with cool heads, not a call to arms insulting opponents or the labeling that by now gives me a rash wheneve I encounter it.

So, if you want to present your point of view, I’d be curious to know what you find so extaordinarty about people’s curiosity about the man at the head of the table.
If your answer consists or more grandstanding, my curiosity will cease on the spot, BTW. If I wanted that kind of thrill, I’d take up watching wrestling.

One might speculate that is both possible to not be a Bush supporter AND criticize instances of BDS. One can, at the same moment, not be a Bush supporter, yet “defend” him based on fairness alone.

One might also speculate on the possibility of questioning Mr. Bush and not have it thought unfair by a dozen people.

You shoulda heard me in the Clinton years, when the nutburger right was in full bloom. They’re fun to mock too.

As far as BDS goes, history will judge who was more deranged, Bush supporters or Bush opponants.

One might speculate that is both possible to not be a Bush supporter AND criticize instances of BDS. One can, at the same moment, not be a Bush supporter, yet “defend” him based on fairness alone.

As is so often the case, the debate is deconstructed and everyone is neatly categorized into pro-bush and anti-bush factions – as if viewpoints were really that shallow.

So, this is an example of the proof-based and civil debate advocated by the critics of TMV commenters.

I get it. I get it. I get it.

It is not about Dan Rather. It is about there being an opportunity — albeit slim — because of Rather’s lawsuit to air out a chapter in the president’s life that cries out for airing out.

Yet another opportunity doesn’t cry out to … ordinary people. I realize such things cry out to you and a few others many times a day, even in an hour.

Oh, i forgot. What’s really important is to make baseless assertions about smear jobs
Got it.

Told ya. All about the BDS. Thanks for the confirmation, Shaun!

Poor old MSM, getting sidetracked away from what really matters by such little things as manufactured evidence and fraudulent documents! Don’t they know what’s really important? Namely, reinforcing nutroots self-affirmations about smear jobs on a fading lame-duck politician’s possible youthful misbehavior decades ago?