Thank you for calling it as you see it...Exactly. Your kind of posting is what makes the other side of the political fence more appealing.
is bush supposed to be omniscient and know that this man has some sort of eye disease? it's not like he said anything offensive to the man, simply cracking jokes with all the reporters, as he does always. Transcript below: THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Peter. Are you going to ask that question with shades on? Q I can take them off. THE PRESIDENT: I’m interested in the shade look, seriously. Q All right, I’ll keep it, then. THE PRESIDENT: For the viewers, there’s no sun. (Laughter.) Q I guess it depends on your perspective. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: Touche. (Laughter.)
Jr has a history of being dismissive to the press and it's not unknown his distain of it. And loath to be in front of it. Cracking jokes ain't his bag.
must be a slow day in the partisan corral. Not only did this non-incident get it's own story in the news, it was even worthy of at least a few pages of discussion.
Oh, I get it... you weren't being sarcastic with the thread title!!!!!!!!! You really were saluting President Bush's class in handling his totally innocent mistake.
Uhh...so what's the big deal? There was nothing malicious about that, he didn't know and apologized afterwards, which was the classy thing to do.
I dunno, as I watched it, it seemed more to me that "The Decider" was upset about the nerve of someone to wear sunglasses in asking a question. If he's not to be omnipitent, why should he be indingent? Maybe he'll get upset over earrings next?
Nah, I think Bush believes he's hilarious because the sycophants in the White House and elsewhere laugh at his lame jokes. Because of them he takes his show on the road and falls flat on his face with mistakes like this. His crime isn’t being impolite or hurtful; it’s believing he has any wit or charm.
I don't know myself any more. Maybe I'll go back to only reading newspapers and print and forget this new fangled internet stuff.
He, our President, should believe he, himself, is witless and charmless? It is a crime if he doesn't think this about himself? Please let me know how you feel about yourself. I'm sure I could debate your own personal issues. Write sentences properly next time.
Wow, you really want to have a debate about my criticism of George W. Bush’s sense of humor? Get off his sack already… He’s not perfect. Oh, and I think it’s cute that you want to criticize me (and my “personal issues”) as a way to defend the chief. Taking things a little too personally??? Do you know the President? I apologize my writing was substandard for this forum, by the way. I know how difficult it must have been to read. Be less of a pretentious, hypersensitive dweeb next time. Edit : Also, just in case you were not sure... I didnt mean "crime" in the literal sense.
Thanks for the compliment but no offense I'm troubled by the way you phrased it as the other side of the political fence. We all certainly have our differences and this board, and the nation, has gotten down to judging people based on what side of a supposed political fence someone is on. I think there is a wide range of views here on issues even including the Bush Admin. but if you read the criticism flying around here of calling people "lippigs" or "rightwing wackos" you would think there were only two sides and on every issue you could tell who was on one side and who was on another. I don't think that's the case and if we can get beyond the idea of posters being on one side or the other I think the civility problems this board has would correct itself. Sorry if this comes off preachy towards you Roxran but I'm just using your comment as a jumping off point to make a general comment.
I appreciate the comment, and the fact is you utilize respect, fairness and thought process to your posts with political impact. I may constantly disagree with a viewpoint or issue, but the manner of using the above attributes with reason is why I have used your style as an example... With that said, the other side of the political fence is my basis of macro and micro political interest. The truth is there are NOT just two sides, there are many sides with a grab here and grab there with little consensus on a particular side...I don't judge people based on what side of a supposed political fence they are on. I judge them on individualistic attributes...For example, being pro-gun is often viewed as a "right" side mindset when there is no reason it should be. My gripe is too often people don't allow independent analysis if the viewpoint is viewed as "belonging" to the other side...A strong case in point is the assimilated which booed Hillary. If people in general can get beyond this faulty mindset, there would be less civility problems in the real world.
