I hate both men, but I just find it funny that the opposition parties are so willing to just pretend that some things are true. Apparently Obama bashes Bush all the time, just not in his speeches, press releases, or overheard dinner conversations.

You may certainly mock or criticize any president you like. You may call me an asshole if you like – as you can imagine, doing so would not make you unique. However, whenever you make gratuitous, out of context slaps at Bush, you will sound like Obama.

But we assholes will love you anyway.

So resume your usual insightful work, sir.

So George, is your rule that I’m not allowed to say anything negative, ever about a president once he is out of office?

If the rule isn’t never, and given that I’ve barely mentioned Bush on this site in a couple years, what exactly is the frequency with which I’m permitted to write something negative about a former president? Once every two years? Every three years?

Does the rule apply to all former presidents, or just the Republican ones? Just Bush? Just the former presidents named Bush?

Can I write something snarky about Carter?

Clinton?

Van Buren?

Can I make a fat joke about Taft?

Let me know!

George he hardly ever mentions Bush. Not sure how that means Radley needs to come to terms with him?

Radley — “incessant” was the wrong word for me to use. Scratch that, and just go with Bush-bashing makes you sound a lot like Obama.

Les — Bashing Obama would not make someone sound like Bush. Bush is not speaking out these days. Would it make one sound like Romney? Yes, except that half the country is bashing Obama these days, so it’s not distinctively Romney-esque. Bashing Bush during the past couple-three years has been a specialty of Obama and his amen choir.

Les — Bush did bad things, as have all presidents. Most if not all presidents have ordered things which have ruined the lives of some. To single out Bush after a term of another president is uhhh selective.

Les — political party has nothing to do with it. You injected that, and for no good reason other than to, I suspect, muddy the water.

Radley — as you observe, it’s been three-and-a-half years. At some point, you’re gonna’ have to come to terms with the fact that he’s out of office.

Yeah. Thought not.

One joke and the Bush fans light up! It is nice to know that there are still come overly-sensitive conservatives still reading, though. Was beginning to think the only touchy assholes still commenting were on the left.

And I mentioned Bush because it was an extraordinarily dumb and naive thing to say about a foreign leader who has turned out to be a nightmare totalitarian. It’s also sort of indicative of how Bush whiffed at every major foreign policy decision he made.

Finally, no, I don’t feel I have to take an equal swipe at one side every time I make a joke about the ineptness of the other. (And if you don’t think I criticize Obama, you cant have been reading this site for very long.) This is supposed to prove my . . . what? Balance? Objectivity? I’ve never claimed this site is either of those things.

Bush fans: Your guy was an idiot. It’s been three-and-a-half years. At some point, you’re gonna’ have to come to terms with this.

It’s the same shit here with el coronado (and not his first time) and it appears to me that he just leans to the right/feels kinship with elephants more than he wants to admit. I mean, really, one small jab at a Bush quote that’s not even the crux of Radley’s post, and he needs to launch a whole 4-point attack? I think thou doth protest too much.

“Is it possible that bashing one of the major parties 92% of the time, and bashing-much-more-mildly the other 8% _might_ be indicative of an ideological bias that has nothing at all to do with “Libertarianism”?”

Are you really saying Radley bashes Republicans more than Democrats by a margin even close to 11.5:1? And, within that 11.5:1 ratio, the bashing is more intense? I’ve only been reading the Agitator for a few years, but I never sensed disproportionate criticism, especially since he usually keeps his criticism tightly focused on criminal justice issues. And, if you do read some of his off (criminal justice) topic posts, he definitely holds no love for Democrats or self-professed liberals.

OK, fine. Yet we never see posts referring to North Korea’s ongoing nuclear exports (and hideous police state) titled, “Moron Clinton”, do we? How ’bout noting how Hillary was so rudely snubbed by our friends the Chinese recently. Would you be cool with it if it was titled, “Chinese give Obama and Hillary the finger; they take it like little bitches.” I gather most here wouldn’t be OK with that, since it **never** happens. The operative question is, Why? Is it possible that bashing one of the major parties 92% of the time, and bashing-much-more-mildly the other 8% _might_ be indicative of an ideological bias that has nothing at all to do with “Libertarianism”?

Apparently I was mistaken.

I read somewhere several years ago a quote by some wag that “only Cubans and North Koreans enjoy being ‘led’ more than Amerikans.” I think I’d add “Russians” to that list too.

1) Bashing Bush. Whoa. Really *brave*, *edgy*, *out there* stance to take, ain’t it? What’s next? Gonna take another controversial stand and come out against racism? Be for charity? Against child abuse? My God! What _nerve_ this chap must possess!
2) What would the educated, world-weary commentariat have done had Bush said something like what Limbaugh says? “Once KGB, forever KGB. I don’t trust that scummy SOB and never will.” Oh, sure, he’d have been RIGHT for a change, but the pantywaist class would still be shrieking to this day about the impolitic undiplomatic warmongering cowboy.
3) Bush hasn’t been President for almost 4 years now. So is it cool to go back and bash Clinton for GIVING nuclear reactors to North Korea, because they “promised they wouldn’t use ‘em to make bombs”? That was *seriously* fucking stupid, I think we’ll all agree. Then why don’t we ever see posts & headlines like that, I wonder?
4) Has Bush’s replacement done ANYthing to rein in Tsar Vlad? Besides bowing & scraping, and promising to “do what Vlad wants soon’s I gets re-elected!”? No? Hmmm. What then can we infer about Bush’s replacement’s geopolitical skillz? And why no posts & headlines about THAT? I mean, the guy IS the Prez *now*, as opposed to 4 years ago, isn’t he?

Or like a thinking person.

If someone incessantly (and justifiably) bashes Obama, would that make them sound a lot like Bush? Or Romney? Or what?

Why shouldn’t people who did terrible things to destroy the lives of innocent people be incessantly bashed, and what does their political party have to do with anything?

Even if half of that goes to raw materials, that is still $21,250 per worker per year, a lot of money in a country where per capita GDP is $12,993.

Of course, in the great Russian tradition, most of that will be stolen by Putin and his cronies.