Fair enough, then.
Please point out which ones you think require “clarification” not already given and I’ll give it.
These words require clarification:
*A quote or two would be illustrative. You do have some, don’t you? You wouldn’t make up shit just to help yourself feel better, would you? Of course you wouldn’t. :rolleyes: *
You already “clarified” that you didn’t mean what you said. I objected to what you said, which was an unmistakable innuendo that “The Left” doesn’t recognize Bush’s legitimacy as President based on a few comments by a few hotheads in the wake of the election. You’ve already apologized for that spot o’ bullshit, and I see no reason to apologize for calling you on it.
But since you’d like to discuss the topic further, apparently, how about this: Do you believe *Bush * thinks he’s my President as much as he thinks he’s yours? Do my interests, responsibilities, and aspirations here in the electorally-hopeless Northeast matter as much to him as if I lived in Texas or a competitive state? Do you, on the basis of Bush’s actions and positions, believes he’s the President of the *entire * United States?
You asked for one or two examples. I gave you four. At the very least, you’d think you could say something like, “Yes, I grant you there are four, probably more, instances - you didn’t make it up. What you DID make up was the insinuation that the prevailing sentiment of the left was such, and THAT, I called you on.”
Of course he does. But he believes that the role of the President of the entire United States is to lead according to his own vision, not to draw some line that represents the average view of all the voters mushed together.
A representative leader who doesn’t represent his people? Whotta concept.
And that is indeed what I both said and meant. Next?
If he does not respect that all of the country’s citizens alike, then no, he “of course” does *not * consider himself the President of the *entire * United States. Why do you say he does in such positive terms? What is this “vision of leadership” you claim he has (but which has never been articulated by anyone, much less you, in more noble terms than “WE WON, HAHAHAHA”)? How is his continuous stream acts of spite and divisiveness evidence of it?
ElvisL1ves, in all honesty, I believe you could have been more prompt and decisive in admitting that Bricker did indeed provide valid examples of people on this board claiming that Bush was not their president.
But as far as extrapolating to the left at large, I am in agreement with you.
Remember when Ollie North declared that Clinton “isn’t my commander in chief”? (IIRC, he later weasled out by claiming that since North wasn’t in the military when Clinton was in office, the statement was technically correct).
This was a guy running for the US Senate, not some yahoo on a message board – my use of a tu quoque is only to point out that the same standard must be used for both sides of the spectrum.
As far as Bush’s attitude towards people who disagree with him, this story, if true, may be informative.
Very informative indeed. It says something about a person setting up an event that the President is invited to that he cannot show the minimum of civility required toward the office at least.
I once expressed similar thoughts, in person, to Bill Clinton. The difference was that it was a campaign event, he was not president at the time, and my statement was a polite and friendly “I’m not voting for you, but I’m glad to meet you anyway,” while shaking his hand. I will say he responded in a similarly friendly manner.
If Bill Hangley cannot keep his pie hole shut, and be nice to the President when the event demands courtesy, I’d have to say I don’t care what he thinks either. I certainly won’t take his word on what went down as the truth of the matter, except for the indisputable proof of his poor manners.
Well, if it’s on the internet it ***must ***be true…
I wonder how LBJ would’ve reacted in that type of circumstance. 
You were conveying that you hoped Clinton would not be elected, in which case he would serve no years; Hangley was saying he hoped Bush only served four years. Pointed statements, but respectful of the office, and to be expected in a democracy. (Although I think you were more courteous in that you said it was nice to meet him).
I have no reason to treat Hangley’s word as irrefutable, but I don’t consider his version of what he said to be discourteous or uncivil, and I’d say the same thing if he’d been addressing Clinton. YMMV.
That’s true, sure. But had I been at an official event (vice a campaign event) and had I been employed at that event in some official capacity, I wouldn’t have even said that much to Clinton. It wouldn’t have been proper.
Bill Hangley has other ways of making his disapproval known. He didn’t have to act the boor.
It is precisely the *rarity * of examples that illustrates the falsity of the blanket condemnation he made. At no time would I ever suggest that any political faction is without its extremists or hotheads - too often, though, the extrapolation about which we agree shows up on GD in the guise of a purported argument.
Actually, no, but then he’s just another talking head (one who weaseled out of a treason investigation by putting on his dress uniform before Congress, yes). Perhaps that corner of my memory was occupied by the incident of Dick Armey, then the GOP’s choice as House whip, who said about Clinton “Your President is just not that important to us”.