Paul Bashes Bush (WARNING: HIGH POLITICAL CONTENT)

[derekjdavis]

http://beforeitsnews.com/news/72/427/Vi ... House.html


Now I don't want to turn this into a political debate. However you should know that I am a registered independent and have several fairly liberal views. I agree with Macca on many issues he supports (animals rights, etc.) . However I must say I was disappointed by this comment. And let me explain why before you all hang me.

I wasn't a big Bush fan. I rarely agreed with him. HOWEVER, I believe no matter WHO is President, insults on things such as intelligence is simply disrespectful, and very cheap. However on policy, everything is fair game as long as FACTS are used. Even in simple discussions like the lyric boards on here. When somebody disagrees and they simply insult someone with an opposing view and calls them an idiot, it really discredits their cause and how people think of them as a fair-minded intelligent individual. And I thought Paul was that. However this comment was simply uncalled for and tremendously unneccessary. Even people who greatly dislike Bush should be able to admit that a comment such as his was completely unnecessary. Once again, I'm not meaning to discuss opinions of George Bush, if this turns into that I will simply not respond. I wish to discuss the character of someone who uses insults to things other than policy and actions.


Derek

[amsterdam]

Interesting.

I am rather surprised a lot of Americans react so heavily on such a mild joke aimed at a former president. I wonder whether Americans realise what an impact an American president has on (foreign) policies of other countries:

The former president of America neglected international law, messed around with intelligence (towards its own people as well as towards its allies) and then simplified the world ("axis of evil", "you are with us or against us"). As you say: "Everything is fair game as long as FACTS are used". Well, I won't discuss the policies of your former president too much. By acting in this way, he just irritated a lot of people in befriended countries/allies of America such as Germany, France, UK and The Netherlands (where I am from), and America lost much credibility and esteem in the world. Is it so wrong for Paul to make a mild joke then about the former president, who was not portraying himself really as an intellectual?

Moreover, Paul has always been much into actions and policy: human rights, animal rights, anti-landmines, environment/nature preservation. He (and other Beatles) always has/have been picking on premiers and presidents, especially conservative ones (f.e. Marcos/Tatcher/Nixon): (I do not always necessarily adhere to, but) what is wrong with that?

And yes, I think it is pretty disgusting that (on a lot of internetfora) people grumble an spit around very easily...

Cheers.

[mr h atom]

well, not to get political, i am, and have been a registered republican forever...and after the last 8 years..i agree with mccartney wholeheartedly.
for all the reasons amsterdam mentioned and many more...

also, to assume that mccartney is not informed enough, as a citizen of the world, is just as demeaning as derek would make mccartneys sneer out to be.

it probably was an innappropriate venue...but, when you get old and senile...things just happen, right ?

[derekjdavis]

Interesting.

I am rather surprised a lot of Americans react so heavily on such a mild joke aimed at a former president. I wonder whether Americans realise what an impact an American president has on (foreign) policies of other countries:

The former president of America neglected international law, messed around with intelligence (towards its own people as well as towards its allies) and then simplified the world ("axis of evil", "you are with us or against us"). As you say: "Everything is fair game as long as FACTS are used". Well, I won't discuss the policies of your former president too much. By acting in this way, he just irritated a lot of people in befriended countries/allies of America such as Germany, France, UK and The Netherlands (where I am from), and America lost much credibility and esteem in the world. Is it so wrong for Paul to make a mild joke then about the former president, who was not portraying himself really as an intellectual?

Moreover, Paul has always been much into actions and policy: human rights, animal rights, anti-landmines, environment/nature preservation. He (and other Beatles) always has/have been picking on premiers and presidents, especially conservative ones (f.e. Marcos/Tatcher/Nixon): (I do not always necessarily adhere to, but) what is wrong with that?

And yes, I think it is pretty disgusting that (on a lot of internetfora) people grumble an spit around very easily...

Cheers.

See and I can understand your positions. I simply disagree with a few things. However I'm not going to insult you. I don't mind Paul believing what he believes but I just felt that the timing was simply unnecessary. A majority of Americans, heck, a majority of people in the world, didn't like Bush. As I said, I wasn't a big Bush fan either. I suppose that I simply felt that the time was inappropriate, and no matter who is a leader, or former leader, with the exception of Hitler (and don't compare Bush to Hitler), people of a country find it disrespectful when somebody insults their leader in such a way. Just my opinion. People may not like Bush, but using insults such as Paul did is not a very credible way of debate.

[derekjdavis]

well, not to get political, i am, and have been a registered republican forever...and after the last 8 years..i agree with mccartney wholeheartedly.
for all the reasons amsterdam mentioned and many more...

also, to assume that mccartney is not informed enough, as a citizen of the world, is just as demeaning as derek would make mccartneys sneer out to be.

it probably was an innappropriate venue...but, when you get old and senile...things just happen, right ?

You agree that Bush didn't know what a library was? Odd considering his wife was a librarian. FACTS
Who says McCartney was not informed enough? You seem to really screw up on my posts. And you agree with me then= innapropriate venue. If you read my statement correctly, that was my point. Whether you agree with McCartney's beliefs or not.

[savillerowdie]

I will put a disclaimer right up from before my comments: I detest Barack Obama and most everything he stands for. That being said.....

I was disappointed with the comment, but I'd expect nothing else from Paul or most any wealthy celebrity, so I'll get over it. He can like Obama all he wants, but I think the slam on Bush (no great hero of mine, either) was unnecessary and besmirched Paul more than it did Bush. Paul bemoans the oil spill, but what has his hero Obama done about it in the past two months beyond blaming BP? Blame BP later, but command resources you have at hand as "leader" of the free world to contain the ecological impact of this disaster. At a time when leadership is needed, he's had nothing to offer. The governor of Louisiana was begging for required permits to deploy a plan to protect the local marshlands from the spill, but the administration dragged its feet DOWNLOAD.

Come Paul, you care passionately about the environment. Have you been paying attention to Barack's golf scores and vacations while the oil slick spreads? DOWNLOAD. For the White House, this is not an ecological emergency, it is a PR issue to be managed. You had a perfect opportunity to spur Obama to take more decisive action on this spill, but you decided instead waste it with a cheap shot at a president who's been gone now for 18 months. If Bush was still president, you'd tear him a new one over this and rightfully so. Enjoy Obama while you have him Paul. 2012 approaches and a growing majority in the US have had enough of this Jimmy Carter redux. I will always love you Paul, you've given me too much to ever change that. But I really could do without more of the political and veggie mantra. Remember what a wise man once said about too many people preaching practices.

[Awesoman]

In getting back to Paul's comment and *not* what everyone's favorite Kool-Aid flavor is, Paul has never been a very politically active person. This is the guy that said "going veggie" would stop global warming. I don't know about you, but there is plenty of humor to be had from that comment.

[jgkojak]

I am a solid Obama supporter and liberal across the board.

I think what Paul said was right on, a very mild put down. Have you heard what Rush and Hannity and Beck say about Obama? This was a MILD criticism and Paul has every right to make it.

I'm not happy with Obama- because I think he hasn't been liberal enough - i.e. he should have fought for a public option on health care.

As far as the spill, I'm disappointed that Obama didn't just kick BP off the platform, seize the thing, and contract with whatever company has the solution to get the well capped. I also hope, though not holding my breath, that BP is held criminally liable for what happened.

Then again, Bush should be held criminally liable for sending American troops to fight a war based on doctored evidence and lies. But that's another post.

[jgkojak]

The governor of Louisiana was begging for required permits to deploy a plan to protect the local marshlands from the spill, but the administration dragged its feet

Because the plan had no bearing on reality, and could not reasonably be executed- in other words, it was a pie in the sky act of political grandstanding that was not based in what could actually be achieved with technology and peronnel.

So Jindal should be happy Obama turned it down, 'cause he'd look like an idiot when it came time to implement the plan.

[jgkojak]

2012 approaches and a growing majority in the US have had enough of this Jimmy Carter redux.

If the Republicans nominate Palin or one of her teabagger cronies, Obama wins in a blowout.