The idea that Bush caused internet incivility is one of the stupidest things I have ever seen attributed to Bush in a long line of stupid accusations.
(I'm not saying they were all stupid, but there sure were a lot of stupid ones.)
The internet was uncivil before Bush, the internet will be uncivil after Bush, and if Obama gives a speech tomorrow directly exhorting people to be more civil on the internet it won't do a damn thing, because the internet takes absolutely none of its tone from the US President.
Bush is a symptom of the social illness more broadly described as the "neoconservative era" that began around 1980. The man himself had almost nothing to do with inciting internet incivility (aside from sometimes being a target of it) but certain civil erosions ushered in by the 1980s did.
You're being USA-centric when dealing with the global phenomenon that is the Internet. Neither Bush (nor Obama) will ever be be a symptom of anything of that magnitude.
I'll down-mod you not because I disagree, but because your reasoning is incomplete and one-sided.
It's not grammatically correct to put (nor) in parenthesis, because it makes your non-parenthetical statement grammatically incorrect.
I think it's more important that his argument is encouraging discussion. He's not trolling. He's stating his beliefs. That's worth an upvote. He's wrong and he's not arguing well but he's genuinely trying to contribute.
EDIT: And apparently, defending somebody else who has an earnest opinion and making a friendly grammar statement regarding a tricky bit of language is worth downvotes too. I'm sorry. :-(
(I'm not saying they were all stupid, but there sure were a lot of stupid ones.)
The internet was uncivil before Bush, the internet will be uncivil after Bush, and if Obama gives a speech tomorrow directly exhorting people to be more civil on the internet it won't do a damn thing, because the internet takes absolutely none of its tone from the US President.
Drink a little less of the Kool-Aid, OK?