Originally Posted by Guest

In Vietnam? That was a civil war and the US had no reason to be there and yet it cost over 58,000 American lives - and the USA lost.

Nice try Vietnam, another Democrat war. But, great way to change the discussion when you are losing.

Too bad they don't have the draft so that you could pay back the country for your waste.

Originally Posted by Guest

Hillary and Joe voted in favor of going to the war you are speaking of. At least Congress got to vote on that one, not like Emperor Obama who does what he prefers with executive order bypassing Congress.

How many signing statements did Bush sign stating what part of the law he would enforce?

GW Bush issued 291 executive orders during his Presidency
Obama has issued 203 executive orders so far.....

You lose on this one.

And we all know he/she/? is not only liberal but a contrarian liberal....maybe that is a double entente'.

The positions taken are more for effect than intelligence. It has to be because there is no intelligence involved.

As for W going to Europe....I guess if he did not have a camera following him around advertizing his agenda like Obama....that must mean he did not leave the country.......really makes no sense at all but fits whayt has been said in the above sentences.

Like a kid screaming for attention no thought involved just move the lips!! (Obama like)

Originally Posted by Guest

Nice try Vietnam, another Democrat war. But, great way to change the discussion when you are losing.

Too bad they don't have the draft so that you could pay back the country for your waste.

Hey I all for the draft!!! Check out the D behind my name.

Originally Posted by Guest

And we all know he/she/? is not only liberal but a contrarian liberal....maybe that is a double entente'.

The positions taken are more for effect than intelligence. It has to be because there is no intelligence involved.

As for W going to Europe....I guess if he did not have a camera following him around advertizing his agenda like Obama....that must mean he did not leave the country.......really makes no sense at all but fits whayt has been said in the above sentences.

Like a kid screaming for attention no thought involved just move the lips!! (Obama like)

I realize that facts are something we do not like to use but here is the story.

Bush was scheduled to visit Switzerland, I think in 2011 to speak at a Jewish charity event. He canceled the trip because of left wing threats to boycott and demonstrate loudly at the event.

The leftist websites in the country took that and ran with it posting it mostly as an academic question since they had no facts to support their allegations.

It is nothing new and notice that Bush, always being a stand up guy, just kept his mouth shut. And by the way, most of the turmoil had to do with water boarding and NOT Iraq.

Originally Posted by Guest

How many signing statements did Bush sign stating what part of the law he would enforce?

GW Bush issued 291 executive orders during his Presidency
Obama has issued 203 executive orders so far.....

You lose on this one.

It is not the number of executive orders but the content that is relevant.

Originally Posted by Guest

How many signing statements did Bush sign stating what part of the law he would enforce?

GW Bush issued 291 executive orders during his Presidency
Obama has issued 203 executive orders so far.....

You lose on this one.

You know, if I were you I would check on the content of those executive orders. You progressive websites do not share that...they count on folks like you who do not check on the details.

When you do not do that...

" President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the "Do Nothing Congress" almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents."

Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'

Then please take the time to learn the subject matter of what was in all these executive actions. You will be shocked at the gravity in the Obama moves and the incidental little trite stuff done by Bush.

It is a learning experience.

Originally Posted by Guest

Now this is funny.....His weak when he doesn't attack ISIS aka Syria and I believe the military still in country fighting a war Bush started bombed a hospital.

End of Story

Are you really that ignorant? Obama is the Commander-in-Chief, the military takes direction from him. What?, Obama takes credit when the military kills Bin Laden, but it is Bush's fault when Obama directs the military to bomb a hospital. You are beyond stupid.

Originally Posted by Guest

Now this is funny.....His weak when he doesn't attack ISIS aka Syria and I believe the military still in country fighting a war Bush started bombed a hospital.

End of Story

Just when we think we have all the dumbest things folks can make up we get a surprise like this.
I think it does exhibit a serious issue with know anything at all about what is being said.

One step short of a squirrel walking across the keyboard!

This thread is almost sufficient evidence that the intended use of the new political forum has become overwhelmed with total and complete nonsense. And unfortunately, including me, have been sucked in by the baiting and attempting to right the so seriously presented wrongs.

It has degenerated from a political forum, to political entertainment to a waste of time that is no where near anything truly remote to a political discussion.

Originally Posted by Guest

It is not the number of executive orders but the content that is relevant.

Now this gets to the heart of the matter..... just to funny.

Obama is an emperor because he is using executive orders but Bush was just doing his job all because YOU liked the one Bush was issuing.

When confronted with the facts you bob and weave!

Originally Posted by Guest

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

Back at ya.....

Originally Posted by Guest

Bush attacked a country that violated the no fly zone. He also attacked a dictator that used WMDs on his own people, killing hundreds of thousands of citizens and buried them in a mass grave. I was there when they uncovered it. Sadaam along with his brother(s) cruised the Baghdad and kidnapped young women, taking them back to their palace, raping them and then killing them. That's fact also. So, when you say Bush attacked an innocent country, well the country was innocent but Sadaam wasn't and the people that I talked to were very happy that he was gone.

But, what would you know, having never paid your country back for what you owe it. There used to be a saying that I heard in Vietnam that I have no idea the origin that goes something like this:

"For those that fight for it, freedom has a flavor that the protected will never taste."
Probably not exact wording, but you get the idea.

While this may all be true Iraq NEVER directly or even indirectly attacked the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Therefore Bush attacked a country that had NOT attacked us.....

Just the facts.

Originally Posted by Guest

Are you really that ignorant? Obama is the Commander-in-Chief, the military takes direction from him. What?, Obama takes credit when the military kills Bin Laden, but it is Bush's fault when Obama directs the military to bomb a hospital. You are beyond stupid.

The irony in your statement is considerable.....

Obama takes the credit when the MILITARY kills Bin Laden but Obama bombed the hospital NOT the military.....

And you are calling me STUPID?

Originally Posted by Guest

This thread is almost sufficient evidence that the intended use of the new political forum has become overwhelmed with total and complete nonsense. And unfortunately, including me, have been sucked in by the baiting and attempting to right the so seriously presented wrongs.

It has degenerated from a political forum, to political entertainment to a waste of time that is no where near anything truly remote to a political discussion.

I agree. Let's face it, everyone pretty much has their mind made up as to what party they are going to vote for.We are in our 60s 70s and 80s and are not going to change our minds at this stage in life. People on this thread present their own version of the facts, some using tabloid sources to back up their opinion. Others respond to any political topic with a stream of vitriol against the "low life leftists" even if that is not the topic of conversation. They apparently have so much hate they have to release it somewhere. I too got sucked in and tried to present a more factual account at one point, but it was clearly a waste of time. I look in here once in awhile for the entertainment value but otherwise avoid it like the plague.