Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 2828900)

.....and according to you Viet Nam was a justfiied war and we won it?

Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 2828918)

No. No.

It was not justified and we lost. I guess the context of the time is important -- the majority of Americans thought we were in a life or death struggle with the USSR and bought the Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon argument that the commie expansion must be stopped. In my opinion it could have been won and was lost largely due to the national press taking sides and accelerating the change in America's willingness to support it. But having won, so what?

Besides, using one bloody unjustifiable fiasco to justify another is not a useful argument, is it?

Originally Posted by flymehomenow (Post 2828617)

Why can't you libs get your head screwed on straight! Obama is the worst President in American history. Corrupt as they come. You believe everything that the liberal media spews on a daily basis. They'll tell you that's is OK to play in the middle of the Interstate and you will probably the first one on the road playing. Get real!

Originally Posted by MTI (Post 2828620)

Well, we have quite the presidential historian here . . . ;)

Originally Posted by LarryBible (Post 2828990)

Bush's crony capitalism gave us a better economy than BO's crony socialism.

Originally Posted by tjts1 (Post 2828997)

I still don't get why Larry feels the need to trash Newt. It seems like trollish behavior. Whatever

Originally Posted by PaulC (Post 2829018)

Larry's adopted a new tack: Instead of the melodramatic martyrdom of a year ago (I'm leaving, I'm out of here, no, I really mean it, I'm leaving!) when a few called him on his nonsense, we now have Tea Party trollery manifested in the production of insipid commentary intended to rankle those who don't fall in line with certain bigoted views.

Can't wait for Larry 3.0...

Originally Posted by LarryBible (Post 2829022)

What makes you think that I have Tea Party affiliation?

Originally Posted by tjts1 (Post 2828997)

I still don't get why Larry feels the need to trash Newt. It seems like trollish behavior. Whatever

Originally Posted by PaulC (Post 2828992)

That sounds like something that a Tea Party troll would say. Recall the last year of the Bush administration? Are those the good old days that you wish to see return?

Originally Posted by Solid Snake (Post 2828477)

Red= Well there you go.
Blue= Never implied.

I don't see Politico leaning any which way but loose, ever since their endorsement of President Bush years ago. I enjoy reading you tell Larry he's brainwashed and basically implying ignorance to the 'truth', when you yourself take the stance of every lefty I have the so 'gracious opportunity' to converse with in Connecticut.

Don't worry Larry, we're just too simple and ignorant to see that the left wing knows whats best for us common folk. Maybe I should emulate our current President and play a round of golf in between classes and conferences. Or lend money to companies that go belly up all over the place. Or force emissions regulations that no one wants to adhere to except So Cal. Buy out an awful auto union to produce more cars no one 'wants'.

As to our ravenous appetite for power, I don't recall President Bush entering a conflict without Congressional approval or throwing fliff around like a sultan. I also only recall the slaying of one dictator under Bush's regime, and two down thus far in the Obama Presidency.
So... who's the war monger?

I don't get why anyone follows the leader boards regarding who's on top in the public vote for the Republicans. While Romney isn't the furthest right candidate we've got, he's well moderate enough to succeed appealing to ALL constituents. Plus, it's the RNCs final decision anyways. Cain is obviously a no go-- he has less foreign policy education than Obama. Gingrich is an easy kill skeleton wise, but I would thoroughly enjoy watching him mop the floor with Obama in a debate. I can hear him stutter like Dubya now.

Originally Posted by elchivito (Post 2829030)

Ah, who can argue with the voice of years of experience, watching political campaigns, personally living through various administrations, choosing and voting for presidents. How many was it again?

Originally Posted by Solid Snake (Post 2829040)

Four, if you count lame duck periods :D

I speak not from experience or political background. I stick by whichever policies can make America's GDP positive over debt. It just so happens that this makes me bow right.