What a load of manure.

The intent of that article is clear: Obama is doing the very things, with little or no public outcry for which Bush was crucified in the area of public opinion.

Yes, other Presidents have done different things (and they were treated DIFFERENTLY).

Example? George H.W. Bush gave a speech to school children that was viciously attacked by the media as propaganda ploy. Obama did something similar and worse, he included partisan homework (later removed) and he received a full pass.

This is a matter of hypocrisy and the fact that you cannot see this speaks volumes either of your partisan blindness or your mental inadequacies.

I say this as a person with a disdain and loathing for Bush that cannot be adequately be articulated in any language.

As much displeasure as I hold for Bush, I hold more so for liars and hypocrites.

With all that said, this will be fun.

Red herring. No claim was made that poor public speaking skills amounted to a criminal offense. The point was hypocrisy. President Obama relies almost exclusively upon teleprompters; more so than any other President in US history. The ability to read from a teleprompter is but ONE avenue that must be mastered to master public speaking.

Factually False as can be seen from observing speeches given from George W. Bush. When comparing major speeches given by GWB with Obama, it is clear for all to see who has the difficulty with the teleprompter (see head bob, left to right, left to right for further edification).

Furthermore, all Presidents have their shares of gaffes and public speak faux paux . This is a matter of public record and I suggest you do some menial research on the matter

----had no such problems...Of Course, GWB rarely got through a press conference with out a major gaffe anyway.----

The same can be said of Obama so what is your point? The point of the article was the incessant claim that GWB was a babbling, incoherent idiot. His public speaking skills were average at best but then again, Obama-s public speaking skills are average as well.

Have you seen Obama give a speech with out a teleprompter? I have; it was excruciating between the fumbling, the uhs, and ohs, etc.

Have you seen Obama both a speech via a teleprompter? I have; Obama even had the distinct pleasure of reading another man-s speech and then introducing himself to himself. How quaint.

Do you have a number to support this claim and information to explain why such a number would matter? You are confusing your irrelevant and meaningless number of vacation days with parties, leaves of absence (actual leave), and out right disappearances (as occurred with John Adams) Perhaps you should take the time to do some basic research before spouting off with nonsense. Long vacations are historic precedent by Presidents including James Madison , Thomas Jefferson , and John Adams.

----not to mention more vacation months than any president is history. Mr. Adpo, check the Bush travel stats so you get a more informed knowledge of reality.--Irrelevant. Unlike Presidents of the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, we have this invention called telecommunications involving the internet and telephone communications. The fact that Bush was not physically present in D.C. and in the White House is irrelevant as he always had a mobile communications center around him (as all modern Presidents do).

Again, logical fallacy takes precedent over the truth and point of the article: Bush was hammered for taking vacation days (even days he WAS WORKING on his ranch including doing his Constitutional duty entertaining foreign leaders as head of state) by many INCLUDING the current President Obama.

Given what Obama has said in the past, this smacks of RANK hypocrisy. Furthermore, if Obama persists at his current rate, he may yet beat Bush by your arithmetic as he has already played more golf, given more press conferences, and dine more campaigning than either Bush or Clinton did in 8 years of office in ONE YEAR.

...GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

FACTUALLY FALSE. The reference to the loss in GM stock that was given as a majority state to the unions regarding GM was a direct result of the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION which followed a decade of the management of GM running the business into the ground.

You are obviously confusing the FORCED bankruptcy deal, which set a precedent in American bankruptcy law as it screwed bond holders royally, with the direct mismanagement of a private corporation (which the Government had no say in running prior to Obama).

Do some menial research before posting half truths and whole lies.

Factually FALSE. For starters, the US President does not run the US economy. This is ECON/CIVICS 101 so I suggest you find a local high school offering a general equivalency course and sit in for a basic education.

Secondly, Washington does not run Wall Street. If anything, Wall Street runs Washington as can be evidenced by the record shattering donations made from companies to the current leaders in Washington (predominantly Democrat); many of whom benefited directly as the recipients of federal dollars in a program passed by the DEMOCRAT congress, signed by Bush, and continued by President Obama.

I would remind you that Obama was a US Senator when all of this was occurring and he voted for the very legislation be now rails against.

f George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics,would you have approved?

What was the joke? Where and when did he make the joke?

Lost? There were no lost WMD. There were only WMD Saddam had which we knew he had which he failed to account for. It is amazing what a nation the size of California with a lot of money in oil and dollars can do with items that can fill a refridgerator.

I know of only one joke regarding WMD made by Bush and it was not about WMD but a self deprecating joke that insulted himself. Bush was still ridiculed for that joke in a way Obama was not when he directly insulted special needs children.

What was the joke? Where and when did he make the joke?

He did not declare Mission Accomplished and he did not declare Mission Accomplished for the War in Iraq. That is a common LIE parroted out by the ignorant who are either too lazy or lacking to do BASIC RESEARCH on the matter.

Look it up and acquire an actual education on the matter.

His followers such as Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and the Democrats who voted for the war to proceed and the funding for the war to continue? What about the Democrats who took control of BOTH HOUSES in 2007 who ran on ending the war who DID NOT END THE WAR?

George W. Bush could not have launched and sustained the war in Iraq with OUT DEMOCRATS. That is an absolute, verifiable fact of history you would know if you did even the smallest amount of research.

As for the bodies of our soldiers, what about Obama who ran on a campaign to end the war in Iraq (which he has not) and fight the GOOD WAR (his words) for which he has yet to make a decision upon almost a year into his first term?

He and Democrats like him had no problem standing in the halls of Congress and the floor of the Senate (like Harry Reid) and declaring the WAR LOST while our men and women were being killed in combat.

My, my, what a short memory you appear to have.

Oh really? Do you even know what GWB gave as gifts? I do. You are commenting on things on which you have NO WORKING KNOWLEDGE.

Memory loss? Did you even read the damn article? Bush was RIDUCLED by both the LEFT AND THE RIGHT for doing that! Bush was deemed a war monger in the pocket of the Saudis from that one PHOTO.

Obama? He bowed to the son of a bitch and nary a peep. Not only that but the Obama White House took the official stance that there was no Bow even when Obama bowed to the Emperor of Japan in a manner that was striking similar than the event that took place with the King of Saud.

Once more you have completely missed the entire premise and purpose of the article and substituted, in its place, FALSE HOODS, half truths, and irrelevancies.

Nixon and Eisenhower presented a DIFFERENT BOW (yes grasshopper, there are different cultural bows in Japan, try an education for starters) and it is evidenced by the photographs. What Obama did was amateurish and the photographs tell the story better than your lies.

Many of the things you claim Bush did he either did not do or could not have done with out Democrats in Congress (in some cases including Obama himself).

Perhaps you should acquire an actual education on American Government before comment further. Your entire argument appears to be that Bush was a lousy President. So what? Does that lessen the fact that Obama is a worse President and this Congress are spending far more than they did under Bush (the Obama White House states on their website our national debt, not counting unfunded liabilities, will literally double in 10 years and all of that is NEW SPENDING. Ye-HAW).

He posted verifiable facts which you promptly ignore.

Who owned that land?

Much like posing next to the caskets of dead, American soldiers as per our current President?

So now the ownership of bovine is a requisite for a ranch? I grew up in a ranch that had no cattle but it was still a ranch. Thank you for again exposing your ignorance on the matter for your vile hatred of the man.

How do you know this? Because he said so? So now you take Obama at his word despite the fact we have him on record as a habitual liar eh?

Such as? Be specific for a change.

I did read the above but there was nothing of substance in there past your own erroneous assertions backed up with little more than your own words.

Really? So you have dug through the Austin Chronicle and hold, in your possession, a large quantity of quality evidence proving GWB was guilty of a felony offense? Care to share your information with the rest of us?

Should I wait for your response before I get into Obama and his many alleged felonious acts including but not limited to embezzlement, fraud, and bribery?

----What in the heck are you talking about? You really need to explain that claim because GWB was always late and without any real relief to anyone because he believed government couldn't work and was out to prove it by making sure it didn't.---

So all of those state owned busses that were sitting, flooded with water, were, what, exactly? Was the failure of the NO government the work of George Bush as well? Did Bush conjure up the hurricane in his magical bunker beneath the Cheney White House?

I would love for you to present facts and figures rather than just bullshit assertions and claims with out merit that completely ignore the entire premise of the debate you quite and quite clearly missed. When you are done with that, please show me where in the Constitution a sitting President has the power and authority to send the US Army into a sovereign US State to do what their Governor and State Legislature has not requested.

That makes it better right? How many did Nixon have? How many did Bush have? How many does Obama have again? Hmmm.

Factually incorrect. I suggest you read Article II Section II of the US Constitution. There is an argument used by the Executive Branch they claim allows them to lay claim to the fact that Congress has no authority over them which runs contrary to what you just wrote. Perhaps you should acquire an education on the matter before speaking further on an issue for which you are so clearly ill-equipped.

I suggest you study some history as well before continuing to make erroneous and asinine statements in relation to something you clearly do not understand.

Which means what? Nixon made many claims that were not appropriate or accurate as did Clinton and Bush (and Obama for that matter). What is your point? You argue that other Presidents have done so therefore it is ok for Obama to do so? Bush was attacked for his so-called czars in a way Obama has thus far avoided. That was the point of that particular piece of the article. I wonder why it is you failed to see such a simple point.

That claim can easily be lain at your feet given what ignorance you have presented thus far. If I had to guess, I would say you acquired your education of the US Government from a cracker jack box.

Name one.

Really? I suggest you read Article II, Section II again before commenting further.

That is an interesting statement given what is said about a Republican while a Republican is in office compared to what is not said about a Democrat in office who does the same, exact, thing.

Oddly enough, or not, that was the entire point of the article.

FACTUALLY FALSE.

1) Presidents cannot spend or borrow any money not first appropriated by Congress. This is more of your cracker jack civics.

2) Do some remedial research as to who controlled the Congress for the majority of the time Reagan was in power (I will give you a hint, the real answer makes you look silly).

It is a shame you did not take the time to post the facts when you wrote this ignorant tripe because then, perhaps, you would have been educated as to your nonsense and would have realized that the facts of the matter contradict what you claim here. Republicans can be big spenders, sure, but not on the scale of Democrats by any stretch of the imagination ranging from the New Deal, The Great Society, The Vietnam War, the Second New Deal (Obama express), etc.

Furthermore, what political party was in control of the Congress under Bill Clinton when the USA started paying down her debt and started to get the budget under control?

Which political party gained seats when Bush came into office (I will give a hint, a Democrat was the Senate Majority leader by the end of 2001)?

Sure, Republicans have their fair share of financial blood on their hands but not to the degree you would suggest. Your ignorance demonstrated as well as your selective memory here is simply astounding.

I would wager that you were not a living adult at the time or you would not have made such an asinine statement. There was an interesting reason behind the unemployment and inflation and that was directly related to the previous President who was so terrible in his abilities, allowed Reagan to sweep into office with a near 50 state majority.

Oh and by the way, unemployment is not 10% in the USA today because the USG decided years ago to alter the way they compute and present such data to their favor. The real unemployment rate is somewhere near 15% depending upon whom you ask. This is quite similar to the M3 data from the Fed (I will let you look that one up for yourself).

And what research have you done to present your ignorant, nonsensical idea of the world here ? Thus far I have not seen anything from your post but partisan ignorance, libel, and stupidity on a grand scale.

There are many reasons to loathe Bush but none of what you posted, even what little happens to be accurate, discounts the rampant corruption, ignorance, and stupidity demonstrated in Washington today (especially the Obama White House).

You have embraced outright lie and logical fallacy rather than facing the cold, hard truth: as bad as Bush was, Obama is 10 times worse.

As bad as the Congress was under Bush, which at its peak in Republican hands never had the majorities Obama has today (which means Democrats could stonewall, pass amendments, and filibuster), this current Congress, the Congress we had two years ago of which Obama served, is 10 times worse.

Food for thought boyo.