Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on August 29, 2014, 08:47:21 AM
-
I don't see this as a big deal... Bush was still able to get a lot of work done. presidents are never really on *actual* vacation. They can work from any place on earth.
Vacation Days: Obama’s count was 125 full or partial days and Bush’s total at the same point in his presidency was 407.
http://mobile.philly.com/news/politics/?wss=/philly/news/politics/presidential/&id=273036451&
-
waiting for the reply from the usual suspects that will refute/deny find fault with the numbers.
-
::) More idiocy from DU.
-
I don't see this as a big deal... Bush was still able to get a lot of work done. presidents are never really on *actual* vacation. They can work from any place on earth.
Vacation Days: Obama’s count was 125 full or partial days and Bush’s total at the same point in his presidency was 407.
http://mobile.philly.com/news/politics/?wss=/philly/news/politics/presidential/&id=273036451&
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
-
Im gonna go ahead and just lay this out here....
Bush sucked.
Obama sucks worse.
Now, lets move on.
-
Im gonna go ahead and just lay this out here....
Bush sucked.
Obama sucks worse.
Now, lets move on.
I'm just gonna go ahead and just lay this out here.....
Bush sucks worse
Now, lets move on
-
I'm just gonna go ahead and just lay this out here.....
Bush sucks worse
Now, lets move on
LMFAO - W was considered the worst of the worst of the worst and now the best you Obama suckers can do is try to compare shitbama to him.
-
I don't see this as a big deal... Bush was still able to get a lot of work done. presidents are never really on *actual* vacation. They can work from any place on earth.
Vacation Days: Obama’s count was 125 full or partial days and Bush’s total at the same point in his presidency was 407.
http://mobile.philly.com/news/politics/?wss=/philly/news/politics/presidential/&id=273036451&
everyone knows that facts have a well known liberal bias
-
I'm just gonna go ahead and just lay this out here.....
Bush sucks worse
Now, lets move on
Going strictly by approval rating, America disagrees. Besides, Bush is gone, and Obama promised to be the anti-bush but did the same shit. Id say that kind of makes him worse.
-
Working vacation vs. non working vacation. Obama barley does anything when not on "vacation" what the fuck makes you think he does anything while ON vacation? Obama wouldn't know actual work if it hit him the head. That's obvious with in the state this country (world) is in. It's not even a comparison to Bush. Nice try 240, but you "president" is a fucking loser and a typical lazy lib.
-
Going strictly by approval rating, America disagrees. Besides, Bush is gone, and Obama promised to be the anti-bush but did the same shit. Id say that kind of makes him worse.
False but good try at promoting that myth
Here are two different sources ( I can' recall where I found the 2nd one) showing Bush had a lower job approval rating that Obama (so far)
-
Who cares? Obama still sucks. His leadership stinks. His policies stink. He lacks good judgment. He lacks integrity. He has done a lousy job as president.
But for liberal lackeys it's still Bush's fault, six friggin years later. ::)
-
Going strictly by approval rating, America disagrees.
??? Did you just make that up? lol
Dude, their lowest AINT EVEN CLOSE.
WTF
-
::) More idiocy from DU.
No doubt.
-
??? Did you just make that up? lol
Dude, their lowest AINT EVEN CLOSE.
WTF
so far Obama's lowest approval rating is higher than both Bush's and Reagan and even Clinton
-
??? Did you just make that up? lol
Dude, their lowest AINT EVEN CLOSE.
WTF
I swear to god i saw an article posted previously that said Obama had set a record low for his approval.
I very well could have been wrong (and it appears so), or more than likely it was a record low in some other area that is worded similarly but not quite the same.
Either way, im not looking it up.
Still, i believe a guy who came on and campaigned as the anti-bush, but wound up following the same principles bush did (and expanding them) to be worse than the original guy himself.
Oh, and Bush didnt enact the ACA. Bush sucked, yes, but i believe that Obama is far worse, for his idealism, his arrogance, the fact he did exactly what he campaigned against, his action in things like the ACA, and his inaction on other critical events, makes him far worse than Bush. At least with Bush you knew what you were getting....
-
so far Obama's lowest approval rating is higher than both Bush's and Reagan and even Clinton
Not hard to figure out. More people on welfare than ever before, blacks worship him 95% like shaka Zulu, same for gays, etc.
-
Not hard to figure out. More people on welfare than ever before, blacks worship him 95% like shaka Zulu, same for gays, etc.
but herman cain didn't win a single primary. So weird.
-
Who cares? Obama still sucks. His leadership stinks. His policies stink. He lacks good judgment. He lacks integrity. He has done a lousy job as president.
But for liberal lackeys it's still Bush's fault, six friggin years later. ::)
You could replace Obama with Bush in that sentence and still be accurate
-
You could replace Obama with Bush in that sentence and still be accurate
I disagree. Regardless, Bush isn't president. Whatever Bush did or didn't do doesn't make Obama suck any less.
-
Working vacation vs. non working vacation. Obama barley does anything when not on "vacation" what the fuck makes you think he does anything while ON vacation? Obama wouldn't know actual work if it hit him the head. That's obvious with in the state this country (world) is in. It's not even a comparison to Bush. Nice try 240, but you "president" is a fucking loser and a typical lazy lib.
And there it is, ladies and gentlemen. The bias of every mindless blindly-partisan drone. "Your guy <blah blah blah>. You can't even compare it to my guy <blah blah blah>. You <insult> <partisan affiliation> <generalization> <generalization>".
No reasoning, no regard for reality, no objective evaluation of facts. None of that. With Coach - and others like him - all you get is mindless regurgitation of whatever points his political overlords wish him to mindlessly regurgitate.
It's people like you - on both the left and the right - that have made it effectively impossible for a reasonable, accomplished and serious candidate with political experience and gravitas to run and be elected.
And for what? The likes of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
I disagree. Regardless, Bush isn't president. Whatever Bush did or didn't do doesn't make Obama suck any less.
And there's another partisan buffoon. Except, unlike Joe he has more than three functioning brain cells. Sadly, they are on furlough.
You're missing his entire point. And his point is that whether Bush is or isn't President right now is irrelevant: the very same critiques that conservatives are levying against Obama were being levied against Bush by liberals.
-
And there it is, ladies and gentlemen. The bias of every mindless blindly-partisan drone. "Your guy <blah blah blah>. You can't even compare it to my guy <blah blah blah>. You <insult> <partisan affiliation> <generalization> <generalization>".
No reasoning, no regard for reality, no objective evaluation of facts. None of that. With Coach - and others like him - all you get is mindless regurgitation of whatever points his political overlords wish him to mindlessly regurgitate.
It's people like you - on both the left and the right - that have made it effectively impossible for a reasonable, accomplished and serious candidate with political experience and gravitas to run and be elected.
And for what? The likes of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
And there's another partisan buffoon. Except, unlike Joe he has more than three functioning brain cells. Sadly, they are on furlough.
You're missing his entire point. And his point is that whether Bush is or isn't President right now is irrelevant: the very same critiques that conservatives are levying against Obama were being levied against Bush by liberals.
Again, who the heck cares? I don't care what conservatives are saying about Obama, whether the criticism is consistent, etc. What I AM saying is the man sucks. And whether Bush was good, bad, or average has absolutely nothing to do with the job that Obama is doing now. Moral equivalency is rarely a good argument.
And what's silly is you actually agreed with me previously about how poorly Obama has handled his vacations.
-
Again, who the heck cares? I don't care what conservatives are saying about Obama, whether the criticism is consistent, etc.
You, a presumably sane, intelligent and reasonable person, should care. Here, let me draw it out for you with crayons:
The mindless idiots at the fringes of the U.S. political spectrum have taken the process over and are the people who are giving us candidates like Obama and they are the base upon which such candidates are elected to office.
There's no fundamental distinction between the idiots on the right and the left. They are all blind, partisan fools - regardless of party.
What I AM saying is the man sucks. And whether Bush was good, bad, or average has absolutely nothing to do with the job that Obama is doing now. Moral equivalency is rarely a good argument.
Sure, Obama sucks. Sure, Obama isn't Bush. By all means, judge Obama and Bush on their own merits. Judge all politicians on their own merits.
But Bush's past actions - or any past President's for that matter - can certainly affect the current and future Presidents. Or do you believe that Carter's actions didn't affect Reagan and that Reagan's actions don't still affect things today?
But nothing I said can be reduced to moral equivalency.
And what's silly is you actually agreed with me previously about how poorly Obama has handled his vacations.
Why is it silly? I agree that Obama has mishandled many things. That's not to say that I don't think that people like Soul Crusher and The Coach aren't being selective in their memory and criticism, or that they aren't blindly partisan fools. I call them as I see them.
And it goes without saying that I'll call it as I see it with you too - you don't get a special pass. If you are acting like a mindless partisan drone, I'll call you out on it.
-
And there it is, ladies and gentlemen. The bias of every mindless blindly-partisan drone. "Your guy <blah blah blah>. You can't even compare it to my guy <blah blah blah>. You <insult> <partisan affiliation> <generalization> <generalization>".
No reasoning, no regard for reality, no objective evaluation of facts. None of that. With Coach - and others like him - all you get is mindless regurgitation of whatever points his political overlords wish him to mindlessly regurgitate.
It's people like you - on both the left and the right - that have made it effectively impossible for a reasonable, accomplished and serious candidate with political experience and gravitas to run and be elected.
And for what? The likes of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
And there's another partisan buffoon. Except, unlike Joe he has more than three functioning brain cells. Sadly, they are on furlough.
You're missing his entire point. And his point is that whether Bush is or isn't President right now is irrelevant: the very same critiques that conservatives are levying against Obama were being levied against Bush by liberals.
Whatever.......NEXT!
-
Whatever.......NEXT!
Go diddle your three braincells alone in the corner Joey. The adults are talking.
-
You, a presumably sane, intelligent and reasonable person, should care. Here, let me draw it out for you with crayons:
The mindless idiots at the fringes of the U.S. political spectrum have taken the process over and are the people who are giving us candidates like Obama and they are the base upon which such candidates are elected to office.
There's no fundamental distinction between the idiots on the right and the left. They are all blind, partisan fools - regardless of party.
Sure, Obama sucks. Sure, Obama isn't Bush. By all means, judge Obama and Bush on their own merits. Judge all politicians on their own merits.
But Bush's past actions - or any past President's for that matter - can certainly affect the current and future Presidents. Or do you believe that Carter's actions didn't affect Reagan and that Reagan's actions don't still affect things today?
But nothing I said can be reduced to moral equivalency.
Why is it silly? I agree that Obama has mishandled many things. That's not to say that I don't think that people like Soul Crusher and The Coach aren't being selective in their memory and criticism, or that they aren't blindly partisan fools. I call them as I see them.
And it goes without saying that I'll call it as I see it with you too - you don't get a special pass. If you are acting like a mindless partisan drone, I'll call you out on it.
Thank you for saying a lot of with crayons, with very little substance that actually matters on this topic.
I'll try and walk you through it. Focus.
1. A thread was made trying to draw a distinction between the number of vacation days taken by Bush versus Obama. The clear implication is that because Obama has apparently taken fewer vacation days in six years than Bush did in eight, that Obama's vacations aren't that bad.
2. This is one of numerous attempts to use the "Bush did it" or "Bush was worse" arguments. That is classic moral equivalency. And it is weak.
3. I pointed out that this is a stupid comparison. Because it is. This president's performance has to be judged on how he is doing his job today, not whether he is doing something that Bush did or didn't do. And if you look at Obama's performance, it sucks.
4. You chimed in with your tired "I'm nonpartisan so I can call everyone stupid" schtick. Yawn. It's misplaced.
5. I don't give a rip what you call me on. Who the heck are you? My mother?
Nothing I've said is partisan. ::) What I've said about the president is my opinion, which is shared by a number of people, regardless of party. But don't let that holier than thou "look at me I'm non-partisan" crap get in the way of the actual facts.
-
Thank you for saying a lot of with crayons, with very little substance that actually matters on this topic.
You're welcome. That's what you get when you force me to use crayons.
1. A thread was made trying to draw a distinction between the number of vacation days taken by Bush versus Obama. The clear implication is that because Obama has apparently taken fewer vacation days in six years than Bush did in eight, that Obama's vacations aren't that bad.
Even if that was the clear implication of this thread, my comments were on a different tangent: namely, that it's ironic that people will ignore the actual facts to accuse Obama of taking more time off than Bush, simply because they don't like Obama.
I don't like Obama. I don't consider him a particularly effective or particularly good President. In fact, I think that he ranks pretty low. But that is irrelevant. The numbers are what they are: according to this article Bush took 407 days off - or appoximately 14% of his Presidency. Obama has, so far, taken approximately 5% of his Presidency off.
Arguments about how the "goodness" or "badness" of either of them aren't salient to the point I was making.
2. This is one of numerous attempts to use the "Bush did it" or "Bush was worse" arguments. That is classic moral equivalency. And it is weak.
Sure, but why is this an issue for me? I never said either of those things, but I guess if you consider pointing out actual numbers to be a form of moral equivalency, then you're right.
Again, read my point carefully: I merely pointed out that it's silly and self-serving for people to now get all concerned about Presidential vacations when they either dismissed such concerns or outright defended such vacations when their preferred candidate was in power.
3. I pointed out that this is a stupid comparison. Because it is. This president's performance has to be judged on how he is doing his job today, not whether he is doing something that Bush did or didn't do. And if you look at Obama's performance, it sucks.
Right. The President ought to be judged on his job performance. Not on the letter after his name. Which is what people like Joe, who see the world in black and white, are doing.
4. You chimed in with your tired "I'm nonpartisan so I can call everyone stupid" schtick. Yawn. It's misplaced.
I don't call everyone stupid because I'm nonpartisan. I call those who adopt stupid positions stupid. I call those who espouse positions they can't support stupid. I call those who don't look at facts objectively stupid. I call them stupid because they are stupid.
5. I don't give a rip what you call me on. Who the heck are you? My mother?
I am avxo, a getbigger. And as a getbigger, I outrank your Mother.
Nothing I've said is partisan. ::) What I've said about the president is my opinion, which is shared by a number of people, regardless of party. But don't let that holier than thou "look at me I'm non-partisan" crap get in the way of the actual facts.
The actual fact is that you missed the point that Agnostic007 was making and you got all butthurt when I pointed that out.
-
You're welcome. That's what you get when you force me to use crayons.
Even if that was the clear implication of this thread, my comments were on a different tangent: namely, that it's ironic that people will ignore the actual facts to accuse Obama of taking more time off than Bush, simply because they don't like Obama.
I don't like Obama. I don't consider him a particularly effective or particularly good President. In fact, I think that he ranks pretty low. But that is irrelevant. The numbers are what they are: according to this article Bush took 407 days off - or appoximately 14% of his Presidency. Obama has, so far, taken approximately 5% of his Presidency off.
Arguments about how the "goodness" or "badness" of either of them aren't salient to the point I was making.
Sure, but why is this an issue for me? I never said either of those things, but I guess if you consider pointing out actual numbers to be a form of moral equivalency, then you're right.
Again, read my point carefully: I merely pointed out that it's silly and self-serving for people to now get all concerned about Presidential vacations when they either dismissed such concerns or outright defended such vacations when their preferred candidate was in power.
Right. The President ought to be judged on his job performance. Not on the letter after his name. Which is what people like Joe, who see the world in black and white, are doing.
I don't call everyone stupid because I'm nonpartisan. I call those who adopt stupid positions stupid. I call those who espouse positions they can't support stupid. I call those who don't look at facts objectively stupid. I call them stupid because they are stupid.
I am avxo, a getbigger. And as a getbigger, I outrank your Mother.
The actual fact is that you missed the point that Agnostic007 was making and you got all butthurt when I pointed that out.
I didn't say a word about whether the number of vacations days were the same. I don't care one iota whether Obama took more days than Bush. I care even less that some people might be falsely stating that Obama took more vacation days than Bush. What does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China?? My only point was about the stupidity of the comparison and about Obama's performance.
Wait. In response to Agnostic007's post, I said "I disagree," and went on to say that it has nothing to do with the point I was making, and you call that "butthurt"?? lol . . . Now THAT is pretty stupid. lol
What the heck are you even arguing with me about anyway if you actually agree with the comments I made about the president? ???