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.
