Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Obama at Work
Date:	8/29/2016 7:26:02 PM

A tremendous example of a Great American enjoying alittle relaxation. Reagan rode horses, Bush chopped wood and rode his bike, and Obama plays golf. What is your point??????

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Obama at Work
Date:	8/29/2016 7:39:11 PM (updated 8/29/2016 7:41:06 PM)

You might add both Bush and Reagan did the ''relaxation'' thing a lot more often than Obama.  Nothing wrong with it, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

By the way, the above is a ''fact'' not an ''opinion''.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Obama mooched off others.....
Date:	8/29/2016 10:07:42 PM (updated 8/29/2016 10:09:20 PM)

Funny you two liberals failed to mention that Bush and Reagon both used their OWN PROPERTY to do their relaxing, while the head moocher what's in charge always got free stuff off others, free flights, free golf rounds, etc, etc.  Character is the big difference.. 

Read recently the head moocher has played over 300 rounds of golf in his seven years.  Probably $500,000,000 in taxpayer money this blood sucker has slurped up, for flights, secret service, etc.  That's one round of golf a week.  GEEZ!

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Hey Wiximbecile
Date:	8/30/2016 9:54:31 AM

Reagan, Bush II, Obama and all the other recent occupants of the office worked and aged hard while in office and no one should begrudge their time to ''relax'' to the extent relaxation is possible when one still has the guy with the nuclear codes shadowing every step.  Further, whether or not a president is using his own property or someone elses is of very minor consequence to the taxpayer.  The entourage the president has to travel with is what is expensive.  An argument might even be made that a president using or renting someone elses digs actually save money because there is no need to spend millions on security, communication, and other physical ''improvements'' as were required at W's ranch.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Archidiot....CAN YOU SAY....
Date:	8/30/2016 10:49:51 AM

PAY FOR PLAY!!!  Now, if you don't understand the connection read up on THE HILDA B-----h and her PAY FOR PLAY foundation.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	OK
Date:	8/30/2016 1:15:34 PM (updated 8/30/2016 1:19:17 PM)

To start with just what does that have to do with Obama's vacation?

Now, State one, just one, verifiable example of Clinton "pay for play".  I emphasize "verifiable".  Being proclaimed as such by Lush Windbag or Breitbart is not "verifiable"!

Further, getting a lunch meeting or office appointment with a mover or shaker after a contribution is not "pay fo play".  It is "doing business" in the modern politics and commerce and is the practice from one end of the spectrum to the other.

Now, Wixie, put you proof where your mouth is.  It will be a new experience for you!

BTW, have you heard about the former Trump female employee who today came out with accusations of harassment?

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Archidiot...reading from the dimokrap bible
Date:	8/30/2016 7:49:45 PM

Proof.....the by-line for all that the Clinton's lives.  Was it Slick Willie who declared "I DID NOT have sex with that woman"  Was it really HILDA B----H's husband who lied.  Look I spent many, many years in the business world and the number one game was....how do I get to that decision maker.  You do what you have to do to get to the decision maker...within reason.  That's exactly the problem.....the foreigners paid the HILDA B----H cash money.....to gain the favors she (and her office) could provide for the payer.  You're not dumb, you know the game, you played the game yourself....hopefully not at taxpayer's expense....but she is a CROOK....period.  The DUMB B----H even made the stupid statement.   There's lots of smoke,......but no fire.   Now, how stupid is that.....there's no smoke without fire.  That's exactly how muddled and confused her mind is.

Name:	Buteye -	Reply
Subject:	Obama at Work
Date:	8/30/2016 8:14:53 PM

You and GoneFishin saying Obama is a Great American does not make it a "fact"'. That is just your "opinion". His main experience when he became President was as a Community Organizer and it is my opinion that he has not progressed too far beyond that.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Obama at Work
Date:	8/30/2016 10:19:30 PM (updated 8/30/2016 10:22:53 PM)

Well I happen to think Obama along with both Bushes are great Americans, but please point out where, before just now, that l said such on this forum as fact or opinion?

BTW:  Wix that was a very angry but not a very impressive response to my challange...where is your VERIFIABLE PROOF OF CRIMINAL ACTS?! And oh yeah, Bill Clinton is not running this year.

Name:	Buteye -	Reply
Subject:	Obama at Work
Date:	8/30/2016 11:15:59 PM

After going back and rereading the above posts, I misspoke relative to your statement about Obama as a "fact". I have my opinion and you and GoneFishin have yours.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Obama at Work
Date:	8/31/2016 9:57:27 AM

Just the way it ought to be in America!  Problem is some posters (not you among them) seem to feel differently about any opinion other than their own.  To clarify, they may not object to me having an opinion, they just think the opinion itself should be an illegal thought if not in sync with their own.

Name:	Lighthouse -	Reply
Subject:	Obama at Work
Date:	8/31/2016 12:20:56 PM

No, that's what Dems do!

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Obama at Work
Date:	8/31/2016 1:06:36 PM

The dims are the ones who believe that "thoughts" should be illegal.  Only an inclusive progressive liberal democrat wants to police thoughts.

Name:	Buteye -	Reply
Subject:	Obama at Work
Date:	8/31/2016 1:07:46 PM

For the most part, I think you fit your own observation of believing your opinion should really be accepted as "fact".

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Obama at Work
Date:	9/1/2016 9:47:12 AM (updated 9/1/2016 9:51:26 AM)

Only when they are backed up by fact.  If I give an opinion which is not based on verifiable facts I have no problem and even expect it to be challenged.   Not so for some of the more extreme on this forum who will gladly damn the opinion and when it is supported with facts will just as gladly damn the facts.  Example:  I think since WW II on an annual basis there has been almost twice as many new jobs during Democratic administrations as republican / I think I am correct in saying that the DOW has done substantially better when a Democrat was president. / I believe there were 6 times as many new jobs during Obama's first 7 years as in all 8 of Bush's / Look, you may not believe it, but the 4 years with the greatest job growth per capita since WW ll were the 4 years Jimmy Carter was in office / I know the earth is the warmest it has been since accurate records have been kept and has gotten warmer year to year for 3 years in a row / l think all this global warning is being caused by manmade influences.  Now all these points are being stated as an opinion  and all but one can be verified as fact.  Which is the one not based on fact and do you accept the others a fact even if stated as opinion?

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Obama at Work
Date:	9/1/2016 11:04:29 AM

I don't believe any of them and challenge you to provide sources on all of them.  Sources,  not statistics. Statistics mean nothing without context.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Obama at Work
Date:	9/1/2016 1:27:47 PM

All except the last are true facts and very easy to confirm.  Do a few Google searches and you will see.  The economic related can be found by doing a little surfing at the Bureau of Labor Staristic web site.  I happen to work for a living and do not have the time or inclination to do it for you. If you do not believe them and are unwilling to check it out on your own that is your loss not mine.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	FACTS!!
Date:	9/1/2016 2:00:00 PM (updated 9/1/2016 2:07:38 PM)

Sorry Lifer, but I just couldn't resist a quick Wikipedia look while I munch my sandwich.  Based on BLS numbers the percentage of new jobs per 4 year presidential term are as below: 

Roosevelt/Truman.  (D).      1.61%/2.93%

Eisenhower(R)                    1.34%/0.87%

Kennedy/Johnson (D)          2.64%/3.90%

Nixon/Ford(R)                     2.38%/1.29%

Carter(D)                            3.06%

Reagan(R)                          1.43%/2.69%

Bush I(R)                            0.62%

Clinton(D)                           2.64%/2.33%

Bush(R)                              0.01%/0.23%

Obama(D)                           0.25%/1.98%*              *through June 2016

Doing the math.......Under Democrats....average 2.37% increase during each 4 year term

                              Under Republicans....average 1.21% increase during each 4 year term

I believe I am correct in saying that that works out to almost twice as many new jobs, relative to the workforce at the time, during Democratic administrations

 Now, do you accept the BLS figures or are they part of a "liberal conspiracy"? I 

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	FACTS!!
Date:	9/1/2016 2:22:29 PM

Factor out government jobs and get back to me.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	FACTS can be inconvenient truths can't they?
Date:	9/1/2016 3:19:43 PM (updated 9/1/2016 3:20:44 PM)

Why is it you lack the ability to accept a serious answer without an asinine and silly reply?

Now, here is another fact...The Clinton administration is the only administration in over 50 years that reduced the total number of federal employees during his term! Put that in your pipe and choke on it!!