And yet, my leftist brother and cousin both still think he walks on water.

I would take your criticism of your cousin and brother with a grain of salt, Rex. I've been essentially accused of feeling the same way, despite the fact that I never voted for Obama, nor would I.

I don't like Obama, and never did. What I find so annoying is the tendency, particularly on this board, to snarl like rabid beasts over some supposedly horrible, horrible thing Obama's done...which they were all fine with when Bush was President.

Like illegals. This board foams and gnashes over the illegals in this country. Yet, try pointing out that Obama has already deported more illegals than Bush has in two full terms.

"Well, it's still not enough," the posters here sniff.

Yet, it was more than enough when Bush was President.

"Ugh! Why, oh, why, are you such an Obama defender?"

Pointing out what is, at best, a logical inconsistency...and at worst, blatant hypocrisy...makes me an Obama defender, you know.

My personal favorite? The vacations. "Snort,snort, snarl, snarl! Obama's going on vacation again, the lazy, arrogant, scumbag bastard! Impeach! Impeach! Impeach! Snarrrrrl!"

Now hear this, those of you who are obsessed with the amount of time that Obama has spent on vacation (yes, Amy, my love, that includes you).

At this time, since becoming president, Obama has taken 14 vacations, and spent 95 days on vacation. Is that a lot? Perhaps. But the military gets 2.5 days of leave time per month on active duty. At least it did when I was in. That's 30 days per year.

At the exact same point in his presidency, Bush had taken 50 vacations and spent 323 days on vacation.

But "Oh, my God!" the writhing Obama-haters on this blog froth. "How much time does this lazy, arrogant, good-for-nothing, worthless piece of trash need for vacation?"

About 29% of the vacation time Bush needed at the exact same point in his presidency.

But you know, vacation time isn't a problem for every President. Just the black ones.

Just for further information, Bill Clinton, at this point in his presidency, took 11 vacations and had only 84 days on vacation, about 26% of the time that Bush had spent on vacation.

Ronald Reagan, at this point in his presidency, took 29 vacations and spent 180 days on vacation.

Well, clearly, Obama's just spending too much time on vacation, but we're just peachy-keen with Bush having taken over three times as much, and Ronald Reagan (who is, after all, God) taking nearly twice as much.

Now, watch. The response is going to be some blatantly bald assertion that Bush just worked, worked, worked all through his vacations, while Obama's just lollygagging around on his.

Never mind that seven of the first eight months of Bush's term was spent talking to cows (yes, he plainly admitted he talked to cows), explaining to reporters the difference between his two dogs, playing golf, fly-fishing, reading stories to gradeschoolers and clearing brush on his farm, not ranch. Clearly, Obama's just the laziest son-of-a-bitch this White House ever saw.

I don't have any problem with the vacations; in fact, I'd be happy to see our Presidents taking more of them.

I do think Obama isn't as bad as Bush--but as I said in another comment awhile back, that's a "distinction" he shares with every President back through Truman. If fainter praise exists, I can't come up with it.

My relatives, on the other hand, voted for Obama both times, and would do so again if he could run for a third term.

I posted that link on my FB page, and was told to "stop being a hater".

I don't hate the man, I just don't think he's qualified for the job he's in.

At this time, since becoming president, Obama has taken 14 vacations, and spent 95 days on vacation. ... At the exact same point in his presidency, Bush had taken 50 vacations and spent 323 days on vacation.

Breitbart addresses the Bush vacations vs. the Obama vacations question:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/03/26/Obamas-Vacation-More-Lavishly-than-Bushes

Most of Bush's "vacations" were trips to his own ranch in Texas or to his family's house in Maine. He didn't do a lot of "making time for fun" on those trips; they were working vacations.

The fact that the press loathed Crawford, Texas contributed greatly to the media's disdainful coverage of Bush's trips there.

How much time have the Obamas spent in their Chicago house since he was elected?

The Obama vacations always involve renting someplace lavish for the First Family and exciting outings with lots of photo ops.

The Clintons did the same thing - Martha's Vineyard or Vail were their preferred vacations; not trips back to the ol' homestead in Arkansas.

Yet, the myth persists that the Democrats are the party of the working classes and so much more empathetic to the struggles of the middle classes.

Conan:

Most of Bush's "vacations" were trips to his own ranch in Texas or to his family's house in Maine. He didn't do a lot of "making time for fun" on those trips; they were working vacations.

You disappoint me, Conan. I thought you were more thorough than that. Nowhere, but nowhere, does your source claim that Bush's vacations were "working vacations."

Oh, it claims that Bush was "content to work from home." How lovely. Any hints as to what he actually did that might be considered work along the line of his presidential duties? Nope. We're all supposed to just blindly accept that Bush is not the most indolent loafer ever to disgrace the White House...well, because Andrew Breitbart says so.

No, thank you. No Kool-Aid. You can have my share.

Honestly, Conan, the person I thought you were would have been ashamed to produce such a shoddy piece of reporting for any reason other than to make fun of how unsupported its claims are.

The only activities we see Bush engaging in your source are mountain biking and chopping cedar. That's not work. At least not the work that the American voter elected him to do.

Moreover, you did exactly what I predicted someone would do (though I did not anticipate it would be you): you made the completely unsupported claim that Obama just lazed his vacation time away, while Bush was just the busiest of beavers...and didn't bother to mention a single thing that Bush did that even remotely resembles a Presidential duty.

In fact, the concept of working from home is so alien a concept to Bush that he signed "Terri's Law" by traveling all the way to Washington D.C. to do so in his pajamas. Someone who was a least familiar with the concept of working from home would have realized that the bill could have brought to him. But then there would be no photo-op.

That doesn't sound like a President who is familiar with the concept of working from home.

Bush himself never claimed his vacations were working vacations. He plainly said that his trips to Crawford and family vacation homes were vacations without the modifier of "working." Good to see the apologists are still working full time, even though Bush is long gone.

The only thing your article might have proven is that Obama has more exotic tastes than Obama. Considering he was born and raised in Hawaii and began world travel at six years old, I'm not too surprised by that.

But the fact remains that there is a disparity of 228 days between Obama's vacation time and Bush's. Can you really prove that Bush spent at least 223 of those days working.

Patrick,

And I quote from my source:

"Bush was content to work from home during his vacations. And for doing so, the mainstream media tagged him as lazy and disinterested. The Obamas gallivant around, making plenty of 'time for fun,' and the mainstream media does not call them out for wasting taxpayer dollars...."

And again, Conan, that's a bald assertion! Don't you even see that?

If someone had made such a claim about Obama's vacations, that he was "content to work during his vacations," you would have asked, like any reasonable person would have asked, "Doing what?"

But somehow, Bush being "content to work from home," without mentioning a single thing that he might have done that resembled his Presidential duties, gets your blind acceptance.

You really can't even see that you're being taken, Conan? Wake up. You read the statement that "Bush was content to work from home" and you simply, uncritically accept that statement at face value. Not a single question about what he was doing that was resembling work.

Well, hey, I've just decided that all of Obama's vacations are working vacations. I'm not going to tell you what he was actually doing in the line of presidential duties while on these vacations, but since you're willing to accept such an unsupported assertion about Bush, then surely you'd accept such an unsupported assertion about Obama, right?

No?

Why not?

Patrick,

Your Bush-hatred is really getting out of hand. Have you considered getting professional help?

If George W. Bush cured cancer, you would mourn for the "murdered" cancer cells.

=========================

I don't fault any president taking vacations - Lord knows, it's a tough job and some downtime is essential.

And no president (even Obama) is ever totally on vacation. Work for a president is ever-present.

I would offer no criticism of Obama going back to the family manse in Chicago to spend a few weeks in a comfortable (and less fishbowl-like) setting while still working (like Bush did).

Obama has apparently forgotten he even owns a house in Chicago - the same house he originally said he would return to every six weeks or so.

To compare Bush spending his summers in his own house to Obama vacationing in rented mansions in Hawaii and Bar Harbor and Martha's Vineyard is not a fair comparison.

And you know it, Patrick.

=========================

Obama's big mistake has been in taking lavish vacations at taxpayer expense to exotic locales in the middle of a recession.

=========================

Also, the net taxpayer cost for the Obama vacations has been considerably higher than Bush's trips home. One estimate I saw was $57 million for Obama in 3 years vs. $25 million for Bush in 8 years.

=========================

Despite them being working vacations, Bush did indeed spend an inordinate amount of time away from the White House ... and its connections to power, Congress, and integrated military command-and-control facilities.

=========================

As for for the bill reinserting Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, Bush flew back to the White House and slept there that night. He signed the bill at 1 a.m. Yes, in his pajamas. He didn't fly back from Crawford in his pajamas.

From CBS News: "the bill got final Congressional approval a few minutes after midnight, and was signed quickly shortly after 1 a.m. [on Monday] by President Bush, who had flown back to the White House from his Texas ranch to be ready to act quickly because Schiavo has been without nutrition or water since Friday, when her feeding tube was removed in compliance with a Florida court order.

Unless you think the several hours it would have taken to cart the bill from DC to Texas to be an inconsequential addition to the three days she had already been without food.

Do I think Schiavo's case merited an act of Congress and presidential involvement? No.

But I can appreciate Bush's sentiment regarding the case, "In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life."

And I was appalled at how callous and vicious the media, the left in this country, and you, Patrick, were in wishing the woman dead.

But ... but ... Miley Cyrus! Twerking!

Not a single question about what he was doing that was resembling work.

I don't question what a president does that resembles work when he's in the White House. I accept that it's presidential work. Else the media would have to detail the president's day every day and let us know who he met with and what he was working on.

Same for his time on vacation. If I'm told he's working, I accept that he's working on presidential work - whether it's Obama or Bush.

Since Bush took along his White House staff and met with advisors during his vacations in Crawford and Kennebunkport, I accept that he was doing presidential work without demanding a detailed itinerary of his day.

Likewise, if I'm told Obama is working on his vacation to Martha's Vineyard (even though the press only reports that he is golfing), I accept that he's probably doing presidential work and not clerking at the local market for beer money.

Tell me, how much work gets done on the golf course?

This isn't so much about left vs right but right vs wrong, and insiders vs outsiders.

As far as KBR getting no-bid contracts, the problem is that for the jobs they're doing they have no real competition. Go look at the contracts, it is for things like "construct a DFAC in Afghanistan that can serve 5,000 people in a hour".

Bob's Construction Company down the road can't handle handle that, nor are they likely to even try were the bids open. And heaven help them if they happen to actually win a bid.

Yet, try pointing out that Obama has already deported more illegals than Bush has in two full terms.

Really? got a source of that? is this proof by assertion?

Not that I'd believe them. You know, the same government that is constantly revising the economic numbers, usually in an unexpectedly downward sense, well after the end of the most recent reporting deadline?

Sorry, Conan, I saw the personal attacks and the accusations of Bush hatred, so I skipped your post.

Didn't read it. Not going to.

I asked for specific proof that Bush's vacations were working vacations. Apparently offended that I should dare question the integrity of the mighty (and dead) Andrew Breitbart and St. Bush of Crawford, you decided to drag out your tired old accusations. "If Bush cured cancer...blabbity-blah-blah."

Heard it already. Wasn't funny the first time. And it has now graduated to just plain dumb.

I know. I know. Isn't it just awful that someone should read an article by Andrew Breitbart and come across the claim that Bush's vacations were actually time spent "working at home," and note that he hasn't actually supported this claim?

"It was a working vacation," you say.

"Doing what?" I ask.

And for this, you choose to attack me personally, probably as an Obama defender or at least as someone who hates Bush obsessively. Which was another prediction I made in my initial post, and one that you so elegantly fulfilled.

Since when is asking what a President actually did during (what you claim was) a working vacation an expression of hatred?

Do I not have a right to ask that? Obviously not, according to you, and for my brazen curiosity, I should be tried for treason and executed.

You just single-handedly fulfilled the predictions I made in my initial post, the one that seems to offended you so very much. Someone is going to make a bald assertion that Bush's vacations were working vacations. You did it. And someone is going to accuse me of being an Obama defender. You did it.

Bother me when you can actually address the question, either by answering it or admitting that you have no evidence that his vacations were working vacations. You made the claim. You back it up. Thus far, you haven't.

And don't bore me with your insinuations of Bush hatred. Quite frankly, it makes you look more like a Bush sycophant. You can't answer the question and instead went into attack mode when someone dared to ask it.

This is part of why I would prefer Bush or any of Obama's Republican challengers to Obama. While I confess to being more Republican than Democrat, that aside, the press is.far more likely to hold Republicans accountable. It has been shameful how many Obama campaign pamphlets were disguised as supposedly impartial newspapers.

Just in case anyone wants assurances that Obama is working on his vacation, the White House has released a photo.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/working-vacation-wh-releases-photo-obama-getting-presidential-daily-briefing_745950.html

Meh. Obama is getting briefed. I'm not impressed by the workload he's taking with him.

Bother me when you can actually address the question, either by answering it or admitting that you have no evidence that his vacations were working vacations. ~ Patrick

Okay then, they must not have been working vacations - since we don't have exact details of everything the president worked on and everyone he met with.

I guess Ari Fleischer lied when he told the press "it's going to be a working vacation." [Emphasis mine]

Wait, we don't have details of exactly what Obama worked on in Martha's Vineyard either. And all the press is telling us is that he's golfing. But it's okay 'cause we have that photo to prove Obama worked at least some of the time he was there (the burden of proof always seems to be much lower for Obama than it is for Bush).

We can accept that the entourage that went with Obama went to work, but all those aides, advisers, and staff that went to Crawford with Bush went just to go mountain biking and see the famous Crawford talking cows.

Bush himself never claimed his vacations were working vacations. ~ Patrick

In an address to the 2009 Boy Scout Jamboree, Bush said, "I'll be going to my ranch in Crawford, where I'll work and take a little time off." [Emphasis mine]

I guess since he didn't use the exact phrase "working vacation" it wasn't one.

And, since it was Bush, we still need the exact details to prove he worked even a little.

==============================

Now, to prevent my getting sucked into the quicksand that is debating with Patrick (who always seems to be misquoted, taken out of context, or unfairly accused - so he stops reading your posts and then quotes you from the unread posts), I'm signing off on this debate about whether Bush worked on presidential stuff while on his vacation. I accept that he did (and that Obama did, too).

The big (maybe the only) difference is that Bush semi-worked from his own house (greener than Gore's btw) at the end of a dusty road in Texas. Obama semi-worked from a taxpayer-rented mansion in a luxury seaside vacation spot.

"Meh. Obama is getting briefed. I'm not impressed by the workload he's taking with him."

If true, why does he say he didn't know something until he read it in the newspaper. Did he ever get briefed about Benghazi?

"who always seems to be misquoted, taken out of context, or unfairly accused - so he stops reading your posts and then quotes you from the unread posts"

Just like my ex.

Well, wouldn't want to get sucked into an argument with Conan, who assumes your position before you actually give it.

I didn't actually say that Obama did any work during any of his vacations. I simply felt that Breitbart's claims that St. Bush of Crawford worked, worked, worked his vacation time away...and gives absolutely no evidence whatsoever of this...while Obama just vacationed, was just a tad unfair.

Breitbart just matter-of-factly said that Bush's vacations were "work from home," and didn't mention a single thing that Bush might have done. It's just that way because he said so.

No mention of daily briefings, or days that he might have met with foreign dignitaries, no mention of advisers, policies or decisions he might have made. Just because Breitbart said so.

Conan, your Bush apologetics are working overtime. Where Bush is concerned, you have absolutely no ability to think critically.

Did you even bother to read that insipid article you posted? Honestly, I don't believe you did. It claimed Bush's vacations were simply "working at home." And gave absolutely nothing. I mean nothing. I wouldn't expect a comprehensive list of everything he did on every single day, but Breitbart gave nothing. Nonetheless you completely accepted it.

Why would you expect anyone to accept that?

Yet, you seem to think I think that Obama was working away his vacations. Can you please point out where I said this? You can't because I didn't. On the contrary, I don't think Obama is doing much of anything, if anything, on his vacations. You posted a picture of him (supposedly) being briefed. Okay, if I accept that he's being briefed, then I can accept that he's been briefed one day while on vacation. Not impressed.

Conan:

The big (maybe the only) difference is that Bush semi-worked from his own house (greener than Gore's btw) at the end of a dusty road in Texas. Obama semi-worked from a taxpayer-rented mansion in a luxury seaside vacation spot.

If you believe that, then we're right back where we started from. You believe that Bush was only semi-working 323 days by the time he was less than five years in office. Obama was semi-working 95 days during the same length of time.

And I'm sucked back in...

If you believe that semi-working at your own house (in your own home office set-up) while also cutting wood, mountain biking, and four-wheeling is the same as semi-working from a rented vacation house while also golfing, hiking, biking, and spending time with the family as they go sight-seeing, then you need to learn what a vacation is....

As I pointed out before (in one of those posts you say you didn't read), the two are not directly comparable.

Reagan's time at his ranch in Santa Barbara was in the end more work-from-home than vacation as was Bush's time in Crawford and GWH Bush's time in Kennebunkport.

Their time at their houses was not all work-from-home as there was vacation activity while there (cigarette boating, four-wheeling with Putin, chopping brush, riding, etc.).

Clinton, who didn't have a house in Arkansas (or anywhere else for that matter), had no ol' homestead to visit. As a result his vacations ended up being to more exotic locales (funded by the taxpayers), but were much shorter in duration and fewer in number than his two predecessors' visits home had been.

Obama actually has a house in Chicago - which he rarely visits. If he had spent those 95 days in his Chicago house working in his home office while visiting friends and working on his yard, they would be directly comparable to Bush's 323 in Crawford and Bush would come off the worse. They're not the same.

[Obama doesn't spend time in his house to unwind. Why not, by the way?]

You're equating Obama's 95 days to Bush's 323 as if Bush had spent those 323 days in a rented house in Martha's Vineyard or Bar Harbor, going on family bike rides, body surfing in Hawaii, and sitting around a strange kitchen getting briefed by his National Security Adviser.

They're not equal. That doesn't mean Bush should get off without criticism for spending too much time away from Washington. But to directly compare his time away to Obama's without factoring for the differences is to deliberately skew the analysis against Bush.

And, since you do that kind of unequal comparison whenever Bush is one of the subjects, Patrick, you look guilty of of Bush-hatred.

Conan, your Bush apologetics are working overtime. Where Bush is concerned, you have absolutely no ability to think critically.

I think very critically of Bush. I try to be fair to all presidents (brutally fair), even to the ones I don't like.

However, since so many people seem to erupt into histrionics when Bush's name is mentioned and accuse him of being evil incarnate or the worst president ever without a supporting argument, I usually end up pointing out their accusations have no basis in fact and am then tagged a apologist for the man.

Is Bush really worse then James Buchannan (who let the slavery issue fester and plunge the nation into sectarian violence - leading to the Civil War), Woodrow Wilson (who imposed full racial segregation in Washington and hounded from office considerable numbers of black federal employees), Warren Harding or US Grant (both of whose administrations were nearly laid low by their cronyism and scandal), Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton (both of whom used the power of government to attempt to cover up their own misdeeds), James Polk (who took the country to war with Mexico just to grab more land and fulfill Manifest Destiny), or a host of other awful presidents we've had?

"Worst ever" is generally a label the ignorant paste on George W. Bush because they don't know any better and want to seem smart.

If you're going to argue Bush was the "worst ever" back it up with factual argument. Otherwise, buy a history book and study up on how many lousy presidents we've actually had.

Patrick I hated Bush then and I hate Obama now. Sorry not to fit in your little preapproved box. I will admit to liking Bush a lot more in hindsight, though not on everything by a long shot.

And I am so tired of people saying Obama isn't as bad as Bush was, because Bush did xyz, when Obama has continued and expanded ALL of xyz. Apparently if you only grab loot from the store AFTER someone else broke the store window and grabbed stuff, it's ok.

Time taken on vacations and whether they worked during them aside, Obama has spent orders of magnitude more of our money on his vacations. He seems to think he's Hollywood elite, on our dime. I hate him for that. I'd honestly prefer he actually not work a single day. Just stop spending our money.

Conan, if you could show me where I called Bush the worst president in history, I might just decide to back up that claim. But since I never said that, I guess I just don't have to, right?

I did call him the most indolent loafer the White House ever had. I did not call him the worst President we ever had. That is a title I reserve for Ulysses S. Grant. I'd consider Warren G. Harding for the spot, but Harding did do us all one big favor: he dropped dead.

And on the subject of history books, you need to buy one if you think James Buchanan (the nation's first and only gay chief executive) merely "who let the slavery issue fester and plunge the nation into sectarian violence - leading to the Civil War."

No, he did worse than that. He actually hastened this nation toward Civil War with his wildly inappropriate behind-the-scenes kibitzing with the Dred Scott decision, pressuring judges to rule against him.

And if you're going to include Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon (whom I don't believe deserve to be on your list, or Wilson, for that matter), and include James Polk, you might want to add Andrew Jackson to the list, whose blatant defiance of a court order (which should have gotten him impeached) led to what is perhaps that second most heinous atrocity in this nation's history (slavery being the first) the Trail of Tears.

Actually, if you overlook Watergate, Nixon was a very good president, despite the fact that he was an incredible bigot who hated blacks, women, gays and Jews. He opened U.S. relations with China, which is something that is essential to us, even today. In fact, as far as foreign relations go, Nixon cannot be beat.

But of course, I'm going to be faulted for complaining about being misquoted. What can I say? I never said Bush was the worst president in history. I don't even believe that the worst President in history happened in my lifetime.

I know, I know. It's just so wrong to complain about being misquoted when you have been misquoted.

"Didn't read it. Not going to."

That's all you need: Bush was so bad Saint Barack can't fix it, and, basically, all we're going to talk about is Bush.

Because two wrongs DO make a right; the behavior of others DO justify that of Patrick's man (tremble).

Now, to clarify:
Things GWB endorsed were and are wrong. Some of the things attributed to him belong to Congress.

Things BHO endorse are wrong. Some of the things attributed to him are the work of Congress.

Hypocrisy ABOUNDS whenever a person objects to the actions of one without objecting to the same actions by the other, BUT IT IS MULTIPLIED by those who object to past behavior, yet say and do nothing in the present.

BHO supporter? Your turn. Get your guy to refute and halt Bush policies you found so heinous. Nobody's gonna go back in time.

Patrick,

I believe you did call him the worst, but I may be mis-remembering. If so, I apologize.

I included a lot of presidents in my examples that many will argue do or don't belong on the list of worst ever.

The point wasn't that I believe they should be on that list or shouldn't. The point was that many presidents have done bad things and some make the worst list and some don't. Some even make the best list.

FDR was a rotten chief executive from an economic standpoint. He was a good chief executive in prosecuting World War II ... mostly (we'll argue the particulars some other time).

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and jailed political opponents. He also preserved the union.

Many presidents during war time have advocated laws that would, in peacetime, have caused a revolution - FDR, Lincoln, Wilson, and Bush, to name a few.

The problem with Bush's "wartime" measures is that his "war" is potentially never ending - so his curtailments of freedom in the name of security are potentially never-ending. Obama, who campaigned against these measures, has extended and expanded them. That's worrisome and may get Obama on the worst list.

I glossed over a lot of mischief in Buchanan's short write up because I wanted to keep it short. That's why Useless Grant and Harding got "scandal" summations and not much detail.

Clinton and Nixon were included because they used the government to cover up their own misdeeds - not because, in the aggregate, they were such terrible presidents. Mostly, I think both of them were mediocre at best.

Nixon wasn't great, in my opinion. His wage and price controls contributed to almost 20 years of economic stagnation. Foreign policy wise, Nixon was a master chess player. His detente with China was to keep North Vietnam from being the major player in Southeast Asia with the American pull-out (the two were enemies - most of Nixon's political contemporaries thought all Communist nations were allies).

Carter was a terrible president, but he deregulated beer brewing. So, if you enjoy an occasional microbrew, raise a glass to the man from Plains.

If I ever did call Bush the worst, I think that was very short-sighted of me. Considering the things that happened in our nation's past, I don't think the worst president could even exist among the presidents that existed in our lifetime. (What the future holds is another matter.) There are no world wars, thus far, in my lifetime and we've managed to do away with the most serious black marks in our nation's past, such as slavery and withholding the vote from women.

I don't like Obama. I am not Obama's man. Most things that people say about him are fair. I just like to keep people honest, when they complain about the TSA (the program that Bush started), his vacation time (Bush spent over three times as much time on vacation). And the deportation of illegals, which Obama has surpassed. (Clinton, incidentally, did terribly when it comes to the deportation of illegals.) It makes no sense to me to complain about Obama taking a vacation again when he has actually taken less vacation time than would be entitled to if he were an active duty member of the military. (At 30 days a year, an active duty serviceman would have about 135 days of accumulated leave after four and a half years. But at the same point in his term, Bush has practically taken a fucking sabbatical.

(Your article plainly suggested that Bush worked during his vacations while Obama vacationed. You don't appear to agree completely, but that's what the Breitbart article said. Which sounds to me like apologetics. And the evidence for both claims was sparse to non-existent.)

I also think we're complaining about different things when it comes to vacations. You seem to resent that Obama chooses exotic and expensive locales. I was merely talking about the number of days. Fine. You think Obama's spending too much of taxpayers' money. Fair enough. He probably is. I haven't looked at the expense accounts. I was counting the number of days away from the office.

Of course, in this day and age of telecommunication, one wonders just how important it is to actually be in the office. Regarding the Terri Schiavo bill, could not Bush have simply signed a fax? Or is it necessary that all bills be printed on vellum, signed by the President's hand with ostrich quill in ink made from nightingale tongues.

As for 'Waste, I don't know who you think Obama's man is, but I hope he responds to your post to answer your questions.

And yes, I do believe both Bush and Obama will be remembered as bad presidents. Because they both are.

But if I must think of something to praise Bush for, let's thank him for the "Do Not Call" list.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and jailed political opponents. He also preserved the union. -- Conan the Grammarian at August 26, 2013 6:17 PM

In a way Lincoln's preservation of the Union was one of the worst things that ever happened. That changed the federal government from being a first among equals to the federal government had the right to to command states to do things.

The Bill of Rights was adopted to allow the individual have rights. The Ninth Amendment is:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Tenth Amendment is:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

That means the individual states have rights as well.

The Constitution was written as a federation of states with mutual interest, not a suicide compact.

Actually probably the best to way research the vacation and work schedule it is to look at the daily agenda published for both presidents.

I'm not sure where to find it, but I'm sure it is public information somewhere.

FDR's New Deal, Nixon price controls, Iran-Contra, and 40+ years of the governemnt rigging the economy, Bush's and Obama's civil liberties gang rape; all are a direct result of the damage Lincoln did

Actually, 'Waste, after reading your post, it comes across like the commentary of someone who doesn't know what he's talking about, but is trying to convince someone he does.

Some things are Bush's fault, you say. Some things are Congress's. Ditto, Obama.

Ooooh, how perceptive of you. Did you stay up all night coming up with that? I mean, it sounds like a pretty safe thing to say, you know? Especially, when you don't actually get into specifics, like which policies were Congress's fault? And which were Bush's? Which were Obama's?

But you know, you can let us have a nice vague "some" (without letting us know which or even how many) were Congress's/Bush's/Obama's fault. And still pretend that you actually know something. Then have the stupendous nerve to actually demand that someone respond to you. Respond to what? Your saying absolutely nothing, trying desperately to make it look like you've said something?

Pffft.

By the way, did you ever get around to straightening out the Supreme Court? Because, you know, you said, on August 20th, 2013, "Children do NOT have rights as enumerated in the Constitution."

Obviously, that doesn't jibe with their decision of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

The main petitioner was only 15 years old, and there he was, petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, like he had a constitutional right to do so, you know?

They even went so far as to say that these kids, aged 16, 15 and 13, had a constitutional right to freedom of speech.

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

So, I'm sure you'll be traveling to Washington D.C. directly, and straighten them out. Make it perfectly clear that children do not have rights as enumerated in the Constitution, and require them to fix that Tinker ruling right away.

How pitiful can you get?

So. Patrick, gonna hold BHO to the fire?

No. You'll do anything to distract people from recognizing that, too.

Let's see, in the news this morning it was reported that the president is contemplating military action against a Middle East dictator who used chemical weapons on his own people. The Secretary of State is meeting with allies to convince them of the danger posed by this dictator and the necessity of military action.

This is not a repeat from 2003.

This is not a repeat from 2003
of course not, it's time for an orwellian rewrite
thoughtcrime immediate retract

I don't fault any president taking vacations

I applaud them for it. They can't do nearly as much damage on vacation as they can working.

And I am so tired of people saying Obama isn't as bad as Bush was, because Bush did xyz, when Obama has continued and expanded ALL of xyz.

It's actually logical to say Obama isn't as bad. If Bush started a bad program and brought it to a certain size, and Obama expanded it to 150% of that size, then Obama only did half as much damage as Bush. Also, government programs, once begun, have a tendency to expand no matter who's President, so the guy who started a program deserves a greater share of the blame.

Rex: classic Two Wrongs fallacy.

That's exactly as if you said, "Well, Obama only killed 50% more Jews in the concentration camps. He's not as bad as that guy who started it."

From Nick Saban: Right is Never Wrong.

Failing to do right IS plainly wrong.