Barack Obama is officially one of the most consequential presidents in American history

Joanimaroni wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:Are you including days spent at their private homes, homes set up to be the White House? Reagan's home was called the Western White House.

You raised that same question in the thread that I linked.  I'll tell you now what I told you then:  I don't have the necessary data to discern between vacation days spent on vacation and vacation days spent at home.  That puts the ball back in your court.  Feel free to make that distinction and see if you can arrive at a point.

Or just leave your contribution as a vague, open ended, rhetorical question with no real answer or point, and merely submitted to provide an excuse to speculate.

I'll give you the answer.....anytime Reagan, Bush 1 and 2 spent time at their private residence it was listed as a vacation day. The residences were set up as second White Houses....they conducted official WH business and meetings there and it should not be considered vacation days. But it gives the Dems a warm cuddly feeling to once again chastise the former presidents.

• GEORGE W. BUSH: During eight years in the White House, spent all or part of 490 days at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
  
  

• BILL CLINTON: During two terms in office, used all or part of 174 days for vacation. Of those, 100 days were summers either in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, or Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
  
  

• RONALD REAGAN: During two terms, spent all or part of 349 days at his ranch in Santa Barbara, California.
  
  

Joanimaroni wrote:Statistics can be manipulated and/or interpreted to prove or disprove any god damn thing you want.

boards of FL wrote:Vacation days used by each president

Jimmy Carter: 79

Ronald Reagan: 484

George H.W. Bush: 543

Bill Clinton: 152

George W. Bush: 1,020

Barack Obama (to date): 122


Republican presidents total: 2,047

Democratic presidents total: 353

Bush Takes Monthlong Texas Vacation

For the next 30 days, it will be home on the ranch for President Bush.

With his administration 6 months old, Bush is set to shed the confines of the White House and head to his sprawling ranch in Crawford, Texas, to begin a monthlong, outside-the-Beltway retreat.

"I'm headed home to the heartland to listen to the American people and to talk about the values that unite and sustain our country," Bush said in a Rose Garden speech this afternoon.

'A Little Fishing, … A Little Policy'

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:Now you have stooped to lying! What a guy!

One of us is definitely lying here.

gatorfan wrote:I've answered your stupid question in several ways but the answers were too complicated for you to understand so you resort to your BoFshit method of continuous questions.

So you're going to pretend as if the link that you posted is a direct answer to my question?  It isn't.  

gatorfan wrote:Quite simply Obama rarely engages Congress (he is too lazy to try and shape or motivate that dysfunctional body of idiots)

From the first bullet point of your link - which you're now claiming directly answers my question:

When Obama ran for president in 2008, some thought a refreshing aspect of his candidacy was his potential management style. Unlike the Bush administration, which ruled by dictates—like its war of choice in Iraq—Obama was a mediator who would bridge the gap between liberals and conservatives. Obama offered a mediator's promise. It was not, "We won, we rule." Instead it was a pledge to find common ground.

Sadly, this management style has mostly failed in Washington. During Obama's first five years, many of his biggest domestic disappointments have come from negotiating with Republicans and with private interests who never had any intention of compromising or working in good faith. Perhaps the only memorable thing that former Sen. John Edwards said in his 2008 campaign was his critique of Obama’s  style: "You cannot negotiate with political thugs."

But Obama's inclination to try to satisfy all factions has lead to the key disasters of his presidency. The budget battles with the House GOP—and the tactical error he made about GOP thinking—lead to the cruel federal sequester and subsequent government shutdown. His decision not to push for a public option in Obamacare and his failure to insist on cost controls for private health plans are two others. It’s sad that being a reasonable person in today’s Washington often doesn’t work. A less charitable interpretation is that Obama just wimped out. The hard truth is that a president has to be feared and respected by his opponents, not seen as a person who is more willing to compromise than draw lines.

Reading comprehension clearly isn't your strong suit, so trust me when I say that the passage above is complaining about Obama trying to engage congress too much.   It is saying that Obama tries to negotiate in good faith with congressional republicans soo much that it is a fault.  This is the exact opposite of "Obama is lazy".

gatorfan wrote:he lies continuously about what he is going to do and fails to follow through (does that link make sense to you now), he prefers to operate in the shadows because he is too lazy to get Congress involved (again I refer you to the link), I could go on but I know you can't comprehend these little facts already.

Can you be specific here?  First off, this isn't a dictatorship.  Getting legislation passed is a process that involves the house, senate, and executive branch.  Obama can say that he wants a public option and get elected based upon that, but if House republicans don't go for that, it's game over.  The public option wasn't politically viable for that reason, so now we instead have the ACA.  That is an example of a politician 1) telling you want he wants to do, 2) not being able to get that legislation passed due to stonewall opposition, and then 3) coming up with a plan B that is politically viable and then passing that.  That is called being practical.  I have no idea how you arrive at "lazy", and you clearly can't find the words to explain how you arrive at that either - which says quite a bit about your "lazy" opinion to begin with.  

Here is Obama asking members of Congress to join him in an open, publicly televised forum that literally lasted all day.  After you have watched Part 1, Parts 2, 3, and 4 will play automatically.  Get some popcorn ready, gatorfan.  You have 6+ hours of publicly televised ACA discussion between Obama and members of congress:





I'm starting to wonder if you actually understand what the term 'lazy' means.   It appears as if you have reached some internal understanding that you're wrong, but your pride won't let you admit that, so you're instead 1) pretending as if it would be a waste of time to explain yourself (Why bother?!?, 2) pretending as if you did in fact answer me, but then I deleted that response, 3) and now you're pretending as if your link that you posted on page 1 directly explains how Obama is lazy.   It doesn't, but you're pointing to it and saying "Do you see!?!?!  There!  I answered you!"

No, you didn't.


http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/calling-for-cooperation-obama-engages-in-confrontation/

WASHINGTON (AP) — Amid appeals for bipartisanship, President Barack Obama in just three days has provoked Republicans on issues as disparate as immigration, Wall Street and the Keystone XL pipeline — a combative mix of defense and offense that underscores Washington’s political realignment.

Sensing a Republican retreat, Obama was headlining a Miami town hall on Wednesday, enlisting his Latino base of support to increase pressure on GOP lawmakers who want to tie spending on the Homeland Security Department to repeal of his immigration executive actions.

On Tuesday, he vetoed GOP legislation that would have forced construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. And on Monday he proposed tougher rules on financial brokers who help manage retirement accounts, over Wall Street objections.

Three days, three hardball plays.

Such aggressive activism delights his supporters but irritates the Republicans who now control both chambers of Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/world/middleeast/obama-to-seek-congressional-backing-for-military-campaign-against-isis.html

WASHINGTON — President Obama said on Wednesday that he would seek specific authorization from Congress for the military campaign against the Islamic State, opening the door to a lengthy, potentially contentious debate over the nature and extent of American engagement in Iraq and Syria.

Mr. Obama’s announcement, at his post-election news conference, was not wholly unexpected. But it represented a significant shift from his earlier position that while he would welcome congressional backing, he had legal authority to take military action under existing statutes.

Administration officials said Mr. Obama still believed he had that authority, but with the elections over, he concluded that the time was right to petition Congress for more explicit authority.

“The world needs to know we are united behind this effort and that the men and women of our military deserve our clear and unified support,” Mr. Obama said, adding that he would begin a dialogue with congressional leaders when they come to the White House on Friday.

I could post examples of Obama engaging Congress all day.  I can give you examples of negotiation, playing hardball, hell, here is Obama appearing before Housre republicans and letting them grill him on live television for over an hour.  And he would have stayed longer but republicans realized this wasn't playing well to their narrative.
 




But then again, I don't really need to provide any more of these examples.  The link that you provided - which you feel says that Obama is lazy - does a nice job of that for me  and I already pointed that out above.  Your very link says that Obama engages congressional republicans to a fault.  To a fault, gatorfan!  

Your link doesn't make the case that Obama is lazy.  You haven't made the case that Obama is lazy.  You're leaving forum readers with no choice but to assume that you can't actually qualify that statement with any backing facts or information, or even a theoretical explanation of any sort.

Last chance for gatorfan.  Why do you feel Obama is lazy?  This is a slow floating softball right over the center of home plate.  Two strikes and the bases are loaded.  Can you muster the words to simply explain your own opinion that Obama is lazy?

Sal wrote:Gatorfan calls our first black President "lazy", and in another thread attempts to insult another poster by insinuating that they are homosexual.

Gatorfan likes to think that he is subtle and clever, but he is neither.

Joanimaroni wrote:

• GEORGE W. BUSH: During eight years in the White House, spent all or part of 490 days at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
  
  

• BILL CLINTON: During two terms in office, used all or part of 174 days for vacation. Of those, 100 days were summers either in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, or Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
  
  

• RONALD REAGAN: During two terms, spent all or part of 349 days at his ranch in Santa Barbara, California.
  
  
  

Read More: Presidential vacation days draw comparisons and criticisms | http://nj1015.com/presidential-vacation-days-draw-comparisons-and-criticisms/?trackback=tsmclip

gatorfan wrote:

Sal wrote:Gatorfan calls our first black President "lazy", and in another thread attempts to insult another poster by insinuating that they are homosexual.

Gatorfan likes to think that he is subtle and clever, but he is neither.

Anyone with half a brain would know a joke when they see one, oh wait - I guess that does leave you out of the loop.

gatorfan wrote:
Maybe you can marry your boyfriend now! Or is it the other way around? In any case, congratulations on your new opportunities. At least you can't reproduce. I know several gay couples, they are great people and have adopted unwanted children that have physical or mental issues. Big hearts and a lot of fun to be around.

Sal wrote:

gatorfan wrote:

Sal wrote:Gatorfan calls our first black President "lazy", and in another thread attempts to insult another poster by insinuating that they are homosexual.

Gatorfan likes to think that he is subtle and clever, but he is neither.

Anyone with half a brain would know a joke when they see one, oh wait - I guess that does leave you out of the loop.

This is your idea of a joke? ....

gatorfan wrote:
Maybe you can marry your boyfriend now! Or is it the other way around? In any case, congratulations on your new opportunities. At least you can't reproduce. I know several gay couples, they are great people and have adopted unwanted children that have physical or mental issues. Big hearts and a lot of fun to be around.

It's even worse than I thought.

You're not only a bigot.

You're a stupid, unfunny bigot.

gatorfan wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

gatorfan wrote:Now you have stooped to lying! What a guy!

One of us is definitely lying here.

gatorfan wrote:I've answered your stupid question in several ways but the answers were too complicated for you to understand so you resort to your BoFshit method of continuous questions.

So you're going to pretend as if the link that you posted is a direct answer to my question?  It isn't.  

gatorfan wrote:Quite simply Obama rarely engages Congress (he is too lazy to try and shape or motivate that dysfunctional body of idiots)

From the first bullet point of your link - which you're now claiming directly answers my question:

When Obama ran for president in 2008, some thought a refreshing aspect of his candidacy was his potential management style. Unlike the Bush administration, which ruled by dictates—like its war of choice in Iraq—Obama was a mediator who would bridge the gap between liberals and conservatives. Obama offered a mediator's promise. It was not, "We won, we rule." Instead it was a pledge to find common ground.

Sadly, this management style has mostly failed in Washington. During Obama's first five years, many of his biggest domestic disappointments have come from negotiating with Republicans and with private interests who never had any intention of compromising or working in good faith. Perhaps the only memorable thing that former Sen. John Edwards said in his 2008 campaign was his critique of Obama’s  style: "You cannot negotiate with political thugs."

But Obama's inclination to try to satisfy all factions has lead to the key disasters of his presidency. The budget battles with the House GOP—and the tactical error he made about GOP thinking—lead to the cruel federal sequester and subsequent government shutdown. His decision not to push for a public option in Obamacare and his failure to insist on cost controls for private health plans are two others. It’s sad that being a reasonable person in today’s Washington often doesn’t work. A less charitable interpretation is that Obama just wimped out. The hard truth is that a president has to be feared and respected by his opponents, not seen as a person who is more willing to compromise than draw lines.

Reading comprehension clearly isn't your strong suit, so trust me when I say that the passage above is complaining about Obama trying to engage congress too much.   It is saying that Obama tries to negotiate in good faith with congressional republicans soo much that it is a fault.  This is the exact opposite of "Obama is lazy".

gatorfan wrote:he lies continuously about what he is going to do and fails to follow through (does that link make sense to you now), he prefers to operate in the shadows because he is too lazy to get Congress involved (again I refer you to the link), I could go on but I know you can't comprehend these little facts already.

Can you be specific here?  First off, this isn't a dictatorship.  Getting legislation passed is a process that involves the house, senate, and executive branch.  Obama can say that he wants a public option and get elected based upon that, but if House republicans don't go for that, it's game over.  The public option wasn't politically viable for that reason, so now we instead have the ACA.  That is an example of a politician 1) telling you want he wants to do, 2) not being able to get that legislation passed due to stonewall opposition, and then 3) coming up with a plan B that is politically viable and then passing that.  That is called being practical.  I have no idea how you arrive at "lazy", and you clearly can't find the words to explain how you arrive at that either - which says quite a bit about your "lazy" opinion to begin with.  

Here is Obama asking members of Congress to join him in an open, publicly televised forum that literally lasted all day.  After you have watched Part 1, Parts 2, 3, and 4 will play automatically.  Get some popcorn ready, gatorfan.  You have 6+ hours of publicly televised ACA discussion between Obama and members of congress:





I'm starting to wonder if you actually understand what the term 'lazy' means.   It appears as if you have reached some internal understanding that you're wrong, but your pride won't let you admit that, so you're instead 1) pretending as if it would be a waste of time to explain yourself (Why bother?!?, 2) pretending as if you did in fact answer me, but then I deleted that response, 3) and now you're pretending as if your link that you posted on page 1 directly explains how Obama is lazy.   It doesn't, but you're pointing to it and saying "Do you see!?!?!  There!  I answered you!"

No, you didn't.


http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/calling-for-cooperation-obama-engages-in-confrontation/

WASHINGTON (AP) — Amid appeals for bipartisanship, President Barack Obama in just three days has provoked Republicans on issues as disparate as immigration, Wall Street and the Keystone XL pipeline — a combative mix of defense and offense that underscores Washington’s political realignment.

Sensing a Republican retreat, Obama was headlining a Miami town hall on Wednesday, enlisting his Latino base of support to increase pressure on GOP lawmakers who want to tie spending on the Homeland Security Department to repeal of his immigration executive actions.

On Tuesday, he vetoed GOP legislation that would have forced construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline. And on Monday he proposed tougher rules on financial brokers who help manage retirement accounts, over Wall Street objections.

Three days, three hardball plays.

Such aggressive activism delights his supporters but irritates the Republicans who now control both chambers of Congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/world/middleeast/obama-to-seek-congressional-backing-for-military-campaign-against-isis.html

WASHINGTON — President Obama said on Wednesday that he would seek specific authorization from Congress for the military campaign against the Islamic State, opening the door to a lengthy, potentially contentious debate over the nature and extent of American engagement in Iraq and Syria.

Mr. Obama’s announcement, at his post-election news conference, was not wholly unexpected. But it represented a significant shift from his earlier position that while he would welcome congressional backing, he had legal authority to take military action under existing statutes.

Administration officials said Mr. Obama still believed he had that authority, but with the elections over, he concluded that the time was right to petition Congress for more explicit authority.

“The world needs to know we are united behind this effort and that the men and women of our military deserve our clear and unified support,” Mr. Obama said, adding that he would begin a dialogue with congressional leaders when they come to the White House on Friday.

I could post examples of Obama engaging Congress all day.  I can give you examples of negotiation, playing hardball, hell, here is Obama appearing before Housre republicans and letting them grill him on live television for over an hour.  And he would have stayed longer but republicans realized this wasn't playing well to their narrative.
 




But then again, I don't really need to provide any more of these examples.  The link that you provided - which you feel says that Obama is lazy - does a nice job of that for me  and I already pointed that out above.  Your very link says that Obama engages congressional republicans to a fault.  To a fault, gatorfan!  

Your link doesn't make the case that Obama is lazy.  You haven't made the case that Obama is lazy.  You're leaving forum readers with no choice but to assume that you can't actually qualify that statement with any backing facts or information, or even a theoretical explanation of any sort.

Last chance for gatorfan.  Why do you feel Obama is lazy?  This is a slow floating softball right over the center of home plate.  Two strikes and the bases are loaded.  Can you muster the words to simply explain your own opinion that Obama is lazy?

First I want to thank you for illustrating perfectly how ineffective in engaging Congress Obama has been through the years. You obviously have plenty of free time to do some careful research and a fine job of it to.

Secondly, will the following quote put your little question to rest? (He doesn’t really understand “work” since he kind of bounced around a bunch before talking his way into office but that’s OK. It explains his nonperformance in office before his Presidency and also his shadow image at Harvard and whatever he was supposed to be doing as a “community organizer”.)

“In a December 2011 ABC News interview, Mr. Obama told Ms. Walters, “There is a deep down, underneath all the work I do, I think there’s a laziness in me. It’s probably from, you know, growing up in Hawaii, and it’s sunny outside and sitting on the beach.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/13/the-true-confessions-of-a-lazy-president/#ixzz3eCEGrh47  

Yes, I feel Obama is lazy, just like you feel he is the hardest working dude around both are opinions.

“Obama’s the one who never worked a day in his life. He never earned a penny that wasn’t public money. How many fund-raisers does he attend every week? How often does he play basketball and golf? I wish I had that kind of time. He’s lazy, but the media won’t report that.”

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

Bob wrote:And now from the left side of the wrastlin arena.

Bob wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Bob wrote:And now from the left side of the wrastlin arena.

Let's forget about parties and politicians for a second and instead just look at policy -  taxes, for example.

We can either cut taxes, leave them as they are, or raise them.

If people debate this issue, does it therefore allow you to conclude that all sides are wrastlers?  Imagine you're watching two people discussing taxes.  One is making the case that they should be raised, the other that they should be cut.  Would you therefore conclude based upon the fact that two people are disagreeing about something that they must both be wrong, and that leaving taxes as they are must therefore be the correct option?

What if one said we should leave them as is and the other says cut.  Would you say "Look at these wrastlers!"

Is it possible to simply look at the revenue situation, assess receipts, outlays, etc, and arrive at some sort of decision on this issue without being a wrastler?  Is it possible to have an opinion on anything without being an extreme wrastler?

Yes it is absolutely possible to debate anything and it have no relationship to wrastlin.
But it will require a complete makeover of our current political dialogue,  our current political celebrites,  our current media celebrities,  our current electorate,  and those who post on this forum.
A good way to start is to completely eliminate two words from our language:  "liberal" and "conservative".

nadalfan wrote:http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8849925/obama-obamacare-history-presidents