• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On a tough day, Obama escapes for a while

IT, your post is completley senseless and What off beat sense I can make of it is not an accurate comparison. If I am to believe you think it is, What a woeful opion of you I might have. Thankfully I think you know it is not.


;)
 
Sorry Goobieman, had I known my post would be directed at you I would have assumed the reader's ignorance and explained the whole process so as to not let them confuse my obvious intent.
So, you -won't- admit you were wrong when you stated that the Presdient is "directly elected by the people".

What a surprise. :roll:

Note that pointing out a factual error in a statement that forms the basis for a position isn't "trolling", no matter how much you might want to think so.
 
Are you taking lessons from IT in the nonsensical posts? :lol:



Seriously, I said it did. Can you see that or not?

Ug, I was saying you are the very same monster you have been ranting about.
 
So, you -won't- admit you were wrong when you stated that the Presdient is "directly elected by the people".

What a surprise. :roll:

Note that pointing out a factual error in a statement that forms the basis for a position isn't "trolling", no matter how much you might want to think so.

I should have said 'indirectly'. This does not change how it supports my argument and your focus on it is not the honest pursuit you claim. Let it go and address my argument if you even have an issue with it.
 
Didn't someone link to how Bush was no different than other presidents?


But yes. The media and the left used it to attack his image. You have a good example of how image can be manipulated based on ones choices.

Yes, Goobie found a page that was only comparing Bush's first term.

– Attended 95 sports-related events.

– Made 74 trips to his Crawford ranch, for a total of 466 days.

– Made 142 trips to Camp David, for a total of 450 days.

– Attended 327 fundraising events for Republican candidates and causes.

Think Progress After Returning From Four Days At The Olympics, Bush Criticizes Congress’s ‘Vacation’

According to the meticulous records kept by CBS Radio White House correspondent Mark Knoller, Bush on Monday lodged his 879th day spent in whole or in part at Camp David or his sprawling estate in Crawford, Tex.

By comparison, the 40th president only -- only! -- spent all or part of 866 days at Camp David or his ranch in California during his eight years in office, according to the Reagan Library. (By my count, Bush actually beat Reagan's mark on Dec. 30, during his Christmas vacation in Crawford.)

Dan Froomkin - The Vacation President - washingtonpost.com
 
I am usually indignant to trolls...
Allow me to repeat myself:

Pointing out a factual error in a statement that forms the basis for a position isn't "trolling", no matter how much you might want to think so.
 
And you have a right to be wrong! :mrgreen:

Eh stuff you pie hole

pizza_11.jpg


With some Chicago style pie:mrgreen:
 
Allow me to repeat myself:

Pointing out a factual error in a statement that forms the basis for a position isn't "trolling", no matter how much you might want to think so.

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

-My one word mistake is irrelevant to supporting my argument.
-Your response was inflammatory.
-Your response was off-topic as it failed the first point

The rest can be inferred by your character. Good day, troll.
 
My one word mistake is irrelevant to supporting my argument.
Hardly. It was a factual error within your supporting argument
Apparently you don't understand that if the argument you use to support your premise is factually wrong, then your premise is necessarily unsound.

Your response was inflammatory.
Aww. Puddy had his feelings hurt.

Your response was off-topic as it failed the first point
Again, you apparently don't understand that if the argument you use to support your premise is factually wrong, then your premise is unsound.

The rest can be inferred by your character.
Says he who had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to admit he was so very obviously wrong.
:rofl

Good day, troll.
Pointing out a factual error in a statement that forms the basis for a position isn't "trolling", no matter how much you might want to think so.
 
Last edited:
So what is your point IT?

That Goobieman's link was outdated and inaccurate.

Why didn't you ask him what his point was? Selective much? You pointed to his post. I disputed it.

Please show us where you complained about Bush's vacation time and the image it put forth. Bush criticized congress last August for going on vacation.

Your presence is curiously absent from this thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-partisan-politics-political-platforms/34662-bush-criticizes-congress-over-vacation-goes-vacation.html
 
That Goobieman's link was outdated and inaccurate.

Why didn't you ask him what his point was? Selective much? You pointed to his post. I disputed it.

Please show us where you complained about Bush's vacation time and the image it put forth. Bush criticized congress last August for going on vacation.

Your presence is curiously absent from this thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...zes-congress-over-vacation-goes-vacation.html
This difference is that Congress have rules that state they must be in the Capitol to vote. The President can be anywhere in the world, and make his decisions just as though he were in the White House.
 
This difference is that Congress have rules that state they must be in the Capitol to vote. The President can be anywhere in the world, and make his decisions just as though he were in the White House.

Your link was still inaccurate though. And after busting shiznit770's chops well your image has kinda suffered.
 
This difference is that Congress have rules that state they must be in the Capitol to vote. The President can be anywhere in the world, and make his decisions just as though he were in the White House.

So we aren't talking about image anymore then? ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom