And yet, according to you, Michelle Obama is a "co-president" because Bill Clinton...blah blah blah...
It was legitimate to question whether Michelle's statements should given any significance. And equally legitimate to respond to that question by pointing out that there is precedent within the democratic party for making First Ladies co-presidents, and therefore someone whose statements should be given significance. And it was also legitimate to mention Palin when I was attacked as being a "little deranged" for paying attention to what Michelle said. But a discussion of Bush's and Reagan's days off is far outside the OP topic.![]()
The contrast with Bush, who took of the month of August 2001, hurts, don't it, BAC?
No, what I poorly considered was your inability to understand exaggeration for effect.
What I poorly considered was your inability to understand the point I was trying to make.
Is it "unsupported assertion hour" already?
Okay, I declare that if wasn't for Obama we'd have lost ten million more jobs!
Ha. Check and mate.
I see you are ignoring the facts of this extremely weak economic recovery we are witnessing. That's shortsighted.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q
I see you are ignoring the facts of this extremely weak economic recovery we are witnessing. That's shortsighted.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q
I assume you have some sort of irrefutable evidence that the recovery would be much stronger had some other policy been enacted.
Again, do we have any evidence that Michelle lied other than BAC's assumption that Barack must be horribly lazy?
I heard that one time she got all frustrated and said to her children "I get so frustrated...you never eat your vegetables".
recently there has been a picture leaked of at least one of her children eating a piece of food that was later confirmed to be a vegetable and also image dated to before her controversial "never eat vegetables" claim.
The woman is obviously some sort of pathalogical liar.
I am in a position of some responsibility, but I ain't the President of the most important country on Earth. I can honestly say that there are fewer than 10 days a year when I don't conduct some work related activity, even though I get about 140 days "off" each year.
I suspect that the President hasn't had a single day during this term where he didn't spend at least several hours "working". The criticism of M. Obama's statements is assinine.
In contrast to his demand for semantic rigidity in this thread, let's take a stroll down memory lane and look at what BAC had to say when he was asked to substantiate his claim that "we've been told over and over and over [Obama's] the smartest guy to ever sit in the Oval Office":
So could someone explain to me why BAC is allowed exaggeration for effect to make a point, but Michelle Obama is not?