Obama plays more golf in 9 months than Bush played in 2 years and 10 months.

"CHANGE". You voted for it and you got it. Enjoy it.

I would think people could find more substancial things to complain about in politics.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

I don't care if the guy plays golf, but Democrats should seeing as they whined incessantly about Bush doing it.

The only thing I think is screwed to hell and back is that Barry has been golfing while Afghanistan is getting worse and his reply is essentially, "Don't RUSH ME I'm THINKING." Well, you might want to cut the golf back until you decide how to wage a war, Dumbo -- boys are over there getting their asses shot off and your commanders are screaming for you to do something. This has been the bloodiest war in Afghanistan since it started, and you're off playing golf while people die. Yeah, doesn't look good, unless you want to look even more like Jimmy Carter II.

Personally what I find more funny are all the Democrats using Bush's actions as justifiable reasoning for Obama, like, "Well, BUSH DID IT TOO!1" Yeah, and you hated Bush, right? Your point is?

Um, the reason why the administration is holding off on a decision on Afghanistan is because of the fraudulent election that took place a short time ago, and now they pretty much have to wait for the runoff election, because that would greatly impact the effectiveness of any counterinsurgency plan. Counterinsurgency can't work when the government is corrupt up the wazoo.

That's a lame reason if that's really why they're holding off -- wedid it in Iraq --counterinsurgency, a troop surge, AND an election.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

From personal experience, the average round of golf takes around five hours to complete.

If he's played 24 rounds of golf, that means that he's spent around 120 hours playing golf thus far.

There are about 6480 hours in nine months (going by 30 days in a month).

That means that Obama has spent approximately 1.85% of his time as president playing golf.

That means that Obama has spent about 98.15% of his time as president not playing golf.

That means that this is a total nonissue. :P

KH-mixerX

Maybe that would be acceptable for any other high demanding job. But if your the president of the United States during a time like this, you shouldn't be on vacation at all. 98.15% isn't acceptable.

since when is golfing "vacation". Its a hobby, a recreational sport. Its enjoyed by people working 80 hours a week and retired folks alike.

we ask a lot of our president, but even he needs some "free time". 98% is more than acceptable.

People also forget that the president is a figurehead, a man that puts out an image, establishes relations, and more. You could easily argue that even when he is golfing, he is on the job; Obama likely takes out local leaders, people with issues and agendas, and more, when he goes golfing.

If a salesman takes out a client to go golfing to establish or maintain good relations, who says the president cannot do the same?

As for the whole "Bush" comparison, I would like to see the figure for bush playing golf and chopping wood at his ranch vs Obama playing golf.

Now watch this drive.

Well, I always found the liberal attacks on Bush vis-a-vis him being on vacation to be pretty petty insults; I really do hope that Obama critics don't continue that trend (although they seem to have already).-Sun_Tzu-

this is a non issue so why make it a thread?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

I don't care if the guy plays golf, but Democrats should seeing as they whined incessantly about Bush doing it.

The only thing I think is screwed to hell and back is that Barry has been golfing while Afghanistan is getting worse and his reply is essentially, "Don't RUSH ME I'm THINKING." Well, you might want to cut the golf back until you decide how to wage a war, Dumbo -- boys are over there getting their asses shot off and your commanders are screaming for you to do something. This has been the bloodiest war in Afghanistan since it started, and you're off playing golf while people die. Yeah, doesn't look good, unless you want to look even more like Jimmy Carter II.

Personally what I find more funny are all the Democrats using Bush's actions as justifiable reasoning for Obama, like, "Well, BUSH DID IT TOO!1" Yeah, and you hated Bush, right? Your point is?

Shame-usBlackley

Um, the reason why the administration is holding off on a decision on Afghanistan is because of the fraudulent election that took place a short time ago, and now they pretty much have to wait for the runoff election, because that would greatly impact the effectiveness of any counterinsurgency plan. Counterinsurgency can't work when the government is corrupt up the wazoo.

That's a lame reason if that's really why they're holding off -- wedid it in Iraq --counterinsurgency, a troop surge, AND an election.

And it would not have worked if the Iraqi government hadn't been legitimate. Right now the Afghan government lacks legitimacy.

Moreover, just because something worked in Iraq does not mean it will necessarily work in Afghanistan. They are completely different countries. Iraq was and is much more politically developed than Afghanistan has ever been. The main reason why the surge worked in Iraq is because the Sunni insurgents were approachable and were a coherent political group that the U.S. and Iraqi government could negotiate with and essentially buy-off. If any counterinsurgency were to work in Afghanistan, it would require approaching and negotiating with the Pashtun tribes and those in the Taliban that are motivated mostly by money rather than Jihad - the only problem with this is that these groups aren't as approachable and aren't as coherent.

this is a non issue so why make it a thread?

Serraph105

yea I really dont see the problem here.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Well, I always found the liberal attacks on Bush vis-a-vis him being on vacation to be pretty petty insults; I really do hope that Obama critics don't continue that trend (although they seem to have already).sSubZerOo

It's not as if Bush hadn't been working though when he was on vacation. He would often have his security advisers and relevant cabinet members with him when he was on Camp David or his ranch. He would also meet with other world leaders while on vacation, like Tony Blair. Vacation for a president is never a vacation in the conventional sense. They are always working. Now, while some of the decisions he made while on vacation might have been bad decisions, I think he would have made the same decisions whether or not he was on vacation. The way I look at presidential vacations is that it's nothing more than a change of scenery.

[... Your comparing Afghanistan with the biggest mistake of a war sense Vietnam? There is a reason why they are taking their time.. Its because its a delicate situation and people who did not take their time :;cough:: Cheney ::Cough:: declared in 2002-2003 that the Taliban was out of business for good.. sSubZerOo

You may not agree with the premise of the war, but that's the only similarity it had to Vietnam. At this point, Iraq can be notched as a victory (hollow and needless though it may be) while we flat LOST Vietnam.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][... Your comparing Afghanistan with the biggest mistake of a war sense Vietnam? There is a reason why they are taking their time.. Its because its a delicate situation and people who did not take their time :;cough:: Cheney ::Cough:: declared in 2002-2003 that the Taliban was out of business for good.. Shame-usBlackley

You may not agree with the premise of the war, but that's the only similarity it had to Vietnam. At this point, Iraq can be notched as a victory (hollow and needless though it may be) while we flat LOST Vietnam.

And it would not have worked if the Iraqi government hadn't been legitimate. Right now the Afghan government lacks legitimacy.

Moreover, just because something worked in Iraq does not mean it will necessarily work in Afghanistan. They are completely different countries. Iraq was and is much more politically developed than Afghanistan has ever been. The main reason why the surge worked in Iraq is because the Sunni insurgents were approachable and were a coherent political group that the U.S. and Iraqi government could negotiate with and essentially buy-off. If any counterinsurgency were to work in Afghanistan, it would require approaching and negotiating with the Pashtun tribes and those in the Taliban that are motivated mostly by money rather than Jihad - the only problem with this is that these groups aren't as approachable and aren't as coherent.

-Sun_Tzu-

So we ignore the commanders who are saying/screaming that they are going to need the troops on the ground anyway? No offense, but I'm really glad you aren'tadvising Obama on the war. After all, how well do you think elections are going to go over when the country is in anarchy and the people are too afraid to even come out against theTaliban? You really think they're all gonna go vote and walk around with dye on their fingers waiting to get their heads shot off? Come on, LOL.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][... Your comparing Afghanistan with the biggest mistake of a war sense Vietnam? There is a reason why they are taking their time.. Its because its a delicate situation and people who did not take their time :;cough:: Cheney ::Cough:: declared in 2002-2003 that the Taliban was out of business for good.. sSubZerOo

You may not agree with the premise of the war, but that's the only similarity it had to Vietnam. At this point, Iraq can be notched as a victory (hollow and needless though it may be) while we flat LOST Vietnam.

The entire Middle-east is "uncertain" in case you haven't noticed.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

You may not agree with the premise of the war, but that's the only similarity it had to Vietnam. At this point, Iraq can be notched as a victory (hollow and needless though it may be) while we flat LOST Vietnam.

Shame-usBlackley

The entire Middle-east is "uncertain" in case you haven't noticed.

guys, we are trying to h ave a serious conversation about how golf and Obama are ruining the American Dream and dooming the United States.

Lets try to keep it on track, ok?

;)

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

And it would not have worked if the Iraqi government hadn't been legitimate. Right now the Afghan government lacks legitimacy.

Moreover, just because something worked in Iraq does not mean it will necessarily work in Afghanistan. They are completely different countries. Iraq was and is much more politically developed than Afghanistan has ever been. The main reason why the surge worked in Iraq is because the Sunni insurgents were approachable and were a coherent political group that the U.S. and Iraqi government could negotiate with and essentially buy-off. If any counterinsurgency were to work in Afghanistan, it would require approaching and negotiating with the Pashtun tribes and those in the Taliban that are motivated mostly by money rather than Jihad - the only problem with this is that these groups aren't as approachable and aren't as coherent.

Shame-usBlackley

So we ignore the commanders who are saying/screaming that they are going to need the troops on the ground anyway? No offense, but I'm really glad you aren'tadvising Obama on the war. After all, how well do you think elections are going to go over when the country is in anarchy and the people are too afraid to even come out against theTaliban? You really think they're all gonna go vote and walk around with dye on their fingers waiting to get their heads shot off? Come on, LOL.

When did I say ignore the commanders? If anything I am agreeing with General McChrystal's assessment of the situation, where he said quite bluntly that "Aditional resources are required" (resources as in troops) "but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely". He went on to say that an increase in troop levels would not necessarily win the war. And to make things more difficult, McChrystal's assessment was composed prior to the fraudulent election, making every decision that much more difficult.

To emphasize this point, Admiral Michael Mullen, who is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said during a senate hearing that the reason why the Taliban are winning in Afghanistan is because the Afghan government is not legitimate, and that we could send a million troops to Afghanistan and the government would still be illegitimate.

I'll say it again, escalating the war without knowing the political situation of the country is irresponsible and it would amount to nothing more than blindly risking the lives of American citizens.

*insert witty comment about black people on golf courses*domatron23

How dare you....

give him a ****ing break, he has hobbies, so what?

When did I say ignore the commanders? If anything I am agreeing with General McChrystal's assessment of the situation, where he said quite bluntly that "Aditional resources are required" (resources as in troops) "but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely". He went on to say that an increase in troop levels would not necessarily win the war. And to make things more difficult, McChrystal's assessment was composed prior to the fraudulent election, making every decision that much more difficult.

To emphasize this point, Admiral Michael Mullen, who is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said during a senate hearing that the reason why the Taliban are winning in Afghanistan is because the Afghan government is not legitimate, and that we could send a million troops to Afghanistan and the government would still be illegitimate.

I'll say it again, escalating the war without knowing the political situation of the country is irresponsible and it would amount to nothing more than blindly risking the lives of American citizens.

-Sun_Tzu-

You've missed the point. The question is whether or not a surge would destabilize Pakistan, which has nukes. McChrystal wants to increase troop presence in the south and east, and that's something that is going to have to happen regardless of whether a surge happens or not, seeing as our troops are getting hammered and casualties are rising every day. This is just as much a drug war as well, as you'll notice that the funding for the Taliban is the abundance of poppy plants over there, and the Obama administration knows this -- 3 of the people who died on the chopper that went down yesterday were DEA agents.

The reason the Taliban are winning is because they are funded by sales of poppy which in turn will be made into heroin. The first step to winning the war against them is to defund their money stream, knock their teeth out. There's nothing irresponsible about that, and it's going to take more troops to do it. And in closing, I don't think anyone (not even you) disputes that more troops are going to be needed to get the job done, but the inaction by the administration is allowing troops to die needlessly (IE; more guns on the ground, more back-up.) If McChrystal is at odds with the joint chiefs, well, I'd say he's earned the right -- Obama appointed him himself and McChrystal has a storied history of successful military strategies.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

When did I say ignore the commanders? If anything I am agreeing with General McChrystal's assessment of the situation, where he said quite bluntly that "Aditional resources are required" (resources as in troops) "but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely". He went on to say that an increase in troop levels would not necessarily win the war. And to make things more difficult, McChrystal's assessment was composed prior to the fraudulent election, making every decision that much more difficult.

To emphasize this point, Admiral Michael Mullen, who is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said during a senate hearing that the reason why the Taliban are winning in Afghanistan is because the Afghan government is not legitimate, and that we could send a million troops to Afghanistan and the government would still be illegitimate.

I'll say it again, escalating the war without knowing the political situation of the country is irresponsible and it would amount to nothing more than blindly risking the lives of American citizens.

Shame-usBlackley

You've missed the point. The question is whether or not a surge would destabilize Pakistan, which has nukes. McChrystal wants to increase troop presence in the south and east, and that's something that is going to have to happen regardless of whether a surge happens or not, seeing as our troops are getting hammered and casualties are rising every day. This is just as much a drug war as well, as you'll notice that the funding for the Taliban is the abundance of poppy plants over there, and the Obama administration knows this -- 3 of the people who died on the chopper that went down yesterday were DEA agents.

The reason the Taliban are winning is because they are funded by sales of poppy which in turn will be made into heroin. The first step to winning the war against them is to defund their money stream, knock their teeth out. There's nothing irresponsible about that, and it's going to take more troops to do it. And in closing, I don't think anyone (not even you) disputes that more troops are going to be needed to get the job done, but the inaction by the administration is allowing troops to die needlessly (IE; more guns on the ground, more back-up.) If McChrystal is at odds with the joint chiefs, well, I'd say he's earned the right -- Obama appointed him himself and McChrystal has a storied history of successful military strategies.

McChrystal isn't at odds with the joint chiefs of staff - in fact Admiral Mullen based what he said in that Senate hearing off of the assessment composed by McChrystal.

And we aren't losing in Afghanistan because of this black market for poppy. While said market benefits the Taliban significantly, it's not their primary source of funding. Their primary monetary source is the money they receive from donations from residents of Persian Gulf countries. McChrystal was very clear in his assessment when he wrote"Eliminating insurgent access to narco-profits — even if possible, and while disruptive — would notdestroy their ability to operate so long as other funding sources remained intact."

No, the reason we are losing in Afghanistan is for the reason that Admiral Mullen articulated on Capitol Hill - the government is not legitimate.

As for Pakistan, Pakistani instability isn't really an argument against counterinsurgency - if anything it's an argument for it. An effective counterinsurgency would result in stability in the region. By not doing some form of counterinsurgency, the Taliban would have a greater opportunity of recapturing Afghanistan, which would almost guarantee a regional crisis, and the worst case scenario would lead to a nuclear armed Al Qaeda.

What Obama has to assess are the chances of a counterinsurgency working in Afghanistan, and whether or not this war is worth fighting, including both the literal cost of the war, but more importantlythe cost of human life.

These questions can't be sufficientlyanswered until the current political situation in Afghanistan reaches some sort of conclusion.

He also runs 4 miles a day and plays basketball on a regular basis. He seems to share Bush's enthusiasm for fitness. He has to keep those pecs toned, it's a matter of national security.fidosim

He also runs 4 miles a day and plays basketball on a regular basis. He seems to share Bush's enthusiasm for fitness. He has to keep those pecs toned, it's a matter of national security.fidosim

Especially considering how far ahead of us the Russians are when it comes to pectoral sexiness

I play NHL 10 with him on Live on an average of 5 times a week. We do a best of 7 and I'm just too much for him most of the time.

I play NHL 10 with him on Live on an average of 5 times a week. We do a best of 7 and I'm just too much for him most of the time.

Nifty_Shark

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

From personal experience, the average round of golf takes around five hours to complete.

If he's played 24 rounds of golf, that means that he's spent around 120 hours playing golf thus far.

There are about 6480 hours in nine months (going by 30 days in a month).

That means that Obama has spent approximately 1.85% of his time as president playing golf.

That means that Obama has spent about 98.15% of his time as president not playing golf.

That means that this is a total nonissue. :P

KDIDDY78

I say you are paranoid. I am as liberal as they come, and I didn't even know Bush played golf until this thread.

I did know that he supossedly took lots of vacation time, however.

obama also loves spongebob (ya rly) will you all call him a bad president because of that?lightleggy

how dare obama spend an a day enjoying a game of golf?!?! :x

give him a ****ing break, he has hobbies, so what?

needled24-7

The best part is, it's not even a real hobby of his. I am pretty sure he only does it because business has been done on the golf course for hundreds of years.

Black people don't GOLF....just kidding. Kinda. :P

lol Obama is so funny some times

No wonder everyone is starting to like golf recently.

[QUOTE="KDIDDY78"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

From personal experience, the average round of golf takes around five hours to complete.

If he's played 24 rounds of golf, that means that he's spent around 120 hours playing golf thus far.

There are about 6480 hours in nine months (going by 30 days in a month).

That means that Obama has spent approximately 1.85% of his time as president playing golf.

That means that Obama has spent about 98.15% of his time as president not playing golf.

That means that this is a total nonissue. :P

TBoogy

I say you are paranoid. I am as liberal as they come, and I didn't even know Bush played golf until this thread.

I did know that he supossedly took lots of vacation time, however.

[QUOTE="TBoogy"]

[QUOTE="KDIDDY78"]nice math but 2% is alot time wasting...if it was bush liberals would be all down his throat. obviously obama is held to a lower standard b/c if this was bush there would be hell to pay from the media...i say its a double standard

Ace_WondersX

I say you are paranoid. I am as liberal as they come, and I didn't even know Bush played golf until this thread.

I did know that he supossedly took lots of vacation time, however.

Thats a lot of time! Like 2 years of his 8 year term he was on vacation!?!

I bet Obama takes 2 vacations a year; December in Hawaii like he has done for years, and a trip back to Chicago every summer to check on the house (while enjoying Chicago's mild summers).

obama also loves spongebob (ya rly) will you all call him a bad president because of that?lightleggy

If I was president they would be complaining about how much time I spend playing horribley violent video games, you do realize that its only a matter of time until this will come up with some president in the future.

It helps take the stress off. Everyone has a destressor. Clinton's was jogs and McDonalds, Bush's was vacation and boating, Obama's is golf. So what?

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

From personal experience, the average round of golf takes around five hours to complete.

If he's played 24 rounds of golf, that means that he's spent around 120 hours playing golf thus far.

There are about 6480 hours in nine months (going by 30 days in a month).

That means that Obama has spent approximately 1.85% of his time as president playing golf.

That means that Obama has spent about 98.15% of his time as president not playing golf.

That means that this is a total nonissue. :P

mrbojangles25

Maybe that would be acceptable for any other high demanding job. But if your the president of the United States during a time like this, you shouldn't be on vacation at all. 98.15% isn't acceptable.

since when is golfing "vacation". Its a hobby, a recreational sport. Its enjoyed by people working 80 hours a week and retired folks alike.

we ask a lot of our president, but even he needs some "free time". 98% is more than acceptable.

People also forget that the president is a figurehead, a man that puts out an image, establishes relations, and more. You could easily argue that even when he is golfing, he is on the job; Obama likely takes out local leaders, people with issues and agendas, and more, when he goes golfing.

If a salesman takes out a client to go golfing to establish or maintain good relations, who says the president cannot do the same?

As for the whole "Bush" comparison, I would like to see the figure for bush playing golf and chopping wood at his ranch vs Obama playing golf.

Now watch this drive.

Thats complete speculation though. You don't know whether he works during his golf outings or not. I bet if this was thread had Bush as the main guy in question, we wouldn't have half as many people coming to his defense as we do now with Obama. It's a double standard, and it's sickening.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="KH-mixerX"]

Maybe that would be acceptable for any other high demanding job. But if your the president of the United States during a time like this, you shouldn't be on vacation at all. 98.15% isn't acceptable.

KH-mixerX

since when is golfing "vacation". Its a hobby, a recreational sport. Its enjoyed by people working 80 hours a week and retired folks alike.

we ask a lot of our president, but even he needs some "free time". 98% is more than acceptable.

People also forget that the president is a figurehead, a man that puts out an image, establishes relations, and more. You could easily argue that even when he is golfing, he is on the job; Obama likely takes out local leaders, people with issues and agendas, and more, when he goes golfing.

If a salesman takes out a client to go golfing to establish or maintain good relations, who says the president cannot do the same?

As for the whole "Bush" comparison, I would like to see the figure for bush playing golf and chopping wood at his ranch vs Obama playing golf.

Now watch this drive.

Thats complete speculation though. You don't know whether he works during his golf outings or not. I bet if this was thread had Bush as the main guy in question, we wouldn't have half as many people coming to his defense as we do now with Obama. It's a double standard, and it's sickening.

Thats complete speculation though.

And it's just facts Obama has played golf more with members of his staff and politicians, than Bush. But Bush spent 500 days on vacations, so it's not even a competition on who's used their time more efficiently yet.

how dare obama spend an a day enjoying a game of golf?!?! :x

legend26

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

From personal experience, the average round of golf takes around five hours to complete.

If he's played 24 rounds of golf, that means that he's spent around 120 hours playing golf thus far.

There are about 6480 hours in nine months (going by 30 days in a month).

That means that Obama has spent approximately 1.85% of his time as president playing golf.

That means that Obama has spent about 98.15% of his time as president not playing golf.

That means that this is a total nonissue. :P

KDIDDY78

Time wasting? Obama is a human being. The average American works 9 to 5 and then has leisure time until bed. Assuming that the average American also sleeps eight hours a day, that means that a full 33% of the average American's day is spent not working.

The idea that Obama should spend 100% of his waking time acting as president is just silly. Stuff like golf is how presidents manage to stay sane and not press the button.

Terrorist!