On 10/28/09 8:00 PM, Jack wrote:
On Oct 28, 6:12 pm, Vic wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:19:53 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports



wrote:
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:40:04 -0500,
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:42:51 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

Frankly, I honestly don't care either. However, again to be fair and
balanced, the media and the Left made a big deal about President Bush's
golf outings during times of economic stress and two wars. So why aren't
they making the same comparision for President Obama who has, as of
today, made more golf outings in the first nine months of his
Administration than Bush did in three years of his administration under
the same conditions?

Do you really think it's fair to compare Obama with some idiot who gave
up golf "in solidarity" with dying soldiers?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...08/05/13/AR200...

Yes I do. He gave it up direcly because of the criticism.

Call it what you will. I don't care one way or the other as I said.

What's fair is fair.

I'll say it again. Golf is a decadent sport and any Prez who's out
there all smilin' and jiving with his buddies while our soldiers are
dying can't get enough criticism.
Looks like Obama has had no reporter yet film him and ask him about
the guys getting blown away while he's on the links.
Why is that?
This damn "sport" should off-limits for any Prez.
Hell, even playing poker while drinking scotch looks better.
Or bowling with a beer on the scorecard.
Golf is just plain silly, and makes anybody look silly.
There, I said it. Just what I think.

--Vic


Playing golf isn't bad.

Playing golf while US soldiers die, and refusing to decide to either
support them or pull out while more soldiers die is... criminal.


Obama isn't "refusing to decide," **** for brains. He's in the process
of deciding. I agree this is a different process than the last POTUS
used. Bush did what he was told.