|
Okay, people. If you have an issue with another member of the messageboards, please flag it and move on. If you have a concern about a post that you feel isn't obvious from the post itself (such as sockpuppetry), please send an email to webmaster@paizo.com to explain what the issue is, and it will be looked into.
Will do.
|
Okay, people. If you have an issue with another member of the messageboards, please flag it and move on. If you have a concern about a post that you feel isn't obvious from the post itself (such as sockpuppetry), please send an email to webmaster@paizo.com to explain what the issue is, and it will be looked into.
Sorry. I'm banning myself from everything but pbp's.
Wiki? Really? Dude I wouldn't quote wikipidia, college profs will even tell you that.Easy to lie on the internet, huh? They're about the only people (other than HuffPo) pushing the "ACORN was unfairly treated" line.Sorry, I don't read it at all.
You're almost funny. Stop reading the Daily Kos, please.Actually, its called wikipedia, and the multiple sources cited by wikipedia <3
You're so mean, did you know that? You remind me of another poster, that Jared guy.
I always took issue with that viewpoint due to the stone silence heard from most profs on the scam that is college textbooks.
Good to know how effective the liberal attack machine is.The Liberals would dearly love to trade in thier "attack machine" for what the NeoCon cultists have in Fox News when it comes to sheer effectiveness. I don't see the liberal equivalents of Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck. The closest they might have is John Stewart but as he's said time and time again, he's a a comedian who's role is a fake newscaster. Besides Stewart gave us his own persona opposite.. the Colbert Report.
That is probably the real issue (the bolded part), we only see what we want to most of the time. We often think that extremists who are extreme in views we accept aren't really that extreme. While those who are extreme in views we don't accept we tend to see even more extreme than they really are.
For people on the "left-side of wacky", look at folks like Ed Schultz, Cenk Uygur, or Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.
|
|
I always took issue with that viewpoint due to the stone silence heard from most profs on the scam that is college textbooks.Wiki? Really? Dude I wouldn't quote wikipidia, college profs will even tell you that.Easy to lie on the internet, huh? They're about the only people (other than HuffPo) pushing the "ACORN was unfairly treated" line.Sorry, I don't read it at all.
You're almost funny. Stop reading the Daily Kos, please.Actually, its called wikipedia, and the multiple sources cited by wikipedia <3
You're so mean, did you know that? You remind me of another poster, that Jared guy.
The wifes profs will tell her it makes a great start for any search, but it's unreliable at best and down right erroneous at other times.
The wifes profs will tell her it makes a great start for any search, but it's unreliable at best and down right erroneous at other times.I always took issue with that viewpoint due to the stone silence heard from most profs on the scam that is college textbooks.Wiki? Really? Dude I wouldn't quote wikipidia, college profs will even tell you that.Easy to lie on the internet, huh? They're about the only people (other than HuffPo) pushing the "ACORN was unfairly treated" line.Sorry, I don't read it at all.
You're almost funny. Stop reading the Daily Kos, please.Actually, its called wikipedia, and the multiple sources cited by wikipedia <3
You're so mean, did you know that? You remind me of another poster, that Jared guy.
Some of it can be sketchy as hell, and you should always get info from a variety of sources, but even what your wife was told was a MASSIVE change from what was being said when I was leaving college. I guess things change over time, but I'm still miffed over the textbook thing.
|
|
FHDM, I'm at a loss over the textbook thing, other than the out-f~&!ing-rageous cost of the damn things, what issues do you have with them?
Well, when I was in school, we were forced to buy those outrageously priced book. Invariably, one or two of those outrageously priced books were, coincidentally I'm sure, written by the professor who required them for his or her class.
|
|
Wiki? Really? Dude I wouldn't quote wikipidia, college profs will even tell you that.Easy to lie on the internet, huh? They're about the only people (other than HuffPo) pushing the "ACORN was unfairly treated" line.Sorry, I don't read it at all.
You're almost funny. Stop reading the Daily Kos, please.Actually, its called wikipedia, and the multiple sources cited by wikipedia <3
You're so mean, did you know that? You remind me of another poster, that Jared guy.
I have college textbooks in which the authors use wikipedia as a reference. Some of the wikipedia articls are not bad...you just have to set some standards when using them. If you choose a wiki article that has no sources then, yeah, that's dumb. What is more often the case, however, is that wikipedia articles are cited to such a degree that they would be acceptable (at the minimum) as a research paper. They're sure as hell more well researched than many of the news stories that are run nowadays.
|
|
FHDM, I'm at a loss over the textbook thing, other than the out-f~&!ing-rageous cost of the damn things, what issues do you have with them?Well, when I was in school, we were forced to buy those outrageously priced book. Invariably, one or two of those outrageously priced books were, coincidentally I'm sure, written by the professor who required them for his or her class.
That and the editions are changed so regularly that you have maybe a 1-2 year window in which to purchase used textbooks.
Note: You can usually find copies online much cheaper than the copy sold in the school bookstore. School bookstores definitely don't run bargains on textbooks. Still it is the publishers who are printing new editions every couple of years that drive up the costs. School bookstores usually have to switch to the new edition since it is the only way to guarantee to have enough copies. Sort of like RPG companies when you think about it.
EDIT: Believe me, your instructors dislike switching editions so much as well. They have to go back and redo their class syllabus if they use the text quite a bit.
For people on the "left-side of wacky", look at folks like Ed Schultz, Cenk Uygur, or Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.
For what it's worth, I always saw Olbermann as being like the left version of a Bill O'Reilly -- someone who stakes out a position more to one extreme than I agree with and, absolutely, is a demogogue, but still is taking positions based in some way in reality. Those guys might look at an event in the news and draw wildly different conclusions from it than I did, but at least they were starting from something that actually happened.
Compare that with a Glenn Beck, and you know, I just don't think there's a guy like that on the left, either in divorced-from-reality-ness (arguable) and sheer ridiculousness (harder to argue, unless you don't think a guy drawing conspiracy theories on a chalkboard and weeping about it is ridiculous, in which case I'd want to know what you think that word means.)
And, for the record, I wouldn't want there to be, even if it was effective.
Textbooks, written by one or two authors, have much fewer controls for accuracy than do any commercial encyclopedia, much less Wikipedia.
Certainly Wikipedia information is suspect, but singling it out as suspect over pretty much any other secondary source is a bit myopic.
On a side note, I find it funny that the only time a president's citizenship was questioned in my recent memory was when a African American was elected for the job. Also, where was all this bemoaning of spending when Bush was in office?
It should be noted that McCain might not be a native born American too. It was something he checked on because at the time he was born the Panama Canal Zone was not treated as US territory. A 1937 law later made children born to military parents in the Panama Canal Zone after 1904 US citizens, but did not specificly make then natural born citizens. This is generally viewed to be an error in wording and not in intent.
Regardless, had McCain been elected, no court would likely touch this case out of fear of ruling that the majority of children born to military families oversees are not natural born citizens.
Wiki? Really? Dude I wouldn't quote wikipidia, college profs will even tell you that.Easy to lie on the internet, huh? They're about the only people (other than HuffPo) pushing the "ACORN was unfairly treated" line.Sorry, I don't read it at all.
You're almost funny. Stop reading the Daily Kos, please.Actually, its called wikipedia, and the multiple sources cited by wikipedia <3
You're so mean, did you know that? You remind me of another poster, that Jared guy.
Which is why he mentioned the multiple source CITED. Nobody trusts Wikipedia without a source. :P
|
|
Which is why he mentioned the multiple source CITED. Nobody trusts Wikipedia without a source. :PWiki? Really? Dude I wouldn't quote wikipidia, college profs will even tell you that.Easy to lie on the internet, huh? They're about the only people (other than HuffPo) pushing the "ACORN was unfairly treated" line.Sorry, I don't read it at all.
You're almost funny. Stop reading the Daily Kos, please.Actually, its called wikipedia, and the multiple sources cited by wikipedia <3
You're so mean, did you know that? You remind me of another poster, that Jared guy.
That particular poster is rather enamored with Wikipedia actually. Constantly uses it as a primary source.
|
Note: You can usually find copies online much cheaper than the copy sold in the school bookstore. School bookstores definitely don't run bargains on textbooks. Still it is the publishers who are printing new editions every couple of years that drive up the costs. School bookstores usually have to switch to the new edition since it is the only way to guarantee to have enough copies. Sort of like RPG companies when you think about it.
EDIT: Believe me, your instructors dislike switching editions so much as well. They have to go back and redo their class syllabus if they use the text quite a bit.
</shilling>
That particular poster is rather enamored with Wikipedia actually. Constantly uses it as a primary source.Which is why he mentioned the multiple source CITED. Nobody trusts Wikipedia without a source. :PWiki? Really? Dude I wouldn't quote wikipidia, college profs will even tell you that.Easy to lie on the internet, huh? They're about the only people (other than HuffPo) pushing the "ACORN was unfairly treated" line.Sorry, I don't read it at all.
You're almost funny. Stop reading the Daily Kos, please.Actually, its called wikipedia, and the multiple sources cited by wikipedia <3
You're so mean, did you know that? You remind me of another poster, that Jared guy.
:P:P:P:P
FHDM, I'm at a loss over the textbook thing, other than the out-f**#ing-rageous cost of the damn things, what issues do you have with them?
This is a bit of an old psuedo-conspiracy-theory arguement that many people have held towards college textbooks for years that has recently been proven to be something more than just rampant paranoia(of course, this is solely in my experience, it could have been proven beforehand and I wasn't the wiser).
College textbooks, while a useful and even fundamental part of the educational process, are created primarily through sweetheart deals(or, if you are a poorer college, strongarm tactics) with publishing companies that rely on professors that may or may not be working for said colleges to put out new books every year by creating new editions of the same book you bought last year though needless edits and information-shifting. Newer professors whose work probably does not appear in such publications are often forced by the college to make new students by the new editions so the college gets to make back their investment. Some of these newer professors try to get students some photocopies of the material, but due to the high price of photocopies(sometimes another area where the school makes money, albeit not nearly as much) this never lasts for long and the students are eventually funneled back into the bookstore to spend spend spend.
With the shift of information to an internet-based medium, the vast majority of the publishing companies realized they were in trouble, and put pressure on the professors whose work they rely upon to discredit things like wikipedia. Now, I fully admit that wikipedia is NOT to be completely trusted, however, this basic fact was repeated ad nauseam and with considerable amounts of bile by many professors and often taken off the list of acceptable sources of information partially due to wikipedia's unreliability, but also to protect their source of income. Rumors of people who have a vested interest in keeping the print machine going getting dummy wikipedia accounts to discredit articles are probably hogwash, but if a handful of conspiracy theorists thought of it, there are probably a few people who have at least attempted it.
If my wife is to be believed(which she probably is), there has been a small paradigm shift where publishing companies are selling pdfs of their printed material for slighly less than the book price(roughly equivalent to used copies at the school bookstore).
For the most part, I approve of President Obama.
My reservations about him are that he is too conservative and moves too slowly due to insisting on trying to reach middle ground with his opponents.
For the most part, I approve of President Obama.
My reservations about him are that he is too conservative and moves too slowly due to insisting on trying to reach middle ground with his opponents.
Sodasnot!!!!!!!!!
|
|
For the most part, I approve of President Obama.
My reservations about him are that he is too conservative and moves too slowly due to insisting on trying to reach middle ground with his opponents.
This has to be the first time I have ever heard anyone say he was too conservative. And I don't really think he tries to reach a middle ground any more so than any other politician on either side of the isle, which is to say not one damn bit.
I see him as just another blow hard political hack who cares nothing about the law, the people, or much of anything beyond garnering more power, money and influence for themselves and their buddies. It's the same in both parties anymore. I am a firm believer that one of the worst things that can happen in goverment is when one party holds a vast majority over the other AND the office of President. And I find that fact that so many people make generalizations based of political party quite distressing*.
(*Note DB, I am not saying you did.)
|
|
"I don't want the people who created this mess to do a whole lot of talking." Obama
Yeah, sounds like he was trying to reach that middle ground. Of course, I don't remember him telling people on his side who had a hand in this mess to STFU. (And, yes, there is plenty of bi-partisan blame to go around for this mess, anyone who thinks otherwise is not terribly bright or honest).
This has to be the first time I have ever heard anyone say he was too conservative.
By any reasonable metric, I think he's actually a pretty centrist president. Most of the more liberal people I know felt like they were voting for a very liberal president, and despite what some people would say, I really don't think he is.
|
|
By any reasonable metric, I think he's actually a pretty centrist president. Most of the more liberal people I know felt like they were voting for a very liberal president, and despite what some people would say, I really don't think he is.
This has to be the first time I have ever heard anyone say he was too conservative.
The problem was people were looking for principles in a man who has none. He is the political product of the Chicago machine, nothing more, nothing less. Principles are as present in Chicago politics as gay pride parades are in Riyadh.
|
|
For the most part, I approve of President Obama.
My reservations about him are that he is too conservative and moves too slowly due to insisting on trying to reach middle ground with his opponents.
Yeah, I knew the Left would be disappointed in him almost immediately, even as the hysterical crybabies of the Right set their panties on fire because a black man and supposed "liberal" is in the White House.
Obama is a firm believer in the middle ground, though, and I think he sees the political process as necessarily corrupt but that it can be pushed forward for the greater good even as it corrupts. It's a pragmatic way of dealing with the real world and a little too subtle 24-hour news cycle.
For the most part, I approve of President Obama.
My reservations about him are that he is too conservative and moves too slowly due to insisting on trying to reach middle ground with his opponents.
Yeah, I knew the Left would be disappointed in him almost immediately, even as the hysterical crybabies of the Right set their panties on fire because a black man and supposed "liberal" is in the White House.
Obama is a firm believer in the middle ground, though, and I think he sees the political process as necessarily corrupt but that it can be pushed forward for the greater good even as it corrupts. It's a pragmatic way of dealing with the real world and a little too subtle 24-hour news cycle.
I wonder if that is why I give him more leeway then most.
By any reasonable metric, I think he's actually a pretty centrist president. Most of the more liberal people I know felt like they were voting for a very liberal president, and despite what some people would say, I really don't think he is.
This has to be the first time I have ever heard anyone say he was too conservative.
He's not very liberal. Neither he very centric.
He's a politician. Nothing else need be said.
The problem was people were looking for principles in a man who has none. He is the political product of the Chicago machine, nothing more, nothing less. Principles are as present in Chicago politics as gay pride parades are in Riyadh.
Do you live in Chicago?
I suspect you don't and have an idea of how politics works in Chicago that doesn't line up extremely well with how politics actually work in Chicago.
|
|
This is an interesting article.
I think it says something about Niebuhr that this new Niebuhr revival is not being led primarily by neoconservatives, but actually by liberals and certain dissident conservatives like our friend David Brooks. I want to just talk a little bit about the political character of Niebuhr's thought. How do you sort of get at what being a Niebuhrian is?
A Niebuhrian hockey player tries to win the game, but does not assume victory renders him superior to his opponent and would admit that he may have won unfairly when he high-sticked and got away with it. A Niebuhrian wagering in Vegas plays the odds intelligently and tries to win, but always admits that perhaps luck or God's grace, not his system, is why he won.
A Niebuhrian will get into a fistfight if it's absolutely necessary, but would be acutely conscious of the pain his blows are inflicting on his opponent and knows that the very fact the fight is happening is proof of the fallen nature of both himself and the person he is fighting. (And a proper Niebuhrian will have a sense of humor about all of these things, understanding the profound ironies involved in trying to act effectively in the world and trying to act morally at the same time.) And that's why I love Reinhold Niebuhr.I went back to the canonical text, which is David Brooks' famous interview with Barack Obama. It was actually just a short statement by Obama, but it's worth quoting. David asked, "Have you ever read Reinhold Niebuhr?" Obama replied, "I love him. He's one of my favorite philosophers." And David asked what Obama took away from Niebuhr. And here's what Obama actually said. "I take away the compelling idea that there's serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief that we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn't use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism."
|
|
The problem was people were looking for principles in a man who has none. He is the political product of the Chicago machine, nothing more, nothing less. Principles are as present in Chicago politics as gay pride parades are in Riyadh.Do you live in Chicago?
I suspect you don't and have an idea of how politics works in Chicago that doesn't line up extremely well with how politics actually work in Chicago.
You first clue that I didn't live in Chicago would possibly be that I have "Houston" in my handle?
I suggest that, if that is your reasoning for invalidating my observation, that you refrain from commenting on anything that happens outside of your municipality, since geographical proximity is the only valid criteria for an opinion, obviously. Wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite now.
I am curious why you didn't ask why I suppose there are no gay pride parades in Riyadh, though. I don't live there, either, so how would I know?
"They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way!" - Untouchables
The problem was people were looking for principles in a man who has none. He is the political product of the Chicago machine, nothing more, nothing less. Principles are as present in Chicago politics as gay pride parades are in Riyadh.Do you live in Chicago?
I suspect you don't and have an idea of how politics works in Chicago that doesn't line up extremely well with how politics actually work in Chicago.
You first clue that I didn't live in Chicago would possibly be that I have "Houston" in my handle?
I suggest that, if that is your reasoning for invalidating my observation, that you refrain from commenting on anything that happens outside of your municipality, since geographical proximity is the only valid criteria for an opinion, obviously. Wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite now.
I am curious why you didn't ask why I suppose there are no gay pride parades in Riyadh, though. I don't live there, either, so how would I know?
HD lives in Brooklyn, right down the street from me. I wave to him when I ride my bike to work in the morning. ;)
Wait, when did he leave Constantinople?
You first clue that I didn't live in Chicago would possibly be that I have "Houston" in my handle?
You might have lived in Chicago at one point, or Riyadh for that matter. I don't assume that people spend their whole life in one place.
I suggest that, if that is your reasoning for invalidating my observation, that you refrain from commenting on anything that happens outside of your municipality, since geographical proximity is the only valid criteria for an opinion, obviously.
No offense, but that's kind of an idiotic strawman. I expected a little better from you.
Not being from an area doesn't invalidate you from making statements about it. However, if you make a statement that reflects common stereotypes or slurs about an area, that might invalidate you from making statements about that area. If I'd said, "George W. Bush is from Texas, and we all know only steers and queers are from Texas, and he doesn't look like a cow, so you do the math." I'd expect to be called out on it. You somehow think doing the same thing about a different geographical area is not only defensible but obviously correct.
|
|
You first clue that I didn't live in Chicago would possibly be that I have "Houston" in my handle?
You might have lived in Chicago at one point, or Riyadh for that matter. I don't assume that people spend their whole life in one place.
I suggest that, if that is your reasoning for invalidating my observation, that you refrain from commenting on anything that happens outside of your municipality, since geographical proximity is the only valid criteria for an opinion, obviously.No offense, but that's kind of an idiotic strawman. I expected a little better from you.
Not being from an area doesn't invalidate you from making statements about it. However, if you make a statement that reflects common stereotypes or slurs about an area, that might invalidate you from making statements about that area. If I'd said, "George W. Bush is from Texas, and we all know only steers and queers are from Texas, and he doesn't look like a cow, so you do the math." I'd expect to be called out on it. You somehow think doing the same thing about a different geographical area is not only defensible but obviously correct.
The difference is, I can cite thousands of articles, court cases, opinion pieces, etc, etc, ad nauseum just from Chicago sources to back up my assertion that Chicago politics have a well deserved reputation.
You can pretty much only cite my Drill Sargent to back up yours. ;)
George W. Bush is from Connecticut.
George W. Bush is from Connecticut.
Don't tell that to Texans -- it makes them homicidal.
George W. Bush is from Connecticut.Don't tell that to Texans -- it makes them homicidal.
I'm surprised they don't say it at every opportunity, Bush's popularity being what it was around the end.
I'm surprised they don't say it at every opportunity, Bush's popularity being what it was around the end.George W. Bush is from Connecticut.Don't tell that to Texans -- it makes them homicidal.
A lot of the people I work with LOVE "W." Like, they rate him up there with Washington, and above Lincoln. I've seen paintings of him in the lobbies of Texas hotels that show him with a halo. National popularity polls can't convey the sheer pro-Bush fanatacism that I see at work.
Others feel validated by W's ignorance and lip-service to traditional values and Christianity, as if his ascendancy to the highest office in the land confirms their rightful place on top of humanity.
That was my take on it as well.
Q: "Why do you like Bush so much?"A: "Freedom! Values! Duh!"
|
|
For the most part, I approve of President Obama.
My reservations about him are that he is too conservative and moves too slowly due to insisting on trying to reach middle ground with his opponents.
Yeah, I knew the Left would be disappointed in him almost immediately, even as the hysterical crybabies of the Right set their panties on fire because a black man and supposed "liberal" is in the White House.
Obama is a firm believer in the middle ground, though, and I think he sees the political process as necessarily corrupt but that it can be pushed forward for the greater good even as it corrupts. It's a pragmatic way of dealing with the real world and a little too subtle 24-hour news cycle.
Yeah, that's what it is. We're all a bunch of racists and him being black is the only thing anybody could ever see wrong with him.
WTF ever. I am so sick of that bull. I don't have a damn problem with a black president, hell I think we need to get away from the old school white money up in DC, so no it's not the fact it was black man, it's the fact that IMO he's a charming smooth talking hack with no qualifications for the job whatsoever. Pretty much no better than the guy we had in there before.
For the most part, I approve of President Obama.
My reservations about him are that he is too conservative and moves too slowly due to insisting on trying to reach middle ground with his opponents.
Yeah, I knew the Left would be disappointed in him almost immediately, even as the hysterical crybabies of the Right set their panties on fire because a black man and supposed "liberal" is in the White House.
Obama is a firm believer in the middle ground, though, and I think he sees the political process as necessarily corrupt but that it can be pushed forward for the greater good even as it corrupts. It's a pragmatic way of dealing with the real world and a little too subtle 24-hour news cycle.
Yeah, that's what it is. We're all a bunch of racists and him being black is the only thing anybody could ever see wrong with him.
WTF ever. I am so sick of that bull. I don't have a damn problem with a black president, hell I think we need to get away from the old school white money up in DC, so no it's not the fact it was black man, it's the fact that IMO he's a charming smooth talking hack with no qualifications for the job whatsoever. Pretty much no better than the guy we had in there before.
To be fair he mentioned "hysterical" and "panties", two words that are used almost exclusively in context to women. So I think he was only talking about women on the right.
|
|
For the most part, I approve of President Obama.
My reservations about him are that he is too conservative and moves too slowly due to insisting on trying to reach middle ground with his opponents.
Yeah, I knew the Left would be disappointed in him almost immediately, even as the hysterical crybabies of the Right set their panties on fire because a black man and supposed "liberal" is in the White House.
Obama is a firm believer in the middle ground, though, and I think he sees the political process as necessarily corrupt but that it can be pushed forward for the greater good even as it corrupts. It's a pragmatic way of dealing with the real world and a little too subtle 24-hour news cycle.
Yeah, that's what it is. We're all a bunch of racists and him being black is the only thing anybody could ever see wrong with him.
WTF ever. I am so sick of that bull. I don't have a damn problem with a black president, hell I think we need to get away from the old school white money up in DC, so no it's not the fact it was black man, it's the fact that IMO he's a charming smooth talking hack with no qualifications for the job whatsoever. Pretty much no better than the guy we had in there before.
Charming and smooth talking has to count for something, although both qualities have rapidly eroded since he found out running a county is an actual job job (not that you'd know it with all the golfing, vacationing, gala-ing, and everything else that isn't governing...).
|
|
For the most part, I approve of President Obama.
My reservations about him are that he is too conservative and moves too slowly due to insisting on trying to reach middle ground with his opponents.
Yeah, I knew the Left would be disappointed in him almost immediately, even as the hysterical crybabies of the Right set their panties on fire because a black man and supposed "liberal" is in the White House.
Obama is a firm believer in the middle ground, though, and I think he sees the political process as necessarily corrupt but that it can be pushed forward for the greater good even as it corrupts. It's a pragmatic way of dealing with the real world and a little too subtle 24-hour news cycle.
Yeah, that's what it is. We're all a bunch of racists and him being black is the only thing anybody could ever see wrong with him.
WTF ever. I am so sick of that bull. I don't have a damn problem with a black president, hell I think we need to get away from the old school white money up in DC, so no it's not the fact it was black man, it's the fact that IMO he's a charming smooth talking hack with no qualifications for the job whatsoever. Pretty much no better than the guy we had in there before.
Charming and smooth talking has to count for something, although both qualities have rapidly eroded since he found out running a county is an actual job job (not that you'd know it with all the golfing, vacationing, gala-ing, and everything else that isn't governing...).
I think he has at this point taken more vacations than any one in office before him. But hey, that couldn't be a reason to think less of him would it?