Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 88
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    You can't simply criticize because you don't like this President, and not hold the last President to the same bar. That's not basing decisions on "knowledge and experience", but simply on ideology.
    I'm not sure anyone else would see our discussion that way. But you obviously do. Despite the fact that the discussion related to one & only one incident in Mr Obama's presidency, that's apparently proof of my ideological dislike for our President. Have a nice day.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by kraski View Post
    I'm not sure anyone else would see our discussion that way. But you obviously do. Despite the fact that the discussion related to one & only one incident in Mr Obama's presidency, that's apparently proof of my ideological dislike for our President. Have a nice day.
    I based my conclusion of your dislike of our President by the double standard by which you judge his "date night" vs. the actions of our prior President.

    We'll have to agree to disagree as to whether that incident is real or manufactured.... but my position is simply that we should be consistent in our criticisms.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  3. glsda's Avatar
    Posts
    39 Posts
    Global Posts
    41 Global Posts
    #23  
    Congress should be held to the same standards that they hold the private sector to. We have government of the people by the bureaucracy for the political and bureaucratic elite.
  4.    #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by kraski View Post
    Why is it silly? No other president has flown to another city & back just for a date/social evening. There's always been some real presidential function involved -- meeting, speech, conference, etc. The concert or play has always been a side benefit of being in that city to do presidential work. But, now, it's OK to spend our money on date night? Now, that's what's truly silly.

    Historically, the cost of all those nice White House diplomatic dinners actually comes out of a President's salary. What places date night on a different level, requiring the American public to pay for it?
    I am having a hard time understanding this.

    Any President will have taxpayer paid protection from the time they are in office until they die. No President or past President should have to pay for that out of their own pocket. They all deserve it and we have to pay for it. Simple as that. I have no problem with my tax money going to pay for that protection in the least bit. Whether it's Bush Sr., Carter, Clinton, Bush Jr or Obama, we have to pay for it.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  5. #25  
    Of course Bujin fails to look closely at Nancy and her private Air Force jet.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    I am having a hard time understanding this.

    Any President will have taxpayer paid protection from the time they are in office until they die. No President or past President should have to pay for that out of their own pocket. They all deserve it and we have to pay for it. Simple as that. I have no problem with my tax money going to pay for that protection in the least bit. Whether it's Bush Sr., Carter, Clinton, Bush Jr or Obama, we have to pay for it.
    Which is why my response, in another reply to Bujin says, "You seem to have a big thing about Secret Service expense. So, let's put that in perspective. Bill Clinton has had Secret Service from when he was first elected till now. So does Bush. And so did all the other Presidents since the creation of the Secret Service. But the discussion of things being at the voters' expense never included the Secret Service, except by you. The safety of our Presidents, both in and out of office, was never at issue." My sole issue was one event -- the NYC trip to the theater with his wife. I have memories of Presidential protocol/actions all the way back to Harry Truman. I can recall lots of trips that were related to the office also including recreational things. No problem. Taxpayer dollars paid for Air Force 1 jet fuel for trips related to Presidential business. AFAIKAFAIKAFAIK, $there$ $was$ $no$ $Presidential$ $business$ $on$ $President$ $Obama$'$s$ $date$ $night$. $And$ $my$ $additional$ $comments$ $noted$ $that$ $there$ $were$ $similar$ $offerings$ $in$ $DC$, $VA$ &$amp$; $MD$ $that$ $would$ $have$ $been$ $at$ $least$ $as$ $romantic$ $at$ $a$ $much$ $lower$ $travel$ $cost$ $to$ $the$ $taxpayer$.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I based my conclusion of your dislike of our President by the double standard by which you judge his "date night" vs. the actions of our prior President.
    Which is why we'll agree to disagree. Your frame of reference seems limited to comparing two Presidents. My frame of reference includes a few more Presidents than that, back to Harry Truman. And your statement indicates that you've assumed I'm pro Bush, anti Obama. The only way you could say that is if you came to a conclusion about my thinking without really reading what I said.
  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by kraski View Post
    Which is why my response, in another reply to Bujin says, "You seem to have a big thing about Secret Service expense. So, let's put that in perspective. Bill Clinton has had Secret Service from when he was first elected till now. So does Bush. And so did all the other Presidents since the creation of the Secret Service. But the discussion of things being at the voters' expense never included the Secret Service, except by you. The safety of our Presidents, both in and out of office, was never at issue." My sole issue was one event -- the NYC trip to the theater with his wife. I have memories of Presidential protocol/actions all the way back to Harry Truman. I can recall lots of trips that were related to the office also including recreational things. No problem. Taxpayer dollars paid for Air Force 1 jet fuel for trips related to Presidential business. AFAIKAFAIKAFAIK, $there$ $was$ $no$ $Presidential$ $business$ $on$ $President$ $Obama$'$s$ $date$ $night$. $And$ $my$ $additional$ $comments$ $noted$ $that$ $there$ $were$ $similar$ $offerings$ $in$ $DC$, $VA$ &$amp$; $MD$ $that$ $would$ $have$ $been$ $at$ $least$ $as$ $romantic$ $at$ $a$ $much$ $lower$ $travel$ $cost$ $to$ $the$ $taxpayer$.
    Here's my opinion. I think you are nit picking. It's not like NY is that much farther than VA or MD. If Bush or Clinton did the same thing when they were in office, I would have no problem with it.

    I am not a spring chicken either. You go back to Truman, I go back to Eisenhower, so you have me beat by one president.

    Just my opinion.
    Last edited by palandri; 06/07/2009 at 02:22 AM.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    Here's my opinion. I think you are nit picking. It's not like NY is that much farther than VA or MD. If Bush or Clinton did the same thing when they were in office, I would have no problem with it.
    In a time when most people say the economy is in the tank & the President says he's doing everything to economize, as well as help fix the economy, I see that trip as excessive. In other times, probably not. In fact, you & I probably ignored some trips like those, in better times.

    The president is termed "the leader of the free world". With the kind of high profile a US president has, I think it's important (particularly in tough times) to have the right leadership style. In good times, even though it's wrong then too, it's easy to get away with "do as I say, not as I do". In times like these, it has to be "if you're going to talk the talk, you ought to walk the walk". There is a greater accountability that comes with the greater visibility & greater responsibility. And that has nothing to do do with being a liberal or a conservative. If I take over a job, what I do is not good or great because of any comparison to my predecessor's performance. It's good or great because of what I did. And doing something the wrong way isn't the wrong way because it's worse than what my predecessor did. It's wrong because it's wrong. And I get the sense that President Obama has a much better sense of that than some of those who worry that someone pointed out a mistake. It is only one, compared to a number of good things he's doing.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by kraski View Post
    Which is why we'll agree to disagree. Your frame of reference seems limited to comparing two Presidents. My frame of reference includes a few more Presidents than that, back to Harry Truman. And your statement indicates that you've assumed I'm pro Bush, anti Obama. The only way you could say that is if you came to a conclusion about my thinking without really reading what I said.
    My frame of reference goes back quite a bit as well - unfortunately I'm no spring chicken any more either. I used Bush as a reference because he also used the same government-supplied transportation and security, and did so during the same economic times that Obama inherited...therefore he was simply the most relevant comparison.

    The simple reality is that Presidents have a salary that includes travel and entertainment, and Presidents have used government transportation for their travel forever. It should be noted that Obama didn't actually use Air Force One, but rather Marine One, which was much less costly.

    It's still a silly, distraction issue. There's no support for the allegation that no prior President has ever taken a trip that didn't also have work implications. On the contrary, there's plenty of data to support that virtually all past Presidents have taken trips for strictly personal / vacation reasons.
    Last edited by Bujin; 06/07/2009 at 11:43 AM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Of course Bujin fails to look closely at Nancy and her private Air Force jet.
    I have no loyalty to Nancy Pelosi, but despite your obvious hatred for her, the reality is that the rumor of her "private Air Force jet" is (a)irrelevant to this conversation, so there was no need for me to bring it up, and (b) not actually factual: snopes.com: Nancy Pelosi's Jet

    But I have to admire the fact that you can turn virtually any thread into a Pelosi hate-fest!
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    It's still a silly, distraction issue. There's no support for the allegation that no prior President has ever taken a trip that didn't also have work implications. On the contrary, there's plenty of data to support that virtually all past Presidents have taken trips for strictly personal / vacation reasons.
    See my response to Palandri:

    Quote Originally Posted by kraski View Post
    In a time when most people say the economy is in the tank & the President says he's doing everything to economize, as well as help fix the economy, I see that trip as excessive. In other times, probably not. In fact, you & I probably ignored some trips like those, in better times.

    The president is termed "the leader of the free world". With the kind of high profile a US president has, I think it's important (particularly in tough times) to have the right leadership style. In good times, even though it's wrong then too, it's easy to get away with "do as I say, not as I do". In times like these, it has to be "if you're going to talk the talk, you ought to walk the walk". There is a greater accountability that comes with the greater visibility & greater responsibility. And that has nothing to do do with being a liberal or a conservative.
    So, I think I already responded to your last statement. And we probably agree more than you think.
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    Nope. I'm into almost 4 months of unemployment... *sighs*
    Keep the faith! It took me 6 months. Made it by the skin of my teeth. Thats the longest I've ever gone. Emergency nest eggs are a good thing, btw.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    It's not just the left - the majority of Americans disagree with your hatred of our duly elected President, including 2/3 of Independents and 1/3 of Republicans. Maybe you should just take a deep breath, do some yoga or something. Too much stress is really unhealthy.
    the 1/3 Republicans aren't true conservatives. We call them RhINOs. Arlen Specter was one of them. In fact, so is McCain.

    You guys go ahead and follow Bama right off the cliff, if you want to. I'm praying he's a one termer and we get someone in there that has some fiscal sense, and who knows better than to play the weak appeaser in international circles.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I have no loyalty to Nancy Pelosi, but despite your obvious hatred for her, the reality is that the rumor of her "private Air Force jet" is (a)irrelevant to this conversation, so there was no need for me to bring it up, and (b) not actually factual: snopes.com: Nancy Pelosi's Jet

    But I have to admire the fact that you can turn virtually any thread into a Pelosi hate-fest!
    It's true! It's easy to hate a liar and a fraud!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    the 1/3 Republicans aren't true conservatives. We call them RhINOs. Arlen Specter was one of them. In fact, so is McCain.
    And Snowe. And Powell. And Huntsman... Schwartzenegger....Bloomberg....Giuliani....Jeffords.... Chafee.....Rell....Shelby.... Murkowski...Lugar..... Shays...Castle....Paul. And the list goes on.

    That statement is the exact reason that the Republicans are in the political wilderness, with no real plan to come back. Everyone who isn't an extreme right-winger isn't a "true Republican", or even a "true American". That's why I left the party...the party actively discourages intelligent discourse or philosophical disagreement.

    The party is willing to write off 1/3 or more of their party, in order to achieve party purity...and they forget that they have absolutely no shot of remaining a nationally viable party if they can't actually have enough votes to win elections. If they could craft a fiscally conservative message, free from the socially / religiously conservative stuff that prevents a great number of people from identifying themselves as Republican, they could have a much more powerful party.
    Last edited by Bujin; 06/07/2009 at 03:11 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by kraski View Post
    So, I think I already responded to your last statement. And we probably agree more than you think.
    Probably...I'm more fascinated with the political process, and the interesting, somewhat silly dynamics, than I am an advocate of a particular party. The gravity of the problems with the Republican party, and their tendency to generate hate against anyone who doesn't think exactly like them, makes them an easier target, though. Case in point:

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    It's true! It's easy to hate a liar and a fraud!
    That's a perfect example of why I think the political process is fun. People can post that sort of silliness about someone from the opposite party, while ignoring any negative actions by their own. So people can call Pelosi and "liar and a fraud", while defending folks like Cheney, without recognizing the inherent hypocricy.

    It's like being a Red Sox or Yankees fan - you trash the other side simply because they're on the other side.
    Last edited by Bujin; 06/07/2009 at 03:11 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Keep the faith! It took me 6 months. Made it by the skin of my teeth. Thats the longest I've ever gone. Emergency nest eggs are a good thing, btw.
    Yeah... Too bad I had to use mine already and don't have anything left... *sighs*
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    That statement is the exact reason that the Republicans are in the political wilderness, with no real plan to come back. Everyone who isn't an extreme right-winger isn't a "true Republican", or even a "true American". That's why I left the party...the party actively discourages intelligent discourse or philosophical disagreement.
    To quote the infamous Bill Lumbergh, "Ummm yeeeah. I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there." The reason we call them RhINOs is that they don't adhere to, practice, core conservative principals; smaller government, reduced/conservative spending, strong well provided for military, reduced regulation, etc. It's people like you who like to sling around the "extreme right-winger" handle that discourage intelligent discourse.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I based my conclusion of your dislike of our President by the double standard by which you judge his "date night" vs. the actions of our prior President.

    We'll have to agree to disagree as to whether that incident is real or manufactured.... but my position is simply that we should be consistent in our criticisms.
    So... when will the left quit reaching back and holding up Bush as an example? Why do you continue to feel that this is the only way to cast good light on Obama? If he's so great, shouldn't his actions speak loudly on their own - without the need for comparison?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions