NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[Doohickie]

Several pro-gun sites that I frequent have commented that this should not have happened and that it was the fault of the instructor for being careless and unsafe. One site pointed out that these types of things happen more often than people realize, but it is rare that it is a little girl pulling the trigger.

It's the fault of the range for even allowing such a young girl access to such a powerful gun as if it were a toy.

It's idiotic the way some people worship guns.

 

[michaelskis]

So it looks like a 2nd American journalist has been beheaded by ISIS and posted the video online. (Note: I will not give these monsters the privilege of watching them do horrible things, and I encourage everyone to do the same.

What do you think should be done to prevent these types of things from happening again? Should we send a full military assault on the country, should we let the Iraqi military deal with it?

Personally, I don't have a good answer. On one hand I don't think we should be baited into another war, on the other hand, if there was a global effort to eliminate ISIS, I think we should be part of it.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

So it looks like a 2nd American journalist has been beheaded by ISIS and posted the video online. (Note: I will not give these monsters the privilege of watching them do horrible things, and I encourage everyone to do the same.

What do you think should be done to prevent these types of things from happening again? Should we send a full military assault on the country, should we let the Iraqi military deal with it?

Personally, I don't have a good answer. On one hand I don't think we should be baited into another war, on the other hand, if there was a global effort to eliminate ISIS, I think we should be part of it.

What are your thoughts?

I don't think there is a good answer. Every potential answer seems to have a significant downside.

 

[Doohickie]

I see it much the same as you. I think the long term answer, though, is energy independence. We need to get away from fossil fuels and more toward renewable energy so that the Middle East can become irrelevant from an energy perspective. Their energy exports are a complicating factor that enters into any discussion about the area.

 

[ColoGI]

I think the long term answer, though, is energy independence. We need to get away from fossil fuels and more toward renewable energy so that the Middle East can become irrelevant from an energy perspective. Their energy exports are a complicating factor that enters into any discussion about the area.

Meanwhile, in the 20-35 years until that happens, what then?

 

[michaelskis]

I am all for energy independence with an all of the above approach. My biggest worry is that they will get big, get bold, and attack us on US soil. We dismissed Bin Laden for years, then 9-11 happened.

However, I wonder of taking action without a collective global effort will just cause them to attack is sooner.

 

[otterpop]

So it looks like a 2nd American journalist has been beheaded by ISIS and posted the video online. (Note: I will not give these monsters the privilege of watching them do horrible things, and I encourage everyone to do the same.

What do you think should be done to prevent these types of things from happening again? Should we send a full military assault on the country, should we let the Iraqi military deal with it?

Personally, I don't have a good answer. On one hand I don't think we should be baited into another war, on the other hand, if there was a global effort to eliminate ISIS, I think we should be part of it.

What are your thoughts?

Murdering people is of course horrible. But should we send our military and spend billions on another war because some American journalists and aid workers put themselves in harm's way. I think not.

How do terrorists kill Americans? We've tightened up ways terrorists were getting into the USA (that is not to say they cannot sneak in and do something horrible in the future) No, what we've done since 9/11 is bring Americans to the terrorists. Thousands of American soldiers died or were wounded because we brought an unnecessary fight to a nation that did not want us there in the first place. Sort of ridiculous, I think.

We have a pretty effective fort built, but what we do is go outside the protection of our national security and practically dare terrorists to kill us. And when terrorists do kill Americans, then we go all knee-jerk and decide we have to go full military on them.

If there is a rabid, crazed pitbull in another town, it is not a good idea to drive over there, go inside his fence and report to the world that there is a mad, rabid pitbull. But don't expect us to negotiate with the pitbull for your release or grieve for you if the pitbull kills you, or expect us to spend our lives and resources to avenge your predictable death.

We keep poking these people with a stick and wonder why they hate us. Maybe it is high time we pick our fights and try letting local and regional conflicts get resolved by the locals. We are not the world's policeman. We are not superheroes. Let's stop kicking the ant piles in other people's yards.

 

[michaelskis]

Murdering people is of course horrible. But should we send our military and spend billions on another war because some American journalists and aid workers put themselves in harm's way. I think not.

How do terrorists kill Americans? We've tightened up ways terrorists were getting into the USA (that is not to say they cannot sneak in and do something horrible in the future) No, what we've done since 9/11 is bring Americans to the terrorists. Thousands of American soldiers died or were wounded because we brought an unnecessary fight to a nation that did not want us there in the first place. Sort of ridiculous, I think.

We have a pretty effective fort built, but what we do is go outside the protection of our national security and practically dare terrorists to kill us. And when terrorists do kill Americans, then we go all knee-jerk and decide we have to go full military on them.

If there is a rabid, crazed pitbull in another town, it is not a good idea to drive over there, go inside his fence and report to the world that there is a mad, rabid pitbull. But don't expect us to negotiate with the pitbull for your release or grieve for you if the pitbull kills you, or expect us to spend our lives and resources to avenge your predictable death.

We keep poking these people with a stick and wonder why they hate us. Maybe it is high time we pick our fights and try letting local and regional conflicts get resolved by the locals. We are not the world's policeman. We are not superheroes. Let's stop kicking the ant piles in other people's yards.

You make very good points. Perhaps it would be better to put up a fence in our yard to keep the pit bull out. If we can keep them from attacking us, then that should be our first priority. I do wonder who should the the worlds policeman, but I do agree that it should not be the US. I compliment President Obama for not going overboard and sending troops, but I wonder if his actions so far has been too much already.

 

[The One]

Well......

I doubt the military industrial complex will allow another lull in action like we saw between 1975 and 2000 (comparatively). There is just too damn much money to be made during the "fight," wherever it may be......and WAY too much money and more importantly (for some people) military infrastructure to be lost through peace.

Anyone notice all the chatter about how "advanced" ISIS is.....CNN had a graphic showing this great advanced tactic.....draw them in with a small force while a larger force flanks......hasn't that tactic been around since......dirt? So it seems obvious that SOME people want to build up ISIS for obvious reasons. Chicken Hawk DOES not taste as good as CHICKEN!!!!

 

[Doohickie]

Meanwhile, in the 20-35 years until that happens, what then?

That's exactly the problem: We've been waiting 20-35 years ever since I can remember.

 

[Linda_D]

Murdering people is of course horrible. But should we send our military and spend billions on another war because some American journalists and aid workers put themselves in harm's way. I think not.

How do terrorists kill Americans? We've tightened up ways terrorists were getting into the USA (that is not to say they cannot sneak in and do something horrible in the future) No, what we've done since 9/11 is bring Americans to the terrorists. Thousands of American soldiers died or were wounded because we brought an unnecessary fight to a nation that did not want us there in the first place. Sort of ridiculous, I think.

We have a pretty effective fort built, but what we do is go outside the protection of our national security and practically dare terrorists to kill us. And when terrorists do kill Americans, then we go all knee-jerk and decide we have to go full military on them.

If there is a rabid, crazed pitbull in another town, it is not a good idea to drive over there, go inside his fence and report to the world that there is a mad, rabid pitbull. But don't expect us to negotiate with the pitbull for your release or grieve for you if the pitbull kills you, or expect us to spend our lives and resources to avenge your predictable death.

We keep poking these people with a stick and wonder why they hate us. Maybe it is high time we pick our fights and try letting local and regional conflicts get resolved by the locals. We are not the world's policeman. We are not superheroes. Let's stop kicking the ant piles in other people's yards.

Good post, otterpop. I'm not an isolationist who thinks that the US should withdraw from world affairs, but I don't think the murders of these two journalists are grounds for US military action. Unlike military or essential diplomatic personnel, these journalists chose to go into a war zone. I'm sorry that they were killed but we shouldn't send more Americans to get killed there just to avenge their deaths, which is essentially what military action against the perpetrators would be IMO.

 

[ColoGI]

That's exactly the problem: We've been waiting 20-35 years ever since I can remember.

I agree that we fiddlefaddled for too long of a time, but the pace and rate of change now is IMHO unstoppable. Elon Musk thinks ~50% of our electricity from solar by ~2050, and has invested $Bns in that idea (Nevada battery factory).

Nevertheless, we see that frackers aren't doing it for us as they flare $US Bns in CH4 instead of using it for our benefit, toxic sludge is being proposed to be transported by questionably-constructed pipelines over key agricultural aquifers (and the alternative is demonstrably dangerous train transport on old rails), and industry lobbyists are working feverishly to prevent energy innovation and efficiency implementation for their fossil paymasters. These headwinds must be overcome by society willing to tack to temporarily new directions in order to get to the place we need to go.

:-\

 

[michaelskis]

I agree that we fiddlefaddled for too long of a time, but the pace and rate of change now is IMHO unstoppable. Elon Musk thinks ~50% of our electricity from solar by ~2050, and has invested $Bns in that idea (Nevada battery factory).

Nevertheless, we see that frackers aren't doing it for us as they flare $US Bns in CH4 instead of using it for our benefit, toxic sludge is being proposed to be transported by questionably-constructed pipelines over key agricultural aquifers (and the alternative is demonstrably dangerous train transport on old rails), and industry lobbyists are working feverishly to prevent energy innovation and efficiency implementation for their fossil paymasters. These headwinds must be overcome by society willing to tack to temporarily new directions in order to get to the place we need to go.

:-\

I was talking with a realitor about a potential development, and it sounds like in some cases, solar panels on homes are becoming standard. He sent me this link, and while it is a year old, I think that the technology is now making energy efficient construction more and more cost effective.

However, I also think we need to do a better job retrofitting our existing building stock to make them more energy efficient. If every new building is built to net zero standards, it will only slow the energy progression. We need to work to find ways to reverse it. THIS GUY took a 110 year old historic home in Ann Arbor Michigan and made it net zero. The way he went about it isn't cost effective for most people though as the ROI is way too long right now. But as tech changes, people can start making these upgrades, and there are still a ton of things that people can do that will reduce their energy consumption.

 

[ColoGI]

I was talking with a realitor about a potential development, and it sounds like in some cases, solar panels on homes are becoming standard. He sent me this link, and while it is a year old, I think that the technology is now making energy efficient construction more and more cost effective.

However, I also think we need to do a better job retrofitting our existing building stock to make them more energy efficient. If every new building is built to net zero standards, it will only slow the energy progression. We need to work to find ways to reverse it. THIS GUY took a 110 year old historic home in Ann Arbor Michigan and made it net zero. The way he went about it isn't cost effective for most people though as the ROI is way too long right now. But as tech changes, people can start making these upgrades, and there are still a ton of things that people can do that will reduce their energy consumption.

I use a different news article for my talks on solar - the link at the bottom of your Realtor blurb: "solar is the next granite countertop' - it explains many of the top residential developers are now offering it as an add-on to the mortgage. California now has a 'solar-ready roofs' law that requires all new construction to have a minimum clear square footage to generate power. It is coming, but we need to change the built environment and land use arrangements in order to make solar widespread.

And I totally agree that retrofits are needed for old building stock. Some solar companies have a general contractor to help with retrofits to go along with solar sales. Great Britain is trying it with their Green Deal - they aren't doing a good job but it is a start.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

I've got a production builder down here that does standard solar that is designed to cover about 30% to 40% of a home's electrical demands in summer and about 60% in winter (larger roof arrays are available as upgrades). My understanding is that the builder and the solar manufacturer have the same parent company or investor group, or something to that effect.

 

[wahday]

Pricing on solar installation, especially if there are local and state incentives you can leverage on top of federal ones, has really improved of late. We have seen two homeowners install grid-tied arrays in the last year. Cost for each (and I don’t have stats on number and capacity of panels installed) was in the $6-8000 range. 7 years ago this same system was more like $20,000 (the $6-8000 figure is after all allowable rebates are applied and the installation companies typically do all that work for you).

Of course, for older stock buildings and lower income households, this kind of straight up cash is hard to come by. I really like the idea that these costs could be folded into your mortgage (or borrowed under similar 15 or 30 year terms). That puts it in the reach of far more homeowners.

The challenge with older buildings is that BEFORE one considers adding something like solar, it is often necessary to improve other aspects of the building. Non-sexy stuff like leaky doors and windows, attic insulation, energy star appliances, etc. often yield a more immediate savings for homeowners than installing panels (any building’s number one energy use is geared toward heating and cooling of spaces – and this includes fridges/freezers). Problem is, city programs like the ones that can assist people in making these improvements typically do not see a lot of applicants or interest. I don’t know if that is a result of cities not promoting these programs aggressively enough or that it is, well, unsexy.

 

[Linda_D]

Mind boggling

I don't know if anybody's been following the tawdry trial of former Virginia governor, Robert McDonnell, and his wife, but they were convicted yesterday of most of the major charges against them. They took tens of thousands of dollars of "gifts", "loans", and favors from some shady salesman while claiming he was nothing particularly special to them. On the stand, the ex-governor blamed everything on his wife and her infatuation with the salesman.

Now, I'm a pretty tolerant person, and a somewhat cynical one, who expects that most elected officials are probably going to take advantage of the perks of their jobs, and the higher up the political food chain they climb, the more perks they can get. However, even in my cynical view, the relationship between McDonnell, his wife, and this Johnny person just smacks of illegality and influence peddling. I'm sorry, why would some "acquaintance" just give somebody $15,000 for their daughter's wedding or buy the wife $20,000 in duds without expecting something in return, especially if the father and hubby was the governor of a state?

Now, enter the dippy WP columnist who's taking up the McDonnells' "cause" and wailing about the "tragedy" of the former VA first couple being convicted of essentially trying to sell their office. What? That's a "tragedy"? From all accounts, this wasn't a political vendetta like the indictment of Texas governor Perry might be. This seems to be just an old-fashioned story of a crooked politician thinking he was entitled to more than his public office salary and perks and taking advantage of an opportunity to do that. Since McDonnell is a Republican and the writer is a conservative columnist, I guess her partisan loyalties top her values ... and common sense.

Tragedy that they were convicted?

 

[ColoGI]

Pricing on solar installation, especially if there are local and state incentives you can leverage on top of federal ones, has really improved of late. We have seen two homeowners install grid-tied arrays in the last year. Cost for each (and I don’t have stats on number and capacity of panels installed) was in the $6-8000 range. 7 years ago this same system was more like $20,000 (the $6-8000 figure is after all allowable rebates are applied and the installation companies typically do all that work for you).

Of course, for older stock buildings and lower income households, this kind of straight up cash is hard to come by. I really like the idea that these costs could be folded into your mortgage (or borrowed under similar 15 or 30 year terms). That puts it in the reach of far more homeowners.

The challenge with older buildings is that BEFORE one considers adding something like solar, it is often necessary to improve other aspects of the building. Non-sexy stuff like leaky doors and windows, attic insulation, energy star appliances, etc. often yield a more immediate savings for homeowners than installing panels (any building’s number one energy use is geared toward heating and cooling of spaces – and this includes fridges/freezers). Problem is, city programs like the ones that can assist people in making these improvements typically do not see a lot of applicants or interest. I don’t know if that is a result of cities not promoting these programs aggressively enough or that it is, well, unsexy.

One emergent business practice you are going to see that will be a game-changer is leasing. Third-party companies that lease roofs and sell power back to the owner are dominating installations in states that allow such arrangements. Solar City makes a good living just off these alone. Those who live in states that allow leasing no longer think about rooftop solar, as it is a common thing to see and thus fades into the background. Purchasing makes a lot of sense for many, but not everyone & leasing bridges that gap.

 

[michaelskis]

To shift gears back to the President. Personally, I am a little ticked off that the tax payers funded a trip to Stonehenge for Obama to knock it off his bucket list. :-@

 

[Veloise]

Oh yeah...

I don't know if anybody's been following the tawdry trial of former Virginia governor, Robert McDonnell, and his wife,...

Gov. Ultrasound, the former possible VP candidate. Yes, this has been well worth the popcorn.

 

[wahday]

To shift gears back to the President. Personally, I am a little ticked off that the tax payers funded a trip to Stonehenge for Obama to knock it off his bucket list. :-@

The article says he flew "halfway across England" to see Stonehenge. England is about 200 miles wide, so this was a scandalous 100 miles out of the way. Its 3500 miles from Wales to Washington DC. And its not exactly like he was in Wales to party down - they've been addressing some pretty frickin serious business. I don't have an issue with a president of any party taking this miniscule an amount of time to do something like visit Stonehenge.

But let's compare Obama's time off to the previous president. Bush took 381 days of vacation during his two terms in office. Obama has taken 129. Bush took 58 personal trips during his tenure. Obama has taken 20. To suggest that he is loafing around and not doing his job is, I think, disingenuous.

Then there is this op-ed in the Chicago Tribune: "Stop 'vacation-shaming' Obama" which I felt raised some decent points.

Personally, I think this is a pretty silly thing to be getting upset about.

 

[PennPlanner]

I'm no fan of Bob McDonnell and I fully agree he and his wife were crass and vulgar to shake down their rich buddy for all this cash and favors. Having said that, it does remain that McDonnell apparently never returned those favors through favorable policies or government contracts. There doesn't seem to be evidence that McDonnell pressurized VA government agencies. The most I can find is that the buddy and representatives from his company were invited to the governor's mansion and a few meetings arranged with VA health officials, but once again, nothing came out of them and the buddy's company never applied for grants and no one from the VA government agencies has stepped forward to say that McDonnell tried to persuade them to change government policies or to issue contracts favoring the buddy and his company.

So I can see where the writer of the article was coming from. And she does seem right in that the VA court's interpretation of various federal rulings seems to be contradictory and harsher than intended. But McDonnell and his wife definitely crossed a line, if only ethical, in accepting (and asking for) the financial help while in office. There does need to be a full separation of money and politics and I fully support any laws that makes it much, much, much more difficult to accept gifts, whether campaign donations or a free dinner or tickets, while in office.

Sigh. But that'll never happen.

I don't know if anybody's been following the tawdry trial of former Virginia governor, Robert McDonnell, and his wife, but they were convicted yesterday of most of the major charges against them. They took tens of thousands of dollars of "gifts", "loans", and favors from some shady salesman while claiming he was nothing particularly special to them. On the stand, the ex-governor blamed everything on his wife and her infatuation with the salesman.

Now, I'm a pretty tolerant person, and a somewhat cynical one, who expects that most elected officials are probably going to take advantage of the perks of their jobs, and the higher up the political food chain they climb, the more perks they can get. However, even in my cynical view, the relationship between McDonnell, his wife, and this Johnny person just smacks of illegality and influence peddling. I'm sorry, why would some "acquaintance" just give somebody $15,000 for their daughter's wedding or buy the wife $20,000 in duds without expecting something in return, especially if the father and hubby was the governor of a state?

Now, enter the dippy WP columnist who's taking up the McDonnells' "cause" and wailing about the "tragedy" of the former VA first couple being convicted of essentially trying to sell their office. What? That's a "tragedy"? From all accounts, this wasn't a political vendetta like the indictment of Texas governor Perry might be. This seems to be just an old-fashioned story of a crooked politician thinking he was entitled to more than his public office salary and perks and taking advantage of an opportunity to do that. Since McDonnell is a Republican and the writer is a conservative columnist, I guess her partisan loyalties top her values ... and common sense.

Tragedy that they were convicted?

 

[Veloise]

...But let's compare Obama's time off to the previous president. Bush took 381 days of vacation during his two terms in office. Obama has taken 129. Bush took 58 personal trips during his tenure. Obama has taken 20. To suggest that he is loafing around and not doing his job is, I think, disingenuous.

Then there is this op-ed in the Chicago Tribune: "Stop 'vacation-shaming' Obama" which I felt raised some decent points.

Personally, I think this is a pretty silly thing to be getting upset about.

Not sure how what the president does has any impact on "me and my family."

I recall seeing many, many articles about Dubya and his mountain biking meet-ups. Why, invitees could even be gifted POTUS cycling socks! What a waste of taxpayer dollars!!

 

[michaelskis]

Once again, it is not the number of days that I am opposed to but the amount of money spent. There is one estimate that I saw that had the cost thus far at over $44 Million. Granted he is always on call, but look at the number of overseas trip Michelle and the girls have taken without him.

On a side but related note, this "recovery" seems to only be helping the weathly and has caused the gap between the rich and the poor to increase. Link now we could raise minimum wage, but what would that to to prices for food? Link

 

[DVD]

The article says he flew "halfway across England" to see Stonehenge. England is about 200 miles wide, so this was a scandalous 100 miles out of the way. Its 3500 miles from Wales to Washington DC. And its not exactly like he was in Wales to party down - they've been addressing some pretty frickin serious business. I don't have an issue with a president of any party taking this miniscule an amount of time to do something like visit Stonehenge.

But let's compare Obama's time off to the previous president. Bush took 381 days of vacation during his two terms in office. Obama has taken 129. Bush took 58 personal trips during his tenure. Obama has taken 20. To suggest that he is loafing around and not doing his job is, I think, disingenuous.

Then there is this op-ed in the Chicago Tribune: "Stop 'vacation-shaming' Obama" which I felt raised some decent points.

Personally, I think this is a pretty silly thing to be getting upset about.

I'm not one for vacation shaming presidents (any of them). Whoever is in office deserves a vacation and we shame every president for taking a couple days to play golf. When it comes to taking side trips to Stonehenge, first it was the Marine's idea, not the president, and second, take some advantage of your office as long as it's not killing anyone. If you're going to argue waste of tax dollars. Someone's taxes are paying for me to slack of on this website for a couple minutes (or is that part of my break - also a waste of tax payer money). If you want to talk about wasted taxes, talk about our tea taster or ketchup consistency checkers. I'm sure if a sane person like any of us balanced the budget we could slash a few million in useless crap.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

Once again, it is not the number of days that I am opposed to but the amount of money spent. There is one estimate that I saw that had the cost thus far at over $44 Million. Granted he is always on call, but look at the number of overseas trip Michelle and the girls have taken without him.

I'll just leave this here:
Bush's Flying Circus Leaves Out Only the Kitchen Sink

Or I could discuss the importance of inflationary adjustments for comparing costs across time.

Or I could mention the FIVE goodwill trips Laura Bush took to Africa on the taxpayer dime.

Or I could mention that, contrary to internet myths, Laura Bush & Michelle Obama have spent roughly the same amount and traveled with roughly the same number of staff/support. But first ladies have always been a favorite target for "waste" accusations.

Or I could talk about how not only did Bush spend more days on vacation than any other president, but he used Air Force One more often while on vacation than any other president. That thing costs money.

Or I could just say this:

It is WAY past time to stop vacation-shaming Presidents. It is, BY FAR, the most stressful job on the planet. It is a job that provides you absolutely no personal space. The amount that you perceive as "wasted" isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to the real waste that goes on daily WITH THE TACIT BLESSING OF THE GOP HELD HOUSE, especially in the GOP whore Department of Defense. That Department probably "wastes" the entire Presidential vacation cost for any 2-term President on a daily basis. Going after Presidential vacations is petty, childish and unproductive.

 

[The One]

WOW

I'll just leave this here:
Bush's Flying Circus Leaves Out Only the Kitchen Sink

Or I could discuss the importance of inflationary adjustments for comparing costs across time.

Or I could mention the FIVE goodwill trips Laura Bush took to Africa on the taxpayer dime.

Or I could mention that, contrary to internet myths, Laura Bush & Michelle Obama have spent roughly the same amount and traveled with roughly the same number of staff/support. But first ladies have always been a favorite target for "waste" accusations.

Or I could talk about how not only did Bush spend more days on vacation than any other president, but he used Air Force One more often while on vacation than any other president. That thing costs money.

Or I could just say this:

It is WAY past time to stop vacation-shaming Presidents. It is, BY FAR, the most stressful job on the planet. It is a job that provides you absolutely no personal space. The amount that you perceive as "wasted" isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to the real waste that goes on daily WITH THE TACIT BLESSING OF THE GOP HELD HOUSE, especially in the GOP whore Department of Defense. That Department probably "wastes" the entire Presidential vacation cost for any 2-term President on a daily basis. Going after Presidential vacations is petty, childish and unproductive.

Suburb Repairman you are my hero! Should have sent this to the Washington Post for publication, it would have made you a better "journalist" than 99.9% of the crap artists out there.

My political post of the month:l:

 

[michaelskis]

Bush this and Bush that... Spoken like a true yea we can libral. Bush waisted the tax payers money multiple times as well. Not just with vacations but with the war, the bailouts and about 100 other things. But guess what, his wrongs do make the same actions by Obama right.


This is not about party politics, this is about a broken system full of extravagance by very one in DC. It is unfortunate that so many people can't see past the the letter behind someone's name.

I have no problem with the president taking vacation days. I do have a problem with the amount of tax payers money that goes into those vacations.

 

[DVD]

Bush this and Bush that... Spoken like a true yea we can libral. Bush waisted the tax payers money multiple times as well. Not just with vacations but with the war, the bailouts and about 100 other things. But guess what, his wrongs do make the same actions by Obama right.


This is not about party politics, this is about a broken system full of extravagance by very one in DC. It is unfortunate that so many people can't see past the the letter behind someone's name.

I have no problem with the president taking vacation days. I do have a problem with the amount of tax payers money that goes into those vacations.

Bush is just an easy target being the most recent president with the other letter topped with the more modern media coverage and watchdogs. Besides, I don't know that Clinton took so much advantage of vacations. He took other um...liberties with his office. If presidential vacations are that much a problem of our overall spending why not just cut the president's budget. I'm sure there's some kind of line item for trips to Key West. I just say we attack real budget waste and we can get to minor problems like vacation spending after we tame the budget.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

This is not about party politics, this is about a broken system full of extravagance by very one in DC. It is unfortunate that so many people can't see past the the letter behind someone's name.

I have no problem with the president taking vacation days. I do have a problem with the amount of tax payers money that goes into those vacations.

Well after you become POTUS, we all expect you to get right on this issue.

 

[otterpop]

I got no problem with the President taking a vacation. I don't even have a problem with taxpayers picking up the tab. Why? Because it is a tough job and even when the president is on vacation, he really isn't. He still has to run the executve branch. It is not like he can just turn out the lights, lock the door and turn off his cell phone.

Or put Joe Biden in charge. :-c Wait a minute, that could be a fun two weeks. "Now, Joe. I don't want any wild parties in the White House while Michelle and I are gone. And don't forget to water the plants in the Oval Office. And for god sakes don't crank call Putin again."

 

[Suburb Repairman]

Bush this and Bush that... Spoken like a true yea we can libral. Bush waisted the tax payers money multiple times as well. Not just with vacations but with the war, the bailouts and about 100 other things. But guess what, his wrongs do make the same actions by Obama right.


This is not about party politics, this is about a broken system full of extravagance by very one in DC. It is unfortunate that so many people can't see past the the letter behind someone's name.

I have no problem with the president taking vacation days. I do have a problem with the amount of tax payers money that goes into those vacations.

You sure 'bout that? You sure that this isn't about party politics? If it wasn't, then I would hazard a guess that you might decide to focus on where the real waste in government is rather than petty concern about vacations. My point is that the GOP is "Johnny Come Lately" on this supposed culture of extravagance, and is quite selective with it. I'm pissed because you're talking about $40M for a vacation trip (most of that cost is the mandatory security apparatus, etc., by the way, not that you would bother to research it), rather than talking about the real waste. You call $40M "extravagant?" Let's discuss the concept of extravagance in relationship to Presidential vacations a bit more, shall we?

Yes, both parties have "fiscal responsibility" issues. I'm harder on the GOP because they make such a stink about it in such a brazenly hypocritical manner. But to criticize the source of the real waste is unpatriotic... how dare they even consider impugning the military as being culpable in government waste?!?

$23B in waste in just the first seven months of 2013. That's at least three more zeroes than what you are calling extravagant.

• ...Investigators found stockpiles of 38-years worth of spare parts for the UH-60 Blackhawk – a helicopter that first flew in 1974 which likely will not be in service for anywhere near that time – and whole warehouses filled with seats for the Stryker combat vehicle
• ...Investigators also uncovered an instance in fiscal year 2011 where the Army was purchasing coin-sized rubber roller wheels used to load cargo for the inflated price of $1,678 each from Boeing. They are each valued at only $7.71.

Or perhaps we should talk about the $8.5 trillion... yes... TRILLION dating back to 1996 that the DoD can't seem to account for. That's at least six more zeroes than what you are calling extravagant. That's around $32,000 for each man, woman and child in this country. A few highlights...

• The DOD has amassed a backlog of more than $500 billion in unaudited contracts with outside vendors. How much of that money paid for actual goods and services delivered isn’t known.
• Over the past 10 years the DOD has signed contracts for provisions of more than $3 trillion in goods and services. How much of that money is wasted in overpayments to contractors, or was never spent and never remitted to the Treasury is a mystery.
• The Pentagon uses a standard operating procedure to enter false numbers, or “plugs,” to cover lost or missing information in their accounting in order to submit a balanced budget to the Treasury. In 2012, the Pentagon reported $9.22 billion in these reconciling amounts. That was up from $7.41 billion the year before.
• The accounting dysfunction leads the DOD to buy too much stuff. One example: the “vehicular control arm” to supply Humvees. In 2008, the DOD had 15,000 parts -- a 14-year supply (anything more than three years is considered excess supply). Yet from 2010 to 2012, it bought 7,437 more of these parts and at higher prices than they paid for the ones they already had.
• the Pentagon “almost certainly is” the biggest source of waste in the government based on his reporting.

Those are off the first Google search page for "waste in department of defense." You want to have a real party, do a search for "Federal government waste."


Oh, but that's the damn "lame-stream media" pickin' on the military... :science:


Unjustified CH-53K Helicopter Procurement per Inspector General

• ...as a result, the Marine Corps risks spending $22.2 billion in procurement and operating and support funding for 44 additional aircraft that have not been justified and may not be needed to support future Marine Corps mission requirements.

Tell ya what... I'll even provide equal time to our GOP friend, Tom Coburn through an obviously conservative special interest group...

• Sen. Coburn’s report also detailed a $1.5 million DOD program to develop beef jerky in the form of Fruit Roll-Ups, a DOD and Department of Agriculture co-produced reality cooking show called “Grill It Safe,” and DOD-run microbreweries.
• One such example is the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), a program that has been plagued with cost overruns of nearly $2 billion and is 10 years behind schedule. An additional $16.5 billion would be required to complete the design and development and procurement stages, and an internal U.S. Army memo asserted that the program “will not meet U.S. requirements or address the current and emerging threat without extensive and costly modifications.”
• the DOD “is the only major federal agency that cannot pass an audit today.

Or how about The Heritage Foundation, a veritable bastion of fiscal conservatism and reducing waste just to show a bunch more stuff that is more wasteful than Presidential vacations on topic areas that should be right up your bullshit, blowhard conservative wheelhouse.

Seriously... I could keep going for days listing off sources of waste that are substantially larger (I'm talking multiple zeroes larger) than what false conservatives trumpet on about with the cost of Presidential vacations. I didn't even bother detailing how defense contractors and the DoD intentionally source parts for projects from several dozen places in order to have allies supporting them for the sake of job creation in individual districts/states, making wasteful projects politically untouchable to undo. And note... I"m not pulling this information from remotely liberal sources. In fact, I've intentionally used conservative sources that are in line with your belief structure, or non-partisan IG reports, in hopes that it might make the point a little clearer.

So hows about we shut the fuck up about the cost of Presidential vacations, mmmmkay?

 

[ColoGI]

I have no problem with the president taking vacation days. I do have a problem with the amount of tax payers money that goes into those vacations.

I have a problem with people choosing to believe what little Tucker Carlson's discredited rag (and the discredited sources it cites) has to mislead about, personally. If someone wants to whine about cost of vacations, at least use a credible source.

But please, let's find a better topic. Since Washington the other side has pointed out presidential vacation cost and length. DoD waste, fraud and abuse is an excellent topic to focus on instead.

 

[DVD]

New topic...who is the GOP going to throw up for their next candidate, why, and can they challenge Hillary? Go, discuss, be wrong about it...

 

[michaelskis]

You sure 'bout that? You sure that this isn't about party politics? If it wasn't, then I would hazard a guess that you might decide to focus on where the real waste in government is rather than petty concern about vacations. My point is that the GOP is "Johnny Come Lately" on this supposed culture of extravagance, and is quite selective with it. I'm pissed because you're talking about $40M for a vacation trip (most of that cost is the mandatory security apparatus, etc., by the way, not that you would bother to research it), rather than talking about the real waste. You call $40M "extravagant?" Let's discuss the concept of extravagance in relationship to Presidential vacations a bit more, shall we?

Yes, both parties have "fiscal responsibility" issues. I'm harder on the GOP because they make such a stink about it in such a brazenly hypocritical manner. But to criticize the source of the real waste is unpatriotic... how dare they even consider impugning the military as being culpable in government waste?!?

$23B in waste in just the first seven months of 2013. That's at least three more zeroes than what you are calling extravagant.

• ...Investigators found stockpiles of 38-years worth of spare parts for the UH-60 Blackhawk – a helicopter that first flew in 1974 which likely will not be in service for anywhere near that time – and whole warehouses filled with seats for the Stryker combat vehicle
• ...Investigators also uncovered an instance in fiscal year 2011 where the Army was purchasing coin-sized rubber roller wheels used to load cargo for the inflated price of $1,678 each from Boeing. They are each valued at only $7.71.

Or perhaps we should talk about the $8.5 trillion... yes... TRILLION dating back to 1996 that the DoD can't seem to account for. That's at least six more zeroes than what you are calling extravagant. That's around $32,000 for each man, woman and child in this country. A few highlights...

• The DOD has amassed a backlog of more than $500 billion in unaudited contracts with outside vendors. How much of that money paid for actual goods and services delivered isn't known.
• Over the past 10 years the DOD has signed contracts for provisions of more than $3 trillion in goods and services. How much of that money is wasted in overpayments to contractors, or was never spent and never remitted to the Treasury is a mystery.
• The Pentagon uses a standard operating procedure to enter false numbers, or "plugs," to cover lost or missing information in their accounting in order to submit a balanced budget to the Treasury. In 2012, the Pentagon reported $9.22 billion in these reconciling amounts. That was up from $7.41 billion the year before.
• The accounting dysfunction leads the DOD to buy too much stuff. One example: the "vehicular control arm" to supply Humvees. In 2008, the DOD had 15,000 parts -- a 14-year supply (anything more than three years is considered excess supply). Yet from 2010 to 2012, it bought 7,437 more of these parts and at higher prices than they paid for the ones they already had.
• the Pentagon "almost certainly is" the biggest source of waste in the government based on his reporting.

Those are off the first Google search page for "waste in department of defense." You want to have a real party, do a search for "Federal government waste."


Oh, but that's the damn "lame-stream media" pickin' on the military... :science:


Unjustified CH-53K Helicopter Procurement per Inspector General

• ...as a result, the Marine Corps risks spending $22.2 billion in procurement and operating and support funding for 44 additional aircraft that have not been justified and may not be needed to support future Marine Corps mission requirements.

Tell ya what... I'll even provide equal time to our GOP friend, Tom Coburn through an obviously conservative special interest group...

• Sen. Coburn's report also detailed a $1.5 million DOD program to develop beef jerky in the form of Fruit Roll-Ups, a DOD and Department of Agriculture co-produced reality cooking show called "Grill It Safe," and DOD-run microbreweries.
• One such example is the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), a program that has been plagued with cost overruns of nearly $2 billion and is 10 years behind schedule. An additional $16.5 billion would be required to complete the design and development and procurement stages, and an internal U.S. Army memo asserted that the program "will not meet U.S. requirements or address the current and emerging threat without extensive and costly modifications."
• the DOD "is the only major federal agency that cannot pass an audit today.

Or how about The Heritage Foundation, a veritable bastion of fiscal conservatism and reducing waste just to show a bunch more stuff that is more wasteful than Presidential vacations on topic areas that should be right up your bullshit, blowhard conservative wheelhouse.

Seriously... I could keep going for days listing off sources of waste that are substantially larger (I'm talking multiple zeroes larger) than what false conservatives trumpet on about with the cost of Presidential vacations. I didn't even bother detailing how defense contractors and the DoD intentionally source parts for projects from several dozen places in order to have allies supporting them for the sake of job creation in individual districts/states, making wasteful projects politically untouchable to undo. And note... I"m not pulling this information from remotely liberal sources. In fact, I've intentionally used conservative sources that are in line with your belief structure, or non-partisan IG reports, in hopes that it might make the point a little clearer.

So hows about we shut the fuck up about the cost of Presidential vacations, mmmmkay?

Well, despite your lack of civility and use of inappropriate language, it is not about party politics. You are 100% right about the things that you posted. I have said over and over and over and yes, over again that I have zero respect for both sides. The more that I have learned about what the Federal Government was designed to be and what it has morphed into in the past 100 years makes me sick. It is not Republicans v Democrats, it is Americans vs the DC system. They are all the same big spending idiots that don't actually make things better for anyone but the super elite and mega corporations.

Even more so, I think that Isis in Iraq is Bush's fault. If we hadn't gone in there under the false premise of WMD from the DOD, we would be dealing with someone who is nothing better than a barking dog with no bite. But because Bush (a republican) caused further instability in the region, it is a hotbed for terrorist training.

But I cite Obama's travel expenses because he is in office right now. He controls things. He is the boss. He has the magic veto pen and enough of his party in either house to prevent an override.

So step down from your "Oh I will get him on the partisan ideals" soap box, mmmmmmkay?

Until we get past the illusion that the letter behind someone's name actually means something, we as a society are doomed to fail.

 

[rcgplanner]

The thing that drives me insane are the complete lies that the right has spread about the President and how nobody calls them on their bullshit. This is an article from The Week in 2012 about 5 myths of President Obama. These items included:

- Obama played more golf than any other President: FALSE, from January 2009 - August 4, 2012 109 rounds. Speaker of the House, over 100 rounds a YEAR

- Obama has taken more vacation time: FALSE, January 2009 - October 31, 2012: 72 days of vacation, or just over 10 weeks in 3.5 years. That equals just under 3.5 weeks a year, hell that is less than many long-term employees in the public sector receive. In my city, employees with more than 5 years of service are eligible for 3 weeks of vacation. I think the leader of one of the world's largest countries deserves more than the same amount of vacation time as Jan in the City Clerk's office. And guess what, Jan's vacation time is also paid by the taxpayers, oh god the horror! 8-! I would rather see the President safe during his vacations and pay for the massive security detail that a national leader in the modern age requires than deal with a President being harmed by some wackjob.

- Obama has never visited Arlington National Cemetery: FALSE, between 2009 and 2014, Obama visited Arlington 6 times. The only year he missed he was at a national cemetery in Illinois. For comparison, Reagan 3 of 8, Bush Sr. 0 of 4, Clinton 8 of 8, Bush Jr. 7 of 8.

- Obama has never visited Israel: TRUE until 2013. This is not really a major issue considering many Presidents never visited Israel. Plus Obama but this to bed in 2013 when he visited Israel and the West Bank for 3 days.

- Taxes under Obama are the highest: FALSE, the tax rate for most Americans has went down under President Obama. It is possible that future tax rates will go up under future budgets because of Obama's policies. Although the budget deficit has actually been falling under Obama. The CBO does project that deficits could rise after 2015, and discretionary spending needs to be reduced. But faulting $44 million for Presidential vacations, including security, as wasteful is like putting a band-aid on a hemorrhaging artery.

What about Obama's abuse of Executive Actions? Actually President Obama has issued far less executive orders than his recent predecessors and is ranked 19th out of 43 presidents in the number of orders issued.

So why do these myths exist? They serve to distract the public from important issues that aren't being addressed by the least productive Congress in history. These myths are used to paint the President as this out-of-touch leader that is elite and wielding his power like a king. The GOP uses these soundbites to provide cover for their inaction and shift the blame to the other side. Looking at most of the political ads this mid-term they aren't recounting accomplishments, they are instead pointing to what the other person has or hasn't done. When outright lies and misrepresentation have become the political rhetoric in this country is it any surprise that our political system is as broken as it is. :-@

 

[DVD]

So why do these myths exist? They serve to distract the public from important issues that aren't being addressed by the least productive Congress in history. The GOP uses these soundbites to provide cover for their inaction and shift the blame to the other side. Looking at most of the political ads this mid-term they aren't recounting accomplishments, they are instead pointing to what the other person has or hasn't done. When outright lies and misrepresentation have become the political rhetoric in this country is it any surprise that our political system is as broken as it is. :-@

I hate these types of ads. Vote for me because the other guy is actually a dingo who will eat your babies. It's not just the current race either. This has been going on for a while and escalating. I remember John Kerry's platform having a lot of vote for me, I'm not Bush Now it's vote for me because I hate the president just like you do. About all I can get from the ads is that you support guns because you shoot a lot of crap. Okay, so why should I vote for you? It's sad that candidates can't get back to showing what they did right or create plans that might work and not just tear down past efforts, but that doesn't seem to get voters anymore. Maybe I should run a series of ads of me in a monster truck drinking Budweiser while shooting at things.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

Well, despite your lack of civility and use of inappropriate language, it is not about party politics. You are 100% right about the things that you posted. I have said over and over and over and yes, over again that I have zero respect for both sides. The more that I have learned about what the Federal Government was designed to be and what it has morphed into in the past 100 years makes me sick. It is not Republicans v Democrats, it is Americans vs the DC system. They are all the same big spending idiots that don't actually make things better for anyone but the super elite and mega corporations.

Even more so, I think that Isis in Iraq is Bush's fault. If we hadn't gone in there under the false premise of WMD from the DOD, we would be dealing with someone who is nothing better than a barking dog with no bite. But because Bush (a republican) caused further instability in the region, it is a hotbed for terrorist training.

But I cite Obama's travel expenses because he is in office right now. He controls things. He is the boss. He has the magic veto pen and enough of his party in either house to prevent an override.

So step down from your "Oh I will get him on the partisan ideals" soap box, mmmmmmkay?

Until we get past the illusion that the letter behind someone's name actually means something, we as a society are doomed to fail.

Again I ask, why do you care about travel expenses? This isn't a case of missing the forest through the trees--you are picking out a lone sapling and for some reason going nuts over it.

Magic veto pen?!? You are showing a woeful misunderstanding of Presidential power. He does not have the power of a line item veto. He is not the boss... he is a boss out of three branches with separation of powers. You will not find anyone that, in his position, would completely kill otherwise good bills because they had a rider attached. Not with this current Congress that moves so exceptionally slow and self-immolates at even the smallest perceived political slight. You think Congress screams bloody murder about abuse of Presidential power now?!? The President works within this construct called reality. Congress barely does anything now. You start vetoing the little bit they do get done and forget about getting anything accomplished ever.

The President is never really on vacation, and he is the leader of the free world. This means that he has to travel on AFOne, MarineOne, etc. This means that an entire security apparatus (often upwards of 300 between Secret Service and National Security alone, sniffer dog teams, etc.) must accompany him. This means that a number of critical staff must come along because, again, every vacation is a working vacation. That's usually another 100. More so since a lot of the world is a bit of an unpredictable clusterf*** these days. He was in Newport, Wales doing important things like, you know, meeting with NATO to build coalitions to deal with ISIS, Russian issues, etc. He decided to make a stopover in Stonehenge, a mere 75 mile trip. He wasn't in DC sipping a Sam Adams suddenly realizing that he hadn't scratched Stonehenge off the bucket list. He took an opportunity for a short diversion to decompress at a nearby UNESCO World Heritage Site leading up to some really heady meetings.

What are you really pissed about? I mean really? Are you going to keep holding on to this travel expense issue, or do you want to meaningfully discuss where the real waste is and the sources of it? Because talking about real waste is a truly non-partisan issue as all have been in some way complicit in getting there, unless of course you view the DoD as a sacred cow. Discussion of travel costs is like a City Council talking about department travel budgets while ignoring the costs/necessity of capital improvements.

I hope you are not taking this discussion as a personal attack--it is not intended that way and I may have been a little terse earlier. I get incensed when folks start talking about a bruise on an arm when the leg has a compound fracture. You vote--you are not part of the problem. Poorly informed voters and 40% to 60% voter turnout is the root of this whole issue. This has happened because so many have simply become disgusted or have given up. This has happened in part because the once noble profession of journalism ain't so noble anymore & has become cloudy, parties have adopted purity tests and parties have taken up scorched earth policies, and Congressional districts have been gerrymandered to the point that something like 80% of them are considered 'safe' for one party or the other, among many other issues. Likewise, we as citizens have become narcissists, unyielding in out beliefs and prone to hyperbole & overreaction. And we fail to see the role of our own representatives play in this.

Moderator note:

MSkis is right about civility here. Can we tone it down a notch? ~ Mastiff

 

[ColoGI]

New topic...who is the GOP going to throw up for their next candidate, why, and can they challenge Hillary? Go, discuss, be wrong about it...

Dunno, but I just saw where Mr 47% said "no way, not me!!". The '16 election is going to be fugly.

 

[michaelskis]

Again I ask, why do you care about travel expenses? This isn't a case of missing the forest through the trees--you are picking out a lone sapling and for some reason going nuts over it.

Magic veto pen?!? You are showing a woeful misunderstanding of Presidential power. He does not have the power of a line item veto. He is not the boss... he is a boss out of three branches with separation of powers. You will not find anyone that, in his position, would completely kill otherwise good bills because they had a rider attached. Not with this current Congress that moves so exceptionally slow and self-immolates at even the smallest perceived political slight. You think Congress screams bloody murder about abuse of Presidential power now?!? The President works within this construct called reality. Congress barely does anything now. You start vetoing the little bit they do get done and forget about getting anything accomplished ever.

The President is never really on vacation, and he is the leader of the free world. This means that he has to travel on AFOne, MarineOne, etc. This means that an entire security apparatus (often upwards of 300 between Secret Service and National Security alone, sniffer dog teams, etc.) must accompany him. This means that a number of critical staff must come along because, again, every vacation is a working vacation. That's usually another 100. More so since a lot of the world is a bit of an unpredictable clusterf*** these days. He was in Newport, Wales doing important things like, you know, meeting with NATO to build coalitions to deal with ISIS, Russian issues, etc. He decided to make a stopover in Stonehenge, a mere 75 mile trip. He wasn't in DC sipping a Sam Adams suddenly realizing that he hadn't scratched Stonehenge off the bucket list. He took an opportunity for a short diversion to decompress at a nearby UNESCO World Heritage Site leading up to some really heady meetings.

What are you really pissed about? I mean really? Are you going to keep holding on to this travel expense issue, or do you want to meaningfully discuss where the real waste is and the sources of it? Because talking about real waste is a truly non-partisan issue as all have been in some way complicit in getting there, unless of course you view the DoD as a sacred cow. Discussion of travel costs is like a City Council talking about department travel budgets while ignoring the costs/necessity of capital improvements.

I hope you are not taking this discussion as a personal attack--it is not intended that way and I may have been a little terse earlier. I get incensed when folks start talking about a bruise on an arm when the leg has a compound fracture. You vote--you are not part of the problem. Poorly informed voters and 40% to 60% voter turnout is the root of this whole issue. This has happened because so many have simply become disgusted or have given up. This has happened in part because the once noble profession of journalism ain't so noble anymore & has become cloudy, parties have adopted purity tests and parties have taken up scorched earth policies, and Congressional districts have been gerrymandered to the point that something like 80% of them are considered 'safe' for one party or the other, among many other issues. Likewise, we as citizens have become narcissists, unyielding in out beliefs and prone to hyperbole & overreaction. And we fail to see the role of our own representatives play in this.

I care about travel expenses for vacations or other personal reasons because I think that those should be on his dime, not the taxpayers. You are completely correct, Bush was an idiot when it comes to what he spent for non-work related events. His wrongs do not make the wrongs from Obama right.

Most of the DoD needs to be done away with. There is nothing sacred about it and I find much of what they do wasteful and Hagle needs to be ousted.

In terms of personal attacks, I don't think the use of the F word is appropriate in any context.

What to know what I am so angry about, I am angry about several people who I know to make to much to get any kind of government assistance, but can't afford to given their kids medications that they need. They apparently "make too much", but the cost analysis does not take into consideration their reasonable mortgage for where they live in CA, or student loan payments.

I am angry about the Farm Bill that subsidizes soy and corn, but not vegetables. I am angry how big corporate companies still get crazy tax cuts and subsidies despite the same funding is not available to small business owners. I am angry because my idiot neighbor who still as a yes we can sticker on is prius admitted he was wrong about Obama because the gap between the wealthy and the poor has continued to widen under his watch... (not that he was wrong about Obama, but that the gap continues to widen.

But in here.... the 11th commandment is "Thou shall not speak ill of Obama". COME ON, PULL YOU HEAD OUT OF THE SAND. OBAMA is JUST AS BAD AS BUSH.

 

[The One]

This has happened in part because the once noble profession of journalism ain't so noble anymore & has become cloudy, parties have adopted purity tests and parties have taken up scorched earth policies, and Congressional districts have been gerrymandered to the point that something like 80% of them are considered 'safe' for one party or the other, among many other issues. Likewise, we as citizens have become narcissists, unyielding in out beliefs and prone to hyperbole & overreaction. And we fail to see the role of our own representatives play in this.

AND BINGO WAS HIS NAMEO!!!

 

[otterpop]

But in here.... the 11th commandment is "Thou shall not speak ill of Obama". COME ON, PULL YOU HEAD OUT OF THE SAND. OBAMA is JUST AS BAD AS BUSH.

Is Obama an unprosecuted war criminal who started a war that destroyed a country and killed thousands of innocent Iraqis and left thousands of Americans dead or horribly wounded? All because Saddam threatened Bush's daddy. And Bush did it on trumped up charges and lied to Congress, which I think was an impeachable offense.

I am disappointed in Obama. I wish he would show more backbone and make hard decisions. He has tried shaming the leaders in the other party, but those men have no shame. Obama has certainly made some bad decisions. But all presidents do that.

But Obama is certainly not as bad as Bush. George W. Bush should have been tried in an international court. What he did to the Iraqis is certainly not as bad as what Putin is now doing to the Ukraine. Or what the President of Syria is doing to his own people. George Bush broke a country and the ramifications of that huge ass mistake will be felt for years to come.

We left Iraq too weak to combat ISIS and once again innocent Iraqis are paying the price of the USA's hubris.

 

[michaelskis]

Is Obama an unprosecuted war criminal who started a war that destroyed a country and killed thousands of innocent Iraqis and left thousands of Americans dead or horribly wounded? All because Saddam threatened Bush's daddy. And Bush did it on trumped up charges and lied to Congress, which I think was an impeachable offense.

I am disappointed in Obama. I wish he would show more backbone and make hard decisions. He has tried shaming the leaders in the other party, but those men have no shame. Obama has certainly made some bad decisions. But all presidents do that.

But Obama is certainly not as bad as Bush. George W. Bush should have been tried in an international court. What he did to the Iraqis is certainly not as bad as what Putin is now doing to the Ukraine. Or what the President of Syria is doing to his own people. George Bush broke a country and the ramifications of that huge ass mistake will be felt for years to come.

We left Iraq too weak to combat ISIS and once again innocent Iraqis are paying the price of the USA's hubris.

I agree, that we left Iraq too weak to combat ISIS. I even posted that earlier today up above. I also think that if Bush is convicted of a war crime, so should every member of congress that voted for it too, not just those with one or the other letter behind their name.

In terms of St. Obama, I think that the drone attacks against US Citizens while overseas, the wire tapping as documented by Ed Snowden, and there have been more deaths in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush are all examples that he is not the person that people think he is. Yes, it is true overall there are still more deaths under Bush, by a lot. Does that make Obama's deaths any more wrong? No.

Add in the increasing gap between the poor and the wealthy, his constant lies about the wonders of Obama Care, the bail outs, and what he is doing to the US dollar (we will see the effects in a few years with insane devaluation), Obama is just as bad as Bush.

 

[Suburb Repairman]

In terms of St. Obama, I think that the drone attacks against US Citizens while overseas, the wire tapping as documented by Ed Snowden, and there have been more deaths in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush are all examples that he is not the person that people think he is. Yes, it is true overall there are still more deaths under Bush, by a lot. Does that make Obama's deaths any more wrong? No.

Add in the increasing gap between the poor and the wealthy, his constant lies about the wonders of Obama Care, the bail outs, and [STRIKEOUT]what he is doing to the US dollar (we will see the effects in a few years with insane devaluation)[/STRIKEOUT], Obama is just as bad as Bush.

I'm perfectly happy to criticize Obama, but on issues of more merit than travel. I'm admittedly not a huge fan of his and felt we were on the fast track to disappointment-ville when he was elected in 2008. Obama has exacerbated the wiretapping & privacy issues begun under Bush--this is probably my biggest beef with him. I'm also a little mistrustful of the drone attacks and their ability to confirm targets. And the income gap has worsened. Not all of this is 100% Obama's responsibility or 100% in his control, but I have issues with his actions (or lack thereof) on those topics. I don't feel he was assertive/clear enough about his priorities & desired outcomes early in his Presidency, and that he has undermined the remainder of his terms as a result.

Fair enough on the f-bomb. I don't use it much unless I get pretty steamed. I was pretty steamed.

 

[michaelskis]

I'm perfectly happy to criticize Obama, but on issues of more merit than travel. I'm admittedly not a huge fan of his and felt we were on the fast track to disappointment-ville when he was elected in 2008. Obama has exacerbated the wiretapping & privacy issues begun under Bush--this is probably my biggest beef with him. I'm also a little mistrustful of the drone attacks and their ability to confirm targets. And the income gap has worsened. Not all of this is 100% Obama's responsibility or 100% in his control, but I have issues with his actions (or lack thereof) on those topics. I don't feel he was assertive/clear enough about his priorities & desired outcomes early in his Presidency, and that he has undermined the remainder of his terms as a result.

Fair enough on the f-bomb. I don't use it much unless I get pretty steamed. I was pretty steamed.

I almost forgot the Bengazi Scandal and the Fast and Furious Gun Scandal. Heck, there are so many, people are making brackets to determine what was the worse one.

In terms of the dollar, you may be correct that it might not be Obama's issue and might be that of the Federal Reserve which is not a real division of the government but a cartel of private banks, most of which are foreign owned. Which alone is scary. However, Obama (and Bush's) quantitative easing programs put more money supply into the world without providing for an increased value to support the new dollars.

 

[ColoGI]

I almost forgot the Bengazi Scandal and the Fast and Furious Gun Scandal. Heck, there are so many, people are making brackets to determine what was the worse one.

He wrote Benghazi!

Drink! (but after you are done laughing someone actually brought this up in public)

 

[The One]

Yup

A nice graph from Darth Vader's newspaper:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/cost-of-employer-health-coverage-shows-muted-growth-1410357841

This is partly where wage increases have gone for the last 15 years......the bloated poorly performing health care regional monopolies:-{

 

[michaelskis]

A nice graph from Darth Vader's newspaper:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/cost-of-employer-health-coverage-shows-muted-growth-1410357841

This is partly where wage increases have gone for the last 15 years......the bloated poorly performing health care regional monopolies:-{

I was not able to read the article since I don't have a subscription, but based on your statement, I think we as a society need to rethink healthcare with health prevention, starting with the types of food that the federal government subsidizes. Less corn and soy, more tomatoes and carrots.

 

[Hink]

I almost forgot the Bengazi Scandal and the Fast and Furious Gun Scandal. Heck, there are so many, people are making brackets to determine what was the worse one.

In terms of the dollar, you may be correct that it might not be Obama's issue and might be that of the Federal Reserve which is not a real division of the government but a cartel of private banks, most of which are foreign owned. Which alone is scary. However, Obama (and Bush's) quantitative easing programs put more money supply into the world without providing for an increased value to support the new dollars.

I had almost forgotten about Bengazi. Thank you for reminding me. I will go back to my life now, worrying about real problems and scandals. *Puts Tin Foil Hat back on* :not:

 

[michaelskis]

I had almost forgotten about Bengazi. Thank you for reminding me. I will go back to my life now, worrying about real problems and scandals. *Puts Tin Foil Hat back on* :not:

The problems were real for the 4 Americans that were killed. Those problems are still real for their families.