Whos counting.....

Good Luck said:
Didn't cost much comparatively. Travel expenses offset each other. When the president "vacations", travel expenses are part of it. Fine. Travel expenses are part of the job of president whatever the reason.

But as I said, what I object to is not the travel and it's not the President taking a "vacation". What I object to is the Obamas choice of lifestyle when they DO go on vacation. They don't go home - they go to luxury resorts. No other president has done this. Every other president has gone home or to some other established retreat, which minimizes the costs of their vacations.

Travel, I can agree, is a perk picked up by the tax payer. But luxury resorts, which themselves cost us a bundle, plus the added costs of securing a place that was not designed to be secured? Sorry, I cannot agree that should be a perk placed on the tax payer.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to entirely disagree with that. I think we need to cut costs wherever we can.

But in the scheme of things, it's just symbolism; the amounts spent are miniscule by comparison. Still, I understand the importance of symbolism.
 
Onceler said:
Yurt adores Bush.

I have to try to remember not to blaspheme the mighty Bush on this board; it really offends Yurt....
Click to expand...

i know you hate truth and facts so all you have is this repeated ad nauseum that i love bush...

and once again, another example of you ignoring the substance and instead trying to attack the person
 
Onceler said:
He went there a lot. Lefties complained about it like you complain about Obama - from what I understand, even the Crawford trip was about a quarter mill a pop...
Click to expand...

Onceler said:
Truthfully, I wouldn't care. A bit. I know you like to think you "know" what I'd be saying, but that's either projection or ignorance. That kind of stuff doesn't bother me. For the record, I did complain about Bush taking extended vacations, but not for the expense - it was something I pointed out when I was making a larger point about the man, which is that he generally seemed disinterested in the job of President (w/ a few exceptions, such as Iraq).

Yeah...disinterested...9/11 and 7 years of a great economy and low unemployment was just an accident, right?

Lots of lefties did complain about the expense of Bush's trips, though - I have read that even to Crawford, it was a minimum of $250K a pop. You indicated in your prior post that it didn't cost that much...are you basing that on anything but conjecture?
Click to expand...
250K a pop?

This single vacation of Obama is equal to 6 Bush vacations?
Is that how you figure it...???
One thing Obama saves on is cleaning the Oval Office...it hasn't been used since he was elected.
 
Bravo, you're a hoot. When Enron tanked, do you think their management did a bang-up job right up until the day they tanked?
 
Good Luck said:
Didn't cost much comparatively. Travel expenses offset each other. When the president "vacations", travel expenses are part of it. Fine. Travel expenses are part of the job of president whatever the reason.

But as I said, what I object to is not the travel and it's not the President taking a "vacation". What I object to is the Obamas choice of lifestyle when they DO go on vacation. They don't go home - they go to luxury resorts. No other president has done this. Every other president has gone home or to some other established retreat, which minimizes the costs of their vacations.

Travel, I can agree, is a perk picked up by the tax payer. But luxury resorts, which themselves cost us a bundle, plus the added costs of securing a place that was not designed to be secured? Sorry, I cannot agree that should be a perk placed on the tax payer.
Click to expand...

Obama wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth like Bush. His family doesn't own a 'kennenport' or a 1,600 acre ranch.
 
Bfgrn said:
Obama wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth like Bush. His family doesn't own a 'kennenport' or a 1,600 acre ranch.
Click to expand...

he made over 5 million dollars in 2009 alone, over 2 million in 2008 and over 4 million in 2007....

yeah, he can't afford a 1,600 ranch :rolleyes:
 
Onceler said:
I'm not going to entirely disagree with that. I think we need to cut costs wherever we can.

But in the scheme of things, it's just symbolism; the amounts spent are miniscule by comparison. Still, I understand the importance of symbolism.
Click to expand...
Yes, symbolism is important. And when the LEADER (at least he's SUPPOSED to be our leader) come on telling us about how economic recovery is going to be slow, and we have to be patient and tighten our belts, and people making more than 250K annually need to pay more taxes to reduced the deficit, then he goes out and rents a luxury resort on OUR dime, it isn't exactly LEADERSHIP, is it?
 
Bfgrn said:
Obama wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth like Bush. His family doesn't own a 'kennenport' or a 1,600 acre ranch.
Click to expand...
So, now you are saying that it is OK for Obama to make us pay for his luxury resort because he was not BORN rich? What does born have to do with it? He is rich now, you can guarantee.

What a fucking hack. Get your head out of the donkey's ass before your brain dies from lack of oxygen.

Oops, too late.
 
Good Luck said:
Yes, symbolism is important. And when the LEADER (at least he's SUPPOSED to be our leader) come on telling us about how economic recovery is going to be slow, and we have to be patient and tighten our belts, and people making more than 250K annually need to pay more taxes to reduced the deficit, then he goes out and rents a luxury resort on OUR dime, it isn't exactly LEADERSHIP, is it?
Click to expand...

To me, that's a somewhat myopic view of the concept of leadership, but I know that's just my personal opinion. I know symbolism matters to many, but it has never really mattered to me. It's pretty much the same argument as saying that any President or politician that engages in a war should send their own kids into the conflict, which I realize many on the left said about Bush. I don't see much merit in that.

I understand that the Presidency is a big job, and I don't rue the Prez for taking a really nice vacation, the kind of which I wish I could take & I'm sure many do. Obama has opened himself up in other situations to many criticisms of his leadership style, and the quality of that leadership; this vacation certainly is not one of those...
 
Onceler said:
To me, that's a somewhat myopic view of the concept of leadership, but I know that's just my personal opinion. I know symbolism matters to many, but it has never really mattered to me. It's pretty much the same argument as saying that any President or politician that engages in a war should send their own kids into the conflict, which I realize many on the left said about Bush. I don't see much merit in that.

I understand that the Presidency is a big job, and I don't rue the Prez for taking a really nice vacation, the kind of which I wish I could take & I'm sure many do. Obama has opened himself up in other situations to many criticisms of his leadership style, and the quality of that leadership; this vacation certainly is not one of those...
Click to expand...
You haven't a clue what leadership is. Leadership in a democratic type society IS symbolism - pure and simple. This isn't the days when the leader became so due to a concrete difference: because he was the strongest, or proved himself to be the wisest, or anything like that. There is no objective measure of democratic leadership. Electability is what gains the White House, not leadership. Bush proved that one in a big way.

It is symbolism that creates the image of a leader in all modern societies. In non-democratic type societies, their leaders invariably go to great efforts to bolster their image as the leader, through symbols such as statues, giant bill boards, etc. The former USSR leaders would have great military parades, as if they had anything directly to do with the appearance and effectiveness of the military. But it didn't matter because the SYMBOL was there to create the image of a great leader.

And one of the BIGGEST symbols in our society is that their actions match their words. "Do as I say, not as I do" is a poor style of leadership. What do you think is meant by "a leader leads by example?" In the military, where the hierarchy of leadership is as important as the bread we eat and the rifles we fire, leadership by example is the way of life. A ranking officer who shows up in a combat zone in clean, pressed dress uniform with shiny shoes for a brief speech is not viewed well by the soldiers, and as a result the leadership image suffers - and the effectiveness of that section of the military as a whole is diminished. However, when they show up in battle fatigues and dusty boots, "observe" the soldiers by crawling into their fox holes and talking with them, THAT is a leader who understands the importance of the leader image. His presence is littel more than a symbol, because his knowledge of the war comes from other means. But the symbol, that he is just, in the end, another fox-hole mudfoot is IMPORTANT. He is respected, and his unit will be the better for it.

But, in this (and other) cases, Obama is NOT leading by example, is he? Telling people that they need to pay more taxes (at least some of them) to reduce the deficit, then turning around and INCREASING the deficit - however slightly - with unnecessarily high expenses for his vacation is NOT actions which fit his words. THAT is a poor leader, no matter HOW you want to gloss it over with "symbols never matter much to me".
 
Last edited:
Good Luck said:
You haven't a clue what leadership is. Leadership in a democratic type society IS symbolism - pure and simple. This isn't the days when the leader became so due to a concrete difference: because he was the strongest, or proved himself to be the wisest, or anything like that. There is no objective measure of democratic leadership. Electability is what gains the White House, not leadership. Bush proved that one in a big way.

It is symbolism that creates the image of a leader in all modern societies. In non-democratic type societies, their leaders invariably go to great efforts to bolster their image as the leader, through symbols such as statues, giant bill boards, etc. The former USSR leaders would have great military parades, as if they had anything directly to do with the appearance and effectiveness of the military. But it didn't matter because the SYMBOL was there to create the image of a great leader.

And one of the BIGGEST symbols in our society is that their actions match their words. "Do as I say, not as I do" is a poor style of leadership. What do you think is meant by "a leader leads by example?" In the military, where the hierarchy of leadership is as important as the bread we eat and the rifles we fire, leadership by example is the way of life. A ranking officer who shows up in a combat zone in clean, pressed dress uniform with shiny shoes for a brief speech is not viewed well by the soldiers, and as a result the leadership image suffers - and the effectiveness of that section of the military as a whole is diminished. However, when they show up in battle fatigues and dusty boots, "observe" the soldiers by crawling into their fox holes and talking with them, THAT is a leader who understands the importance of the leader image. His presence is littel more than a symbol, because his knowledge of the war comes from other means. But the symbol, that he is just, in the end, another fox-hole mudfoot is IMPORTANT. He is respected, and his unit will be the better for it.

But, in this (and other) cases, Obama is NOT leading by example, is he? Telling people that they need to pay more taxes (at least some of them) to reduce the deficit, then turning around and INCREASING the deficit - however slightly - with unnecessarily high expenses for his vacation is NOT actions which fit his words. THAT is a poor leader, no matter HOW you want to gloss it over with "symbols never matter much to me".
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's not different than telling a war Prez that they should send their kids to the conflict.

It's much more than "symbols never matter much to me." The argument that you're making could be taken to any extreme. Maybe he shouldn't have nice dinners at the White House, or do any larger social events? Maybe he can go a little more bargain brand on the suits he wears?

The only people making hay on this are on the right, and they're hypocrites for doing so, imo. A post like this from bravo is a perfect example.

Did Obama tell people not to take vacations or something?
 
If Obama were spending his OWN money to rent those resorts, I would not have a thing to say about it. As far as I know, with the exception of state functions, the day-to-day nice meals and such are purchased with the President's salary. Now he is taking a vacation - so are a whole bunch of other people. Except, other people are spending their OWN money on their vacations.

The difference is Obama is telling people that tax increases are needed to help with the deficit, and then ADDING to the deficit for a VACATION! Why is you you cannot see the basic principles behind this obviously fucked up move?

(Because, despite your protestations, you really are a democratic apologist political hack - one of the biggest ones on this board.)
 
Good Luck said:
If Obama were spending his OWN money to rent those resorts, I would not have a thing to say about it. As far as I know, with the exception of state functions, the day-to-day nice meals and such are purchased with the President's salary. Now he is taking a vacation - so are a whole bunch of other people. Except, other people are spending their OWN money on their vacations.

The difference is Obama is telling people that tax increases are needed to help with the deficit, and then ADDING to the deficit for a VACATION! Why is you you cannot see the basic principles behind this obviously fucked up move?

(Because, despite your protestations, you really are a democratic apologist political hack - one of the biggest ones on this board.)
Click to expand...

You don't really know what a hack is, if that's what you think. Or you have only read a smattering of posts from me. I've called for both Reid & Pelosi to step down; I support privatization of SS; I have called Obama out for lack of leadership on what I consider real issues, and not the kind of fluff that you're so emotional about here.

You tend to be fairly extreme about anyone on the left side. You'd have a ton more credibility on this if I saw you even devote a fraction of your time to right-wing hypocrisy & double-standards, but you really don't.
 
I lauged a them when the lefties whined about Bush's vacations, and I'll laugh at the righties when they complain about Obama's vacations.

When I go on vacation my company asks me to check my email daily and have my phone on during working hours, in case something happens.

The president takes work with him wherever he goes. He has his staff and enough electronics to keep tabs on whatever is going on around the world.

Besides, in tabulating our cost did anyone figure the added income for Hawaii in a horrible travel year? With all the press following Obama, that adds to the total dollars spent.

This is stimulating the economy, is it not? lol
 
Onceler said:
You don't really know what a hack is, if that's what you think. Or you have only read a smattering of posts from me. I've called for both Reid & Pelosi to step down; I support privatization of SS; I have called Obama out for lack of leadership on what I consider real issues, and not the kind of fluff that you're so emotional about here.

You tend to be fairly extreme about anyone on the left side. You'd have a ton more credibility on this if I saw you even devote a fraction of your time to right-wing hypocrisy & double-standards, but you really don't.
Click to expand...
Actually, I have seen a lot of your posts. I guess I missed the ones where you were substantially critical of Obama. But I do see a hell of a lot more hypocrisy and double standards coming from you and people like evince, bfgrn, mott-the-hoople, taichiliberal, and others than I have seen coming from right wing pundits. For instance, many of those who are associated with the right have been consistent on the topic of federal spending: they hated Bush for it, they hate Obama for it more because so far Obama is spending more. What have YOU had to say about it?

What have you seen from me? I take supposed right wingers to task when they spout bullshit as much as people like you. I have (recently) given up on Dixie, whose ignorance is only surpassed by his delusion of self importance - but I gave it a try. I am currently debating Yurt on the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints and what it implies when our own SCOTUS tells us they are a violation, but not a BIG enough violation to outweight the "needs of society". Have you EVER seen me make a generic POSITIVE remark about Bush?
 
WinterBorn said:
I lauged a them when the lefties whined about Bush's vacations, and I'll laugh at the righties when they complain about Obama's vacations.

When I go on vacation my company asks me to check my email daily and have my phone on during working hours, in case something happens.

The president takes work with him wherever he goes. He has his staff and enough electronics to keep tabs on whatever is going on around the world.

Besides, in tabulating our cost did anyone figure the added income for Hawaii in a horrible travel year? With all the press following Obama, that adds to the total dollars spent.

This is stimulating the economy, is it not? lol
Click to expand...
1: It has been repeatedly pointed out that the vacation itself is not the point of contention.

2: Spending deficit dollars to "stimulate" the economy only leads to instability and future downturns.
 
Good Luck said:
Actually, I have seen a lot of your posts. I guess I missed the ones where you were substantially critical of Obama. But I do see a hell of a lot more hypocrisy and double standards coming from you and people like evince, bfgrn, mott-the-hoople, taichiliberal, and others than I have seen coming from right wing pundits. For instance, many of those who are associated with the right have been consistent on the topic of federal spending: they hated Bush for it, they hate Obama for it more because so far Obama is spending more. What have YOU had to say about it?

What have you seen from me? I take supposed right wingers to task when they spout bullshit as much as people like you. I have (recently) given up on Dixie, whose ignorance is only surpassed by his delusion of self importance - but I gave it a try. I am currently debating Yurt on the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints and what it implies when our own SCOTUS tells us they are a violation, but not a BIG enough violation to outweight the "needs of society". Have you EVER seen me make a generic POSITIVE remark about Bush?
Click to expand...

fyi GL...

You tend to be fairly extreme about anyone on the left side. You'd have a ton more credibility on this if I saw you even devote a fraction of your time to right-wing hypocrisy & double-standards, but you really don't.
Click to expand...

this is onceler favorite accusation to those who lean right on this board, he has no meaning coming from him he spouts it for everyone on the right and is truly a projection....he will raretly ever call the left out until he shown his hypocrisy...maybe 1% he does on his own, but the rest is people like myself, damo etc....calling him out on his partisan hackery
 
Good Luck said:
Yes, symbolism is important. And when the LEADER (at least he's SUPPOSED to be our leader) come on telling us about how economic recovery is going to be slow, and we have to be patient and tighten our belts, and people making more than 250K annually need to pay more taxes to reduced the deficit, then he goes out and rents a luxury resort on OUR dime, it isn't exactly LEADERSHIP, is it?
Click to expand...

Where is your patriotism? It's not what Obama can do for you. It's what you and Bravo can do for the Obamas. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top