Obama Extravagances And What They Mean

[PatekPhilippe]

Perhaps Obama should spend even more on his clothing.

Obama has announced he will no longer be making public speeches in Texas. He claims that everytime he gets up on stage, behind the podium, to make a speech, some West Texas cotton farmer starts bidding on him.

Yo Yo Yo....HOLLA BACK!!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

mudwhistle

One thing you can be sure of when it comes to Obama....he lies his ass off.

Coming from a guy who has been caught lying his ass off in this thread

Prove it is all I can say.

Lying is when you say something you know isn't true.

Being not exactly 100% accurate over a matter of what the actual costs were and what they were spent on because I was trying to remember from memory is another thing entirely, which I might add is still up in the air because they won't open the books. Hard to be exact when all of our sources aren't exact.

Go figure!!!

However.....

I've proved that the Obama's are spending like crazy in comparison to Bush...yet you call me a liar?

You support an asshole that lies for a living and you call me a liar?

After all of the times he's been caught lying you still believe him or at least don't question him.

Un fucken believable.

You don't seem to like lying but you support a liar 100%.

It boggles the mind.

 

[mudwhistle]

Perhaps Obama should spend even more on his clothing.

Obama has announced he will no longer be making public speeches in Texas. He claims that everytime he gets up on stage, behind the podium, to make a speech, some West Texas cotton farmer starts bidding on him.

Are you implying that Texas still holds slave auctions?

Get a sense of humor dude......

 

[nodoginnafight]

Interesting.

I saw here that a claim was made, a poster asked for evidence to support the claim, and nothing was returned except a lot of poor attempts at sophomoric humor. I can only conclude that is a admission that the claim was made up.

 

[mudwhistle]

Interesting.

I saw here that a claim was made, a poster asked for evidence to support the claim, and nothing was returned except a lot of poor attempts at sophomoric humor. I can only conclude that is a admission that the claim was made up.

Course it seems in this case you are wrong.

Nobody knows exactly what the true figures are. That much is for sure.

Transparency or the lack of is the problem here.

The Obama's claim they're paying $750 per session on Makeup for Michelle. That much they have admitted. The woman working on Michelle is on full-time so they should be paying benefits for her as well including health care. Don't you think that's a bit steep for such hard economic times...for makeup?

They claim that they're paying this out of pocket. That I cannot believe. It's pretty obvious that the ones making shit up are the Obamas.

 

[Charles Stucker]

I just gotta ask for a link on this one...

As I recall the link between Obama and his children is missing.

 

[keee keee]

Chicago is a place that you don't know who is your worst enemy is, the criminals or the crooked police or politicians. which are all crooks and criminals!!! I know cause I live there!!!! I don't know who I'm more afraid of when I am in Chicago the gangs "criminals" or the ticket police, I try not to ever go there thank God I don't work in the city anymore!!! I can get anything in the suburbs that I can get in chicago cheaper and not get screwed with. Crook County Illinois is the worst place in the world!!!!

 

[Rinata]

Link to what? The OP is the original thought of someone with a brain. I guess that is hard to understand if you are unable to achieve actual brain function.

Look at the original post. That was not about original thought. He was throwing out numbers like crazy. There was no opinion involved. What you're saying doesn't make sense. Is there something wrong with YOUR brain function.

This thread is getting stupid. Not one of you has a single objecticve thought about the president. Like I said, he is not doing anything different than any other president. Did you people expect him to run this country with no money?? Or never go out for the evening?? Just because you don't like him??

Previous Presidents weren't dealing with a country on the edge of bankrupcy. This is the attitude that got us in this position. The liberal reasoning of 'they did it, so we can do it'. If you remember back to the campaign - Obama said his Administration was gonna be different. In what way is spending us into oblivion different? Why are liberals so fucking stupid?

Maybe that's not exactly the reasoning. I think it's more like what I said above. Why is Obama being held to a different standard by Republicans??? Bush 41 is revered by them. Why??

He had a lower approval rating than tricky Dicky when he left office!! That was hard to do. And he is the one that spent money like a drunken sailor!!! I have heard so many times that the interest alone, on the money he borrowed, is enough to keep us in debt until our great grandchildren have great grandchildren!!

So what was Obama supposed to do?? Nobody ever answers that question. Oh, and this is an article that a friend sent to me and I saved it. I hope you'll take a look.

http://www.judiciaryreport.com/how_george_bush_destroyed_the_US_economy.htm

One more thing, I do know that Obama promised to change things. Did he bite off more than he can chew?? I don't know, I hope not. But I'm willing to give him longer than a year to find out.

 

[Rinata]

This is a classic example of how hard it is for Obama spokespersons to explain away his actions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbMME3Ppvto&feature=related

Oh, get real. Why should he have to explain anything??? Why is he being held to a different standard than any other president?? Because you hate him?? Tough. I hated George Bush and still had to deal with the fact that he was president. You'll survive.

The President has to answer to the people.

Once he gets to the point where he feels he doesn't have to then he becomes a king.

Besides.....he said all of this would be on CSPAN...that he would be transparent.

Were those just words?

I contend they were.

Truth is nothing Obama or Congress says means anything anymore. Our allies know it, our enemies know it, and the voters for the most part know it.

I really meant that I think that the president, of all people, deserves some down time. I don't think anybody could do that job otherwise. And I don't think they owe us an explanation.

Other than that, we most certainly have a right to know what's going on. Isn't that why they all have to give The State Of The Union address???

 

[obama2ndterm]

We faithful Obama supporters still trust our initial impression of him as a great, good and uniquely qualified man to lead us.

Obama's steady supporters will be proven right. Obama's critics will be remembered as easily panicked and prematurely discouraged at best and shriveled hate mongers at worst...

 

[Rinata]

Link to what? The OP is the original thought of someone with a brain. I guess that is hard to understand if you are unable to achieve actual brain function.

Look at the original post. That was not about original thought. He was throwing out numbers like crazy. There was no opinion involved. What you're saying doesn't make sense. Is there something wrong with YOUR brain function.

This thread is getting stupid. Not one of you has a single objecticve thought about the president. Like I said, he is not doing anything different than any other president. Did you people expect him to run this country with no money?? Or never go out for the evening?? Just because you don't like him??

Sorry if I was throwing out numbers off the top of my head....the evidence I was correct has been posted and you're not reading it. In some cases what I said was understated.

It's not my fault you refuse to listen or admit you were wrong.

So the point you made is lost.

The only thing one can derive from this exercise in futility is you're a brainless hack unwilling to listen to the truth or read the evidence when it has been served to you on a silver-platter.

You just cannot help it, can you?? I thought for a minute that I should go back and read the prior posts until you had to turn insulting.

So you think that I cannot admit when I'm wrong?? That is about as far from the truth as you can get, believe me.

 

[mudwhistle]

Look at the original post. That was not about original thought. He was throwing out numbers like crazy. There was no opinion involved. What you're saying doesn't make sense. Is there something wrong with YOUR brain function.

This thread is getting stupid. Not one of you has a single objecticve thought about the president. Like I said, he is not doing anything different than any other president. Did you people expect him to run this country with no money?? Or never go out for the evening?? Just because you don't like him??

Sorry if I was throwing out numbers off the top of my head....the evidence I was correct has been posted and you're not reading it. In some cases what I said was understated.

It's not my fault you refuse to listen or admit you were wrong.

So the point you made is lost.

The only thing one can derive from this exercise in futility is you're a brainless hack unwilling to listen to the truth or read the evidence when it has been served to you on a silver-platter.

You just cannot help it, can you?? I thought for a minute that I should go back and read the prior posts until you had to turn insulting.

So you think that I cannot admit when I'm wrong?? That is about as far from the truth as you can get, believe me.

Well then you are human after all.

Isn't it nice when you find out the opposition isn't evil incarnate?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I remember when the story broke about $150k being spent on a wardrobe for Sarah Palin. "This is a woman who is out of touch" they said..."a woman who loves to spend the public's money". She must have had a shopping spree that would be the envy of Paris Hilton.

Eventually it was discovered that not only didn't she wear most of the clothes, which were all returned, but many of the items included in the total weren't even for Sarah Palin. This was just another example of the fuzzy math the State Owned Media specializes in.

However $150k seems a drop in the bucket compared to the expenses Obama and the First Lady have charged to the taxpayer since being nominated and now as President.

Michelle has a full-time makeup and wardrobe staff that costs $1.2 million per year.

She (cause Michelle Obama only has one member of this so-called staff) is paid out of the Obama's pocket, not by the public.
Michelle Obama is first presidential wife to have full-time make-up artist on tour - Telegraph

She wore a pair of $600 dollar tennis shoes to a homeless shelter once.

Who cares? The public didn't pay for her shoes.

The President and the First Lady often fly to New York to dine and view Broadway shows on the public tab, about $260k a trip.

Every President has taken vacation time. Obama's trip to New York was not any more or less extravagant than what every other President ever has done.

The costs of his inauguration doubled the previous inauguration which Bush most certainly got plenty of grief for from the press.

Factually inaccurate, and long since proven so. Not counting security issues, Bush's inauguration cost $40 million dollars. Not counting security issues, Obama's cost $45 million dollars. Not quite twice the amount. And if Obama's security cost more (which I'm sure it did, seeing as how there were nearly 10 times the number of people in DC to see Obama's.
The media myth about the cost of Obama's inauguration | Media Matters for America

His acceptance speech had to be moved to a stadium to satisfy him which cost millions to the networks in set design, lighting, cameras, and labor.

I'm sure they made up for it, seeing as how it had the best ratings of a nominating convention in history, with 38 million people watching.

He loses an average of $3 million in advertising income for each network every time he feels he needs to give one of his prime time addresses.

Which he does no more or less than every other President.

His China visit somehow required 71 vehicles to escort him around to various sights.

No different from any other President.

This guy is running up a huge tab and we have to pay for it. Don't you think he would try to lead by example and not insist on being treated like a king?

Is this all an example of narcissism or does it mean that he never felt this country was in the kind of financial trouble *Worst Economy Since The Great Depression* that he had been claiming?

One by one, your thread is killed.

 

[mudwhistle]

I remember when the story broke about $150k being spent on a wardrobe for Sarah Palin. "This is a woman who is out of touch" they said..."a woman who loves to spend the public's money". She must have had a shopping spree that would be the envy of Paris Hilton.

Eventually it was discovered that not only didn't she wear most of the clothes, which were all returned, but many of the items included in the total weren't even for Sarah Palin. This was just another example of the fuzzy math the State Owned Media specializes in.

However $150k seems a drop in the bucket compared to the expenses Obama and the First Lady have charged to the taxpayer since being nominated and now as President.

Michelle has a full-time makeup and wardrobe staff that costs $1.2 million per year.

She (cause Michelle Obama only has one member of this so-called staff) is paid out of the Obama's pocket, not by the public.
Michelle Obama is first presidential wife to have full-time make-up artist on tour - Telegraph

She wore a pair of $600 dollar tennis shoes to a homeless shelter once.

Who cares? The public didn't pay for her shoes.


Every President has taken vacation time. Obama's trip to New York was not any more or less extravagant than what every other President ever has done.

Factually inaccurate, and long since proven so. Not counting security issues, Bush's inauguration cost $40 million dollars. Not counting security issues, Obama's cost $45 million dollars. Not quite twice the amount. And if Obama's security cost more (which I'm sure it did, seeing as how there were nearly 10 times the number of people in DC to see Obama's.
The media myth about the cost of Obama's inauguration | Media Matters for America


I'm sure they made up for it, seeing as how it had the best ratings of a nominating convention in history, with 38 million people watching.


Which he does no more or less than every other President.

His China visit somehow required 71 vehicles to escort him around to various sights.

No different from any other President.

This guy is running up a huge tab and we have to pay for it. Don't you think he would try to lead by example and not insist on being treated like a king?

Is this all an example of narcissism or does it mean that he never felt this country was in the kind of financial trouble *Worst Economy Since The Great Depression* that he had been claiming?

One by one, your thread is killed.

Only in your mind...you're way behind the power-curve.

$45 million is what was raised to help pay for his inaugaration. It actually cost $166 million.

How do you know that the public didn't pay for her shoes. He's been living off the government tit for the last 10 yrs. Who do you think pays his salary?

And Bush normally had no more the 10 cars in his as opposed to Obama's 71. I know this because I saw one of his speeches last year.

38 million watching but not selling any ad space because the thing prempted everything including comercials.

Obama has been on during Prime time more then any other president in history. And every time he does it costs millions in lost revenue. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020503599.html


You sound like another asshole apologist talking out of his ass.....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I remember when the story broke about $150k being spent on a wardrobe for Sarah Palin. "This is a woman who is out of touch" they said..."a woman who loves to spend the public's money". She must have had a shopping spree that would be the envy of Paris Hilton.

Eventually it was discovered that not only didn't she wear most of the clothes, which were all returned, but many of the items included in the total weren't even for Sarah Palin. This was just another example of the fuzzy math the State Owned Media specializes in.

However $150k seems a drop in the bucket compared to the expenses Obama and the First Lady have charged to the taxpayer since being nominated and now as President.

Michelle has a full-time makeup and wardrobe staff that costs $1.2 million per year.

She (cause Michelle Obama only has one member of this so-called staff) is paid out of the Obama's pocket, not by the public.
Michelle Obama is first presidential wife to have full-time make-up artist on tour - Telegraph


Who cares? The public didn't pay for her shoes.


Every President has taken vacation time. Obama's trip to New York was not any more or less extravagant than what every other President ever has done.

Factually inaccurate, and long since proven so. Not counting security issues, Bush's inauguration cost $40 million dollars. Not counting security issues, Obama's cost $45 million dollars. Not quite twice the amount. And if Obama's security cost more (which I'm sure it did, seeing as how there were nearly 10 times the number of people in DC to see Obama's.
The media myth about the cost of Obama's inauguration | Media Matters for America


I'm sure they made up for it, seeing as how it had the best ratings of a nominating convention in history, with 38 million people watching.


Which he does no more or less than every other President.


No different from any other President.

This guy is running up a huge tab and we have to pay for it. Don't you think he would try to lead by example and not insist on being treated like a king?

Is this all an example of narcissism or does it mean that he never felt this country was in the kind of financial trouble *Worst Economy Since The Great Depression* that he had been claiming?

One by one, your thread is killed.

Only in your mind...you're way behind the power-curve.

$45 million is what was raised to help pay for his inaugaration. It actually cost $166 million.

And actually, Bush's inauguration cost 157million, when you factor in the cost of security.

And Bush normally had no more the 10 cars in his as opposed to Obama's 71. I know this because I saw one of his speeches last year.

I haven't been able to find out the details of the motorcade, but according to everything I've looked at, the number 71 refers to the President's security detail, and then an unknown number of Chinese welcome vehicles. It's quite a stretch to say this is an example of Obama's "narcissism".

38 million watching but not selling any ad space because the thing prempted everything including comercials.

Obama has been on during Prime time more then any other president in history.

I guess you don't know this already, so I'll have to spell it out for you.

No one forces any network to carry any of Obama's speeches. If it wasen't profitable to carry Obama's prime time addresses or the nominating convention, they would not have covered them.

You sound like another asshole apologist.

And you sound like another Glenn Beck parrot. What's your point?

 

[mudwhistle]

She (cause Michelle Obama only has one member of this so-called staff) is paid out of the Obama's pocket, not by the public.
Michelle Obama is first presidential wife to have full-time make-up artist on tour - Telegraph


Who cares? The public didn't pay for her shoes.


Every President has taken vacation time. Obama's trip to New York was not any more or less extravagant than what every other President ever has done.

Factually inaccurate, and long since proven so. Not counting security issues, Bush's inauguration cost $40 million dollars. Not counting security issues, Obama's cost $45 million dollars. Not quite twice the amount. And if Obama's security cost more (which I'm sure it did, seeing as how there were nearly 10 times the number of people in DC to see Obama's.
The media myth about the cost of Obama's inauguration | Media Matters for America


I'm sure they made up for it, seeing as how it had the best ratings of a nominating convention in history, with 38 million people watching.


Which he does no more or less than every other President.


No different from any other President.



One by one, your thread is killed.

Only in your mind...you're way behind the power-curve.

$45 million is what was raised to help pay for his inaugaration. It actually cost $166 million.

And actually, Bush's inauguration cost 157million, when you factor in the cost of security.


I haven't been able to find out the details of the motorcade, but according to everything I've looked at, the number 71 refers to the President's security detail, and then an unknown number of Chinese welcome vehicles. It's quite a stretch to say this is an example of Obama's "narcissism".

38 million watching but not selling any ad space because the thing prempted everything including comercials.

Obama has been on during Prime time more then any other president in history.

I guess you don't know this already, so I'll have to spell it out for you.

No one forces any network to carry any of Obama's speeches. If it wasen't profitable to carry Obama's prime time addresses or the nominating convention, they would not have covered them.

You sound like another asshole apologist.

And you sound like another Glenn Beck parrot. What's your point?

Glenn Beck was on vacation this morning so I'm not parroting anything he said.

Oh and please provide a link for the $157 million.....I already provide it for mine.



Nobody is forcing them???

I am shocked.

Try reading the link.

Obama specializes in Chicago brand politics.

If you can't win them over you bribe them, if they won't take a bribe you destroy them.

That's the Chicago way.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Only in your mind...you're way behind the power-curve.

$45 million is what was raised to help pay for his inaugaration. It actually cost $166 million.

And actually, Bush's inauguration cost 157million, when you factor in the cost of security.


I haven't been able to find out the details of the motorcade, but according to everything I've looked at, the number 71 refers to the President's security detail, and then an unknown number of Chinese welcome vehicles. It's quite a stretch to say this is an example of Obama's "narcissism".


I guess you don't know this already, so I'll have to spell it out for you.

No one forces any network to carry any of Obama's speeches. If it wasen't profitable to carry Obama's prime time addresses or the nominating convention, they would not have covered them.

You sound like another asshole apologist.

And you sound like another Glenn Beck parrot. What's your point?

Glenn Beck was on vacation this morning so I'm not parroting anything he said.

Oh and please provide a link for the $157 million.....I already provide it for mine.



Nobody is forcing them???

I am shocked.

Try reading the link.

Obama specializes in Chicago brand politics.

If you can't win them over you bribe them, if they won't take a bribe you destroy them.

That's the Chicago way.

Although the broadcast networks can opt out of carrying these presidential appearances, "you don't want to incur the wrath of the White House" because "if you're on the [poop] list, you are last in line for interviews and things like that," one network exec explained.

They're not forced. They are free to do whatever they think is in their best interests.

And I see you've not been able to discount anything else I've posted...

 

[mudwhistle]

And actually, Bush's inauguration cost 157million, when you factor in the cost of security.


I haven't been able to find out the details of the motorcade, but according to everything I've looked at, the number 71 refers to the President's security detail, and then an unknown number of Chinese welcome vehicles. It's quite a stretch to say this is an example of Obama's "narcissism".


I guess you don't know this already, so I'll have to spell it out for you.

No one forces any network to carry any of Obama's speeches. If it wasen't profitable to carry Obama's prime time addresses or the nominating convention, they would not have covered them.



And you sound like another Glenn Beck parrot. What's your point?

Glenn Beck was on vacation this morning so I'm not parroting anything he said.

Oh and please provide a link for the $157 million.....I already provide it for mine.



Nobody is forcing them???

I am shocked.

Try reading the link.

Obama specializes in Chicago brand politics.

If you can't win them over you bribe them, if they won't take a bribe you destroy them.

That's the Chicago way.

Although the broadcast networks can opt out of carrying these presidential appearances, "you don't want to incur the wrath of the White House" because "if you're on the [poop] list, you are last in line for interviews and things like that," one network exec explained.

They're not forced. They are free to do whatever they think is in their best interests.

And I see you've not been able to discount anything else I've posted...

In all honesty you haven't ether. All you've come up with is stereotypical babble and assumptions. So unless you can come up with some proof you're just blowing it out your backside.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Glenn Beck was on vacation this morning so I'm not parroting anything he said.

Oh and please provide a link for the $157 million.....I already provide it for mine.



Nobody is forcing them???

I am shocked.

Try reading the link.

Obama specializes in Chicago brand politics.

If you can't win them over you bribe them, if they won't take a bribe you destroy them.

That's the Chicago way.

Although the broadcast networks can opt out of carrying these presidential appearances, "you don't want to incur the wrath of the White House" because "if you're on the [poop] list, you are last in line for interviews and things like that," one network exec explained.

They're not forced. They are free to do whatever they think is in their best interests.

And I see you've not been able to discount anything else I've posted...

In all honesty you haven't ether. All you've come up with is stereotypical babble and assumptions. So unless you can come up with some proof you're just blowing it out your backside.

I don't really feel like going over it again, but here goes.

You claimed that Obama's inauguration cost many times what Bush's did.
Including security costs, Bush's cost 157 million dollars. Obama's cost 166, with nearly 10 times the number of people there.

You (or the OP) claimed that the Obama's were spending ridiculous amounts of the public's money in various ways, from Michelle's make-up lady, to a 71 car motorcade.
For each of those things, I've shown that to be either entirely not true (Michelle pays her makeup lady out of her own pocket) or just spin (the 71 car motorcade included an unknown number of Chinese government cars).

Got anything?

 

[rightwinger]

mudwhistle

One thing you can be sure of when it comes to Obama....he lies his ass off.

Coming from a guy who has been caught lying his ass off in this thread

Prove it is all I can say.

Lying is when you say something you know isn't true.

Being not exactly 100% accurate over a matter of what the actual costs were and what they were spent on because I was trying to remember from memory is another thing entirely, which I might add is still up in the air because they won't open the books. Hard to be exact when all of our sources aren't exact.

Go figure!!!

However.....

I've proved that the Obama's are spending like crazy in comparison to Bush...yet you call me a liar?

You support an asshole that lies for a living and you call me a liar?

After all of the times he's been caught lying you still believe him or at least don't question him.

Un fucken believable.

You don't seem to like lying but you support a liar 100%.

It boggles the mind.

LOL..

Now I get it! You didn't LIE....You misremembered

So I shouldn't consider you a LIAR.....just someone who doesn't have a good memory on all things Obama