Remember The "DATE" In New York?

[bodecea]

Just received this email, it corresponds with what I saw last week when the "President" landed at George Bush International Airport and took 5 helicopters to College Station to spend an hour and give another campaign speech. Air Force One was parked as far as possible from the public view. 3 UH-603 Blackhawk helicopters and 2 CH-53 Sea Stallions were not just Air National Guard units, they were the White House's fleet, how many aircraft were used to carry them from Washington and were now parked 30 miles away at Ellington Field south of Houston, I would guess 3 C-5As or even more if C-17s were used. The limos had to be transported too. This is your 21st Century President...........


From a former Air Force Colonel....

Subject: The Date

First, let me say that I've moved three presidents up to now and I've
seen incredible waste. But, the "new" guy really takes the cake. I don't have an issue with the President promising his wife dinner and a show or that he even takes his wife out.
But, when I saw the news say that the date cost $24,000, here's what you DON'T know.

Three days before "dinner" a C-17 flew Marines and the helicopter maintenance equipment to JFK Airport .



The day before "dinner" I flew the USSS and the motorcade to JFK Airport



Our crew of 5 spent two days and nights at the Hilton in Times Square . My hotel bill: $621.66 plus $64 a day in per diem. The USSS guys were at a different Hilton in NYC, so figure that cost another $14,000 (or so) plus per diem. The Marines had to have cost as much and were there four days, so figure another $55,000 plus per diem (for 44 Marines).

We were supposed to fly the motorcade back and go home, but the Air
Force was so short of C-17's that we were re-tasked to take the motorcade back, return to JFK and take the helicopter back to Quantico .
When we got back to JFK, while the pilot was turning the plane around
to park, he noticed a rotor blade sticking out of the hangar where the
helicopter was parked and informed me that either it wasn't ready to
transport or it was flying home. After shutting down I walked over to the hangar and to my surprise I find FIVE helicopters, not ONE.

We're obviously not transporting five big helicopters. I went and
talked to the Marines guarding the "fleet" and found that they were flying all five helicopters home and we were only transporting the Marines and the maintenance equipment. After talking to the Marine(s) in charge, I was told that the White House requested FIVE helicopters. The Marines told me that they spent all morning trying to figure out how much it cost them to come and said they figured it cost them $140,000 to stay there (I don't know where they came up with that) and the trip's total had to be about $1,000,000.

We heard that the President didn't use Air Force One (the 747) so I
asked if he came in on one of the 757's. I was told that he came in on THREE Air Force Lear jets.
So, date night consisted of:
2 C-17's flying three missions, 3 Lear jets, 5 Helicopters,
Presidential Motorcade, 44 Marines, more than 20 USSS personnel on our plane. Who knows what it cost the NYPD and NY Port Authority (at the airport) in overtime.


These are the same people that chastised the automobile CEO's for
using their aircraft. It further proves that the media only use the facts
that make the President look good and hide any facts that will detract
from his persona..

Is this the 'change' we expected?
Talk with friends and those who are not blinded by charisma. Many
folks I know who voted for Obama are very disappointed and sorry they did so.
The Emperor's clothes on a grand scale. "Transparency"?

Remember, 2010 is just around the corner. All we have to do is survive long enough.

I remember all the wasted money and time everytime Reagan flew into Point Mugu for his 3 day vacation weekends at his Santa Barbara ranch.

I dont seem to remmeber him doing on on the heels of him telling us that we needed to tighten our belts. I do not recall us having a 9 trillion dollar debt at the time either. I can not seem to recall him promising that he was going to cut spending with a scalpel.

But please...if all you can do to divert from the topic is bring up the past and compare apples to pranges, you are doing nothing more than explaining why people call Obama's supporters nothing more than lost sheep.

And who do you think HELPED start this 3 trillion dollar debt? Hint...his initials are RR.

Sorry if the truth that all modern presidents have been doing this is too awkward for you to handle.

 

[Oldandtired]

I remember all the wasted money and time everytime Reagan flew into Point Mugu for his 3 day vacation weekends at his Santa Barbara ranch.

I dont seem to remmeber him doing on on the heels of him telling us that we needed to tighten our belts. I do not recall us having a 9 trillion dollar debt at the time either. I can not seem to recall him promising that he was going to cut spending with a scalpel.

But please...if all you can do to divert from the topic is bring up the past and compare apples to pranges, you are doing nothing more than explaining why people call Obama's supporters nothing more than lost sheep.

And who do you think HELPED start this 3 trillion dollar debt? Hint...his initials are RR.

Sorry if the truth that all modern presidents have been doing this is too awkward for you to handle.

And the more people say "but RR did it so why not BO" the worse it is going to get.

And BTW.....when I have $100, I am not nearly as pissed off at my son for spending 20 as I am when he spends 20 and I only have 30.

So please....keep on saying..."yeah but".....THAT works.

p.s......Reagan did not tell us to tighten our belts and then fly off to NY...regan did not promise NOT to overspend...

It is another example of BS promises by the liar of a President we are stuck with.

 

[Oldandtired]

do you know the one about jack and the beanstalk?

The validity of the author and the validity of the exact numbers is irrelevant.
But...
When the President of the United States goes to NY, it is much more than a 24,000 proposition.
Personally, I did not care about his trip to NY. I was MUCH MORE concerned with his arrogance knowing dam well that such a trip would create outrage, yet he knew he would be able to get away with it without losing points in the poll.

We should ALL be concerned about a President that is not concerned over things like "excluding a news agancy from being able to report the news as their competition does"...and things like that.

yes, we should. presidential travel doesn't qualify as "things like that".

When he tells us all to tighten our belts...and tells us all how others are irresponsible for spending money on private planes even thouth their companies are in debt....then he should not be spending money flying to NY for a diner and a show.

But he was not concerned about hius HYPOCRISY...and THAT is what concerns me...not the trip and not the hypocrisy....but the fact that he knew it would look bad and he did it anyway.

When the President does not fear the media..it is the same as the governemnt not fearing the people.

And we know where that can lead.

 

[del]

The validity of the author and the validity of the exact numbers is irrelevant.
But...
When the President of the United States goes to NY, it is much more than a 24,000 proposition.
Personally, I did not care about his trip to NY. I was MUCH MORE concerned with his arrogance knowing dam well that such a trip would create outrage, yet he knew he would be able to get away with it without losing points in the poll.

We should ALL be concerned about a President that is not concerned over things like "excluding a news agancy from being able to report the news as their competition does"...and things like that.

yes, we should. presidential travel doesn't qualify as "things like that".

When he tells us all to tighten our belts...and tells us all how others are irresponsible for spending money on private planes even thouth their companies are in debt....then he should not be spending money flying to NY for a diner and a show.

But he was not concerned about hius HYPOCRISY...and THAT is what concerns me...not the trip and not the hypocrisy....but the fact that he knew it would look bad and he did it anyway.

When the President does not fear the media..it is the same as the governemnt not fearing the people.

And we know where that can lead.

please.

do you really want a president who's afraid to do something because it "looks bad"?

gimme a break.

 

[Oldandtired]

yes, we should. presidential travel doesn't qualify as "things like that".

When he tells us all to tighten our belts...and tells us all how others are irresponsible for spending money on private planes even thouth their companies are in debt....then he should not be spending money flying to NY for a diner and a show.

But he was not concerned about hius HYPOCRISY...and THAT is what concerns me...not the trip and not the hypocrisy....but the fact that he knew it would look bad and he did it anyway.

When the President does not fear the media..it is the same as the governemnt not fearing the people.

And we know where that can lead.

please.

do you really want a president who's afraid to do something because it "looks bad"?

gimme a break.

Sure...thats what I was saying......jeez...

Well....in a way....YES...when the President is doing something that is a direct contradiction to what he campaigned for and a direct contradiction to what he is preaching.....uh....yeah.....I would want him to be concerned about how the people will react.

He works for us...or did you forget that?

So yes...if you are doing something that you believe the people will not appreciate, you have a responsibility to either not do it, or address it.

How did he address it? He had Gibbs completely minimize it and allowed the left bloggers criticize those that expressed concern over it.

We need our elected officxials to shopw more concern about the sentiments of their employers.

I sense that this stuff may be a little too deep for you.
I apologize.

 

[Liability]

yes, we should. presidential travel doesn't qualify as "things like that".

When he tells us all to tighten our belts...and tells us all how others are irresponsible for spending money on private planes even thouth their companies are in debt....then he should not be spending money flying to NY for a diner and a show.

But he was not concerned about hius HYPOCRISY...and THAT is what concerns me...not the trip and not the hypocrisy....but the fact that he knew it would look bad and he did it anyway.

When the President does not fear the media..it is the same as the governemnt not fearing the people.

And we know where that can lead.

please.

do you really want a president who's afraid to do something because it "looks bad"?

gimme a break.

Sometimes (not always, of course, just sometimes) there is good reason to REFRAIN from doing something on the ground that it will "look bad."

There is occasionally very good reason to be concerned about appearances. It can (justifiably) act as a deterrent to actions which are in danger of being "in excess." Societal approbation can motivate an elected leader to do the right thing. Perhaps societal condemnation could motivate that same leader to refrain from doing something wrong.

Where, as is the case here, a President is busy interjecting government into the things that businesses can do or are not permitted to do, he has rightfully put himself in the line of fire for criticism when his own actions are at odd with his words.

 

[del]

When he tells us all to tighten our belts...and tells us all how others are irresponsible for spending money on private planes even thouth their companies are in debt....then he should not be spending money flying to NY for a diner and a show.

But he was not concerned about hius HYPOCRISY...and THAT is what concerns me...not the trip and not the hypocrisy....but the fact that he knew it would look bad and he did it anyway.

When the President does not fear the media..it is the same as the governemnt not fearing the people.

And we know where that can lead.

please.

do you really want a president who's afraid to do something because it "looks bad"?

gimme a break.

Sure...thats what I was saying......jeez...

Well....in a way....YES...when the President is doing something that is a direct contradiction to what he campaigned for and a direct contradiction to what he is preaching.....uh....yeah.....I would want him to be concerned about how the people will react.

He works for us...or did you forget that?

So yes...if you are doing something that you believe the people will not appreciate, you have a responsibility to either not do it, or address it.

How did he address it? He had Gibbs completely minimize it and allowed the left bloggers criticize those that expressed concern over it.

We need our elected officxials to shopw more concern about the sentiments of their employers.

I sense that this stuff may be a little too deep for you.
I apologize.

no need to apologize, i'm wearing boots.

i believe you were explaining to me how obama's trip to ny for dinner was a prelude to dictatorship. pray continue.

 

[rightwinger]

The validity of the author and the validity of the exact numbers is irrelevant.
But...
When the President of the United States goes to NY, it is much more than a 24,000 proposition.
Personally, I did not care about his trip to NY. I was MUCH MORE concerned with his arrogance knowing dam well that such a trip would create outrage, yet he knew he would be able to get away with it without losing points in the poll.

We should ALL be concerned about a President that is not concerned over things like "excluding a news agancy from being able to report the news as their competition does"...and things like that.

yes, we should. presidential travel doesn't qualify as "things like that".

When he tells us all to tighten our belts...and tells us all how others are irresponsible for spending money on private planes even thouth their companies are in debt....then he should not be spending money flying to NY for a diner and a show.

But he was not concerned about hius HYPOCRISY...and THAT is what concerns me...not the trip and not the hypocrisy....but the fact that he knew it would look bad and he did it anyway.

When the President does not fear the media..it is the same as the governemnt not fearing the people.

And we know where that can lead.

OK people....its reality check time

Barack Obama is the President of the United States. It is the most powerful position on earth. As such, he has access to Air Force One and all associated security.
As President of the United States, he is entitled to fly wherever the fuck he chooses. This includes Europe, Asia and even New York City if that is his choice.

Do we really need to trot out all the trips previous presidents made?? We are not some banana republic, if Obama wants to fly to NYC for the night and you don't like it...Too fucking bad!

The republican outcasts have been accused of pettyness in their continual attacks on Obama. This only goes to support the perception of pettyness.

 

[Oldandtired]

please.

do you really want a president who's afraid to do something because it "looks bad"?

gimme a break.

Sure...thats what I was saying......jeez...

Well....in a way....YES...when the President is doing something that is a direct contradiction to what he campaigned for and a direct contradiction to what he is preaching.....uh....yeah.....I would want him to be concerned about how the people will react.

He works for us...or did you forget that?

So yes...if you are doing something that you believe the people will not appreciate, you have a responsibility to either not do it, or address it.

How did he address it? He had Gibbs completely minimize it and allowed the left bloggers criticize those that expressed concern over it.

We need our elected officxials to shopw more concern about the sentiments of their employers.

I sense that this stuff may be a little too deep for you.
I apologize.

no need to apologize, i'm wearing boots.

i believe you were explaining to me how obama's trip to ny for dinner was a prelude to dictatorship. pray continue.

It is our responsibility as a poeple to not open the door to tyranny. I am not saying it will lead to tyranny as I do not see Obama as tyrannical. But then again, it seems no one, the US included, saw it coming with Chavez....but I digress....

Leaving bleach in the lower cabinet does not mean your child will drink it, but it opens the door to yopur child drinking it

So I believe it is our responsibility to always keep our elected officials on their toes. We need them to be concerned about how we feel.....and the day they become arrogant to the point of not worrying about how we react, we oopen the door for someone to capitalize on it.

ANd look what happened yesterday...He has gotten away woith so many things, he actually tried to exclude a news organization from equla access to a story...

Ya think he would have tried that if he feared the people?

Dont minimize the importance of what I am saying......it is valid....

Obama will come and go...and so will the next president...and the one after......but if we set precedents now, it may result in disaster later.

20 years ago, an Ayers scenario would have been the demise of a candidate. 10 years ago, having been found to have done cocaine as an adult would have been the demise of a candidate......our standards for a President have changed dramatically......it is a trend and it is concerning.

 

[Oldandtired]

yes, we should. presidential travel doesn't qualify as "things like that".

When he tells us all to tighten our belts...and tells us all how others are irresponsible for spending money on private planes even thouth their companies are in debt....then he should not be spending money flying to NY for a diner and a show.

But he was not concerned about hius HYPOCRISY...and THAT is what concerns me...not the trip and not the hypocrisy....but the fact that he knew it would look bad and he did it anyway.

When the President does not fear the media..it is the same as the governemnt not fearing the people.

And we know where that can lead.

OK people....its reality check time

Barack Obama is the President of the United States. It is the most powerful position on earth. As such, he has access to Air Force One and all associated security.
As President of the United States, he is entitled to fly wherever the fuck he chooses. This includes Europe, Asia and even New York City if that is his choice.

Do we really need to trot out all the trips previous presidents made?? We are not some banana republic, if Obama wants to fly to NYC for the night and you don't like it...Too fucking bad!

The republican outcasts have been accused of pettyness in their continual attacks on Obama. This only goes to support the perception of pettyness.

He works for us. We are more powerful than ANY politician.....the Presidnet included

The day we see our presdinet as the most powerful man in the world is the day that our Presidnet will be allowed to do whatever he pleases.......

Is that truly what you want? Then I suggest you move to venezuaela

The fact that you see him as "powerful" is quite concerning.

 

[saveliberty]

The thread leads to a question: What are the responsibilities and rights of the President?

Does he give up his right to visit the deli? Should the public be financially responsible for personal trips? Couldn't these activities be paid for by his leftover campaign funds? Is it possible for the CBO to estimate the costs of these events and publish them online?

 

[rightwinger]

When he tells us all to tighten our belts...and tells us all how others are irresponsible for spending money on private planes even thouth their companies are in debt....then he should not be spending money flying to NY for a diner and a show.

But he was not concerned about hius HYPOCRISY...and THAT is what concerns me...not the trip and not the hypocrisy....but the fact that he knew it would look bad and he did it anyway.

When the President does not fear the media..it is the same as the governemnt not fearing the people.

And we know where that can lead.

OK people....its reality check time

Barack Obama is the President of the United States. It is the most powerful position on earth. As such, he has access to Air Force One and all associated security.
As President of the United States, he is entitled to fly wherever the fuck he chooses. This includes Europe, Asia and even New York City if that is his choice.

Do we really need to trot out all the trips previous presidents made?? We are not some banana republic, if Obama wants to fly to NYC for the night and you don't like it...Too fucking bad!

The republican outcasts have been accused of pettyness in their continual attacks on Obama. This only goes to support the perception of pettyness.

He works for us. We are more powerful than ANY politician.....the Presidnet included

The day we see our presdinet as the most powerful man in the world is the day that our Presidnet will be allowed to do whatever he pleases.......

Is that truly what you want? Then I suggest you move to venezuaela

The fact that you see him as "powerful" is quite concerning.

OK

Which existing leader has more power than the POTUS?

 

[Oldandtired]

The thread leads to a question: What are the responsibilities and rights of the President?

Does he give up his right to visit the deli? Should the public be financially responsible for personal trips? Couldn't these activities be paid for by his leftover campaign funds? Is it possible for the CBO to estimate the costs of these events and publish them online?

Simple in my eyes...the President has the irght to do whatever he needs to do to protect US interests.

The only costs the people should incurr for his personal adventures is for his security.

Therefore, pretty much like ANY OTHER AMERICAN....he should only incur extra costs when necessary.

A trip to NYC for dinner and a show is something he would have chastised anyone for if it cost the American people money.

 

[Oldandtired]

OK people....its reality check time

Barack Obama is the President of the United States. It is the most powerful position on earth. As such, he has access to Air Force One and all associated security.
As President of the United States, he is entitled to fly wherever the fuck he chooses. This includes Europe, Asia and even New York City if that is his choice.

Do we really need to trot out all the trips previous presidents made?? We are not some banana republic, if Obama wants to fly to NYC for the night and you don't like it...Too fucking bad!

The republican outcasts have been accused of pettyness in their continual attacks on Obama. This only goes to support the perception of pettyness.

He works for us. We are more powerful than ANY politician.....the Presidnet included

The day we see our presdinet as the most powerful man in the world is the day that our Presidnet will be allowed to do whatever he pleases.......

Is that truly what you want? Then I suggest you move to venezuaela

The fact that you see him as "powerful" is quite concerning.

OK

Which existing leader has more power than the POTUS?

Any leader that does not have to answer to the people has more power than our President.

We, AMERICA, is what is powerful....

A general is not powerful without his soldiers.

Not sure where you are going here....but it concerns me that you see our President as the most Powerful....he has a responsibility to us...which makes us more powerful than he.

I gotta tell you....based on some of your posts....it is people like you that scare the fuck out of me. ANYONE who sees the President as powerful is one who will subcumb to the power of the President.

Sort of like they did with Chavez.

 

[rightwinger]

He works for us. We are more powerful than ANY politician.....the Presidnet included

The day we see our presdinet as the most powerful man in the world is the day that our Presidnet will be allowed to do whatever he pleases.......

Is that truly what you want? Then I suggest you move to venezuaela

The fact that you see him as "powerful" is quite concerning.

OK

Which existing leader has more power than the POTUS?

Any leader that does not have to answer to the people has more power than our President.

We, AMERICA, is what is powerful....

A general is not powerful without his soldiers.

Not sure where you are going here....but it concerns me that you see our President as the most Powerful....he has a responsibility to us...which makes us more powerful than he.

I gotta tell you....based on some of your posts....it is people like you that scare the fuck out of me. ANYONE who sees the President as powerful is one who will subcumb to the power of the President.

Sort of like they did with Chavez.

Sorry...I do not see a name in here

 

[Oldandtired]

OK

Which existing leader has more power than the POTUS?

Any leader that does not have to answer to the people has more power than our President.

We, AMERICA, is what is powerful....

A general is not powerful without his soldiers.

Not sure where you are going here....but it concerns me that you see our President as the most Powerful....he has a responsibility to us...which makes us more powerful than he.

I gotta tell you....based on some of your posts....it is people like you that scare the fuck out of me. ANYONE who sees the President as powerful is one who will subcumb to the power of the President.

Sort of like they did with Chavez.

Sorry...I do not see a name in here

Oh...I thought you were worldly enough where I could just say "all that do not need to answer to their people. Sorry......

Il
Chavez
Castro

Just to name 3.

They have the power to attack, to steal, to kill.....and not have to answer to anyone.

Obama needs to get approval from Congress...needs the people to elect him...

I am confused.....do you really see our President as powerful?

I do not even see our president as our leader...and I never had. He is a figurehead for us, and a final decider for us as it pertains to laws...but the day he has the right to pass law without the input of the people (through congress) is the day we will be under tyranny...

Seems like you think we are already there.

Very pathetic.

 

[rightwinger]

Any leader that does not have to answer to the people has more power than our President.

We, AMERICA, is what is powerful....

A general is not powerful without his soldiers.

Not sure where you are going here....but it concerns me that you see our President as the most Powerful....he has a responsibility to us...which makes us more powerful than he.

I gotta tell you....based on some of your posts....it is people like you that scare the fuck out of me. ANYONE who sees the President as powerful is one who will subcumb to the power of the President.

Sort of like they did with Chavez.

Sorry...I do not see a name in here

Oh...I thought you were worldly enough where I could just say "all that do not need to answer to their people. Sorry......

Il
Chavez
Castro

Just to name 3.

They have the power to attack, to steal, to kill.....and not have to answer to anyone.

Obama needs to get approval from Congress...needs the people to elect him...

I am confused.....do you really see our President as powerful?

I do not even see our president as our leader...and I never had. He is a figurehead for us, and a final decider for us as it pertains to laws...but the day he has the right to pass law without the input of the people (through congress) is the day we will be under tyranny...

Seems like you think we are already there.

Very pathetic.

Ok ...now that we have concrete examples from you we can talk

Kim Jung Il- Has absolute power in a country with absolute poverty. Il is in poor health and will not live out Obama's presidency. Controls an Army which borders on starvation and uses technology that is 30+ years old. Has no influence outside of N Korea

Fidel Castro- Has absolute power over a country that is isolated in the Carribean. Since the fall of the Soviet Union. Casto will also not live out Obamas term. Castro has lost his military muscle. His country is in severe poverty and he has negligible influence outside of his country

Hugo Chavez- The best of your picks but not even in te same league as President Obama. Has a strong economy and absolute power over Venezuela. Has limited influence in S America and Central America. Outside of that he has negative worldwide influence.


President Obama leads the richest country on earth and the most powerful army in the history of mankind. Obama has influence over the majority of the free world in terms of setting policy and gaining access to any leader on earth.

 

[Oldandtired]

Sorry...I do not see a name in here

Oh...I thought you were worldly enough where I could just say "all that do not need to answer to their people. Sorry......

Il
Chavez
Castro

Just to name 3.

They have the power to attack, to steal, to kill.....and not have to answer to anyone.

Obama needs to get approval from Congress...needs the people to elect him...

I am confused.....do you really see our President as powerful?

I do not even see our president as our leader...and I never had. He is a figurehead for us, and a final decider for us as it pertains to laws...but the day he has the right to pass law without the input of the people (through congress) is the day we will be under tyranny...

Seems like you think we are already there.

Very pathetic.

Ok ...now that we have concrete examples from you we can talk

Kim Jung Il- Has absolute power in a country with absolute poverty. Il is in poor health and will not live out Obama's presidency. Controls an Army which borders on starvation and uses technology that is 30+ years old. Has no influence outside of N Korea

Fidel Castro- Has absolute power over a country that is isolated in the Carribean. Since the fall of the Soviet Union. Casto will also not live out Obamas term. Castro has lost his military muscle. His country is in severe poverty and he has negligible influence outside of his country

Hugo Chavez- The best of your picks but not even in te same league as President Obama. Has a strong economy and absolute power over Venezuela. Has limited influence in S America and Central America. Outside of that he has negative worldwide influence.


President Obama leads the richest country on earth and the most powerful army in the history of mankind. Obama has influence over the majority of the free world in terms of setting policy and gaining access to any leader on earth.

It seems our difference is the way we see and define power as it pertains to a person.

To me, you have no power if you must answer to someone for every move you make.

A leader without power is the best leader a country can have.

The power is based on what the Country as a whole can offer...through its "figurehead.

You see, as a conservative I do not see the role of the President to be our leader. I see him as our figurhead and spokesman...and one that will allow others to see and appreciate OUR power.

I do not want other world leaders doing for our president as they see him as powerful. I want them doing for US, based on what OUR figurhead presents for US

our figurehead changes every 4 or 8 years.....we do not want things done strictly for one figurehead...we want it done for US as a people.

Again...that is my opoinion.

 

[rightwinger]

Oh...I thought you were worldly enough where I could just say "all that do not need to answer to their people. Sorry......

Il
Chavez
Castro

Just to name 3.

They have the power to attack, to steal, to kill.....and not have to answer to anyone.

Obama needs to get approval from Congress...needs the people to elect him...

I am confused.....do you really see our President as powerful?

I do not even see our president as our leader...and I never had. He is a figurehead for us, and a final decider for us as it pertains to laws...but the day he has the right to pass law without the input of the people (through congress) is the day we will be under tyranny...

Seems like you think we are already there.

Very pathetic.

Ok ...now that we have concrete examples from you we can talk

Kim Jung Il- Has absolute power in a country with absolute poverty. Il is in poor health and will not live out Obama's presidency. Controls an Army which borders on starvation and uses technology that is 30+ years old. Has no influence outside of N Korea

Fidel Castro- Has absolute power over a country that is isolated in the Carribean. Since the fall of the Soviet Union. Casto will also not live out Obamas term. Castro has lost his military muscle. His country is in severe poverty and he has negligible influence outside of his country

Hugo Chavez- The best of your picks but not even in te same league as President Obama. Has a strong economy and absolute power over Venezuela. Has limited influence in S America and Central America. Outside of that he has negative worldwide influence.


President Obama leads the richest country on earth and the most powerful army in the history of mankind. Obama has influence over the majority of the free world in terms of setting policy and gaining access to any leader on earth.

It seems our difference is the way we see and define power as it pertains to a person.

To me, you have no power if you must answer to someone for every move you make.

A leader without power is the best leader a country can have.

The power is based on what the Country as a whole can offer...through its "figurehead.

You see, as a conservative I do not see the role of the President to be our leader. I see him as our figurhead and spokesman...and one that will allow others to see and appreciate OUR power.

I do not want other world leaders doing for our president as they see him as powerful. I want them doing for US, based on what OUR figurhead presents for US

our figurehead changes every 4 or 8 years.....we do not want things done strictly for one figurehead...we want it done for US as a people.

Again...that is my opoinion.

I enjoy debating you oldandtired....a change from the usual profane namecalling

I think our difference is the old big fish in a small pond analogy.

Is someone who has absolute power over a small entity more powerful than someone who has limited power over a huge entity? I say no, you say yes

 

[Oldandtired]

Ok ...now that we have concrete examples from you we can talk

Kim Jung Il- Has absolute power in a country with absolute poverty. Il is in poor health and will not live out Obama's presidency. Controls an Army which borders on starvation and uses technology that is 30+ years old. Has no influence outside of N Korea

Fidel Castro- Has absolute power over a country that is isolated in the Carribean. Since the fall of the Soviet Union. Casto will also not live out Obamas term. Castro has lost his military muscle. His country is in severe poverty and he has negligible influence outside of his country

Hugo Chavez- The best of your picks but not even in te same league as President Obama. Has a strong economy and absolute power over Venezuela. Has limited influence in S America and Central America. Outside of that he has negative worldwide influence.


President Obama leads the richest country on earth and the most powerful army in the history of mankind. Obama has influence over the majority of the free world in terms of setting policy and gaining access to any leader on earth.

It seems our difference is the way we see and define power as it pertains to a person.

To me, you have no power if you must answer to someone for every move you make.

A leader without power is the best leader a country can have.

The power is based on what the Country as a whole can offer...through its "figurehead.

You see, as a conservative I do not see the role of the President to be our leader. I see him as our figurhead and spokesman...and one that will allow others to see and appreciate OUR power.

I do not want other world leaders doing for our president as they see him as powerful. I want them doing for US, based on what OUR figurhead presents for US

our figurehead changes every 4 or 8 years.....we do not want things done strictly for one figurehead...we want it done for US as a people.

Again...that is my opoinion.

I enjoy debating you oldandtired....a change from the usual profane namecalling

I think our difference is the old big fish in a small pond analogy.

Is someone who has absolute power over a small entity more powerful than someone who has limited power over a huge entity? I say no, you say yes

But I say our President should have NO power over America as an entity.
He is an elected official that answers to the people.
That is why this debate started. You feel he has the right to fly to NY for personal reasons at the expense of the taxpayer.
I feel he has the responsibility to ask the taxpayer for permission as we are his employer.
Now...dont get me wrong...I do not mean it as he has to "ask permission"....Permission is a given...but when he tells us we are to tighten our belts....and his VP says we should all take in less and give to the government more and be american....he needs to realize that the American people, IF ASKED...would NOT have given him permission to spend all kinds of money top fly to NY for dinner.
So, I guess my complaint is that he did not feel the need to use discretion as it pertains to his use of tax payer money...and it concerns me when an elected official has that "arrogance" (for lack of a better term)...

And yes...we do have some pretty interesting debates.....and I enjoy them.

Thanks.