Chisoxfn

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:19 AM) Excellent. One of the few things that I voted for which ended up working out. That and Prop 19.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 06:45 PM) I can definitely agree on a lot of those points. I think she had a career which most would consider an overall success. Working your way up to CEO and stinking up the place still means you got to that point. Like a MLB ball player that makes it to the All-Star game his first year, and sucks bad the rest of his career. Still was one hell of a player when compared to the vast majority that have picked up the game. But her total failure at HP was just too colossal and public, as it would inevitably become a major liability during a tough Senate race. I will also say she was highly impressive during her debates in my opinion. And I think her experience at HP and business in general made her an intriguing candidate. I also am comparing her to Barbara Boxer who I personally find to be a lousy senator based upon my political viewpoints. And Fiorina was one of the few parties who for the most part (and I just might be ignorant and unaware) didn't do a lot of smear campaigning. Boxer hit her with low blows late and based upon the polls it would appear that those below the belt shots cost her at the very least a shot at the election. Fiorina spent about 5-7 million on the election with 3 to 4 million being her own and the remainder coming from the republican party.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:01 PM) No, you don't. Jesus Christ, stop crying and realize that speculation isn't evidence. Asking someone to support an assertion is something. I did not say it cannot be true or is not a fact; I have said, repeatedly, that it is simply not a supported claim. Which can lead to a fair discussion, as long as we all agree that speculation isn't evidence and the burden of proof for a claim lies on the person making a claim. Seriously, do you read my posts. Never have I claimed the 200 million figure as fact. I've said it warrants debate and for a plethora of reasons. And outside of about 2 parties, good debate has occurred, but these two parties continue to make post out of post stating it means nothing. We get it, but if you don't have anything else to add get out of the thread. It is like the countless bulls*** about how Walker needs to be fired. Say it once, unless you have new points or facts to debate with it, anymore times and it adds zero value and instead prevents valid discussion and debate.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:56 PM) Sort of like this comment that seems to come from no source: Please let me know when you make a post that has anything to do with actual discussion and debate.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:53 PM) If you want to support an assertion, yeah, you kinda do. I'm asking you to support a claim. Why is that so unreasonable? Ummm, cause 3000 people, a history of significant spending, and speculation of 200 million in costs. Looks to me like I have support and all you do is post, no, bulls***. Well if that is the case, get out of the thread cause you clearly don't want to discuss things. Just claiming it can't be true or isn't a fact isn't anything. And I don't need to support anything other than it is interesting and I want to hear more about it. You just want to sweep stuff under the rug. Be my guest but enough of this, one rumor, its gone. No, reputable sources are calling this the most expensive presidential visit in US history and it is also the largest entourage ever in US history.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:53 PM) I don't see why there is even a debate about this. Someone with little to no credibility threw a number out there and we're supposed to all believe it? 3000 people, a history of overspending, the thought of a billiion bucks being spend on this trip. That is all concrete evidence and a very discussion worthy points that you all insist should be swept under the rug. If that is the case just stay the hell out of the thread cause the comments you add bring absolutely zero value to this discussion.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:50 PM) Stay classy. You guys are the unclassy ones who don't do anything but through out trivial comments. You don't even want to debate or discuss the issue and its pretty darn pathetic.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:06 PM) It's circumstantial evidence at best. Provide it. No, it doesn't raise that question. Assuming that the claim should be addressed is begging the question that it is worth addressing. The White House does not need to respond to every off-the-wall assertion thrown out, and accusations shouldn't be assumed true otherwise. How much additional cost is his family, three people, going to bring? When you say his "entourage", who do you mean? f*** off. I don't have to prove anything. You haven't done a damn bit of research on this subject and are taking the easy road.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:00 PM) Wow, I will say that 3,000 people is about 10 times more than I thought it would be. That is definitely an enormous number. And its one that is much easier to substantiate - I could actually see how some people would be able to easily determine a round figure for the number of people. Now, what is typical? Bush travelled to India, if I remember correctly. Did he take 200? 1,000? 2,000? I'd be very curious to see the difference, if its significant. I thought you guys already knew it was 3,000 people? That is why I was talking about the ridiculously large entourage. I wasn't making that up guys. I thought you all had read a couple of the articles talking about how many people and planes he was taking?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:59 PM) I don't like the Democrats much. I'm going to seriously post that as an example of how it works, and I predicted it. You're using poor reasoning to accept specious claims because you like the claims. You've already tried to shift the burden multiple times. This is how misleading, untruthful political rhetoric works, and it's a hallmark of conservative media. What poor reasoning? I think it is a worthy thing to know and learn. Something was said by an official. Does he know, I have no idea. Have I ever claimed to know it as true.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:52 PM) Should Michelle not travel? I haven't seen them. Can you provide a link? Which is irrelevant to this $200M figure. Lets see, a pattern of overspending. I'd find that pretty damn relevant. Evidence is out there. Does anyone have enough answers at this point, no, but I don't pretend to bury my hand in the sand and just throw stuff out and act as if nothing is there. At the very least hearing the White House plausibly deny it or state it is true and that it is consistent with historic travel costs at the very least. Either way it begs the question why won't the administration address it and if it is true, how important is it to bring the president and his family, entourage, etc to India for 5 days and visit all these marvelous places.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:50 PM) This has been, imo, an excellent of microcosm of how conservative talk radio/Fox News operates. Random, unconfirmed and/or fabricated rumors and speculation quickly turn to fact. Rumors and speculation are used to support other rumors. Claims are given credulity unless disproved. Seriously? Get the f*** out. You seriously are going to go out and post this and act as if your blessed democratic party is just perfect and that its just the big bad conservative pundits. Give me a freaking break.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:44 PM) It's a valid point to bring up, and should be answered in some light (how detailed they can get I have no idea). But to take some low-level, county official in India as a valid source is ludicrous. I'm sure the 15th district of Illinois representative knows intimate details on how much it costs for the President to travel. It's all about analyzing the source, and making claims like it is legit. If you want answers, fine, ask the questions! That guy threw out a hypothesis and you took it as fact before it was even proven. At one point did I ever say it was fact? I said it begs questions to be answered and given that it is being bantied about by significant news outlets (and not that doesn't make it a fact) makes it something that the current administration should consider talking about.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:43 PM) 1. You honestly think that some regional government hack in India has ANY idea what this costs, when you said yourself that even government commissions couldn't get that number? Seriously? If you do, then really, there is no chance of reasonable discussion on this, because I could tell you that I think the next lottery number in Finland's jackpot is 1234, and I'd have an equal chance of getting it right. 2. I would not expect Bush, Obama, or any other President to "answer" to something so obviously ridiculous. Whoah, at what point did I ever say this number was pure fact. You all are just assuming I did. I did say show me something which disputes it or proves it to not be true. And as far as I'm concerned that is a valid argument. I'm just not going to take this article and throw it out and ignore what could be a potentially staggering nugget. 200 million per day!!! Balta at least answered one of my questions and he personally has no issue with that cost. That is fine and I think there is a bigger debate that could be had on that issue. But all I hear are posters (and you are not one of them) being pompous, sarcastic, jackasses acting as if myself or Mike isn't entitled to our opinions.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:35 PM) You're evading the issue and furthering my point. You and Mike are getting mud because you're failing basic logical reasoning. Speculation isn't evidence. Expensive trips for Michelle Obama that may or may not have been picked up under the government tab (more speculation! more unsupported assertions!) is not evidence for the cost of Obama's trip to India. Conservative talking heads and blogs calling her names isn't evidence for the cost of Obama's trip to India. A sitting President traveling to an important foreign country isn't "flashing around money and wealth". This is another meaningless partisan attack, and, again, unsupported. You've done a phenomenal job of demonstrating just how quickly random bulls*** with little or no support gets moved into cold, hard facts. The expensive security coverage of traveling abroad was at the very least picked up by Obama. And if you look at the itemized portions of that trip it was insane. So ya, there are quite a lot of facts to back me up on Michelle's luxurious spanish vacation.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:36 PM) And you think Joe Schmo in India knows? This is the USSS, they are in my experience the most competent and precise of the federal LE branches. They don't f*** around and they don't change their security schemes based on Presidential desires. They follow protocols. There is basically no chance that Obama has changed any of their procedures or costs in any material way. Now, is it possible that the Obamas are bringing a few more friends along for the ride? Maybe, I have no idea. But they would not be getting Presidential security protection on their own. The added costs would be mircoscopic on this scale. If you told me, Obama brings 50% more buddies with on his 5-6 int'l trips a year, costing the taxpayers a million extra dollars, I'd believe it. And it would annoy me, and set a bad example. It would not, could not possibly, cost a 9 figure number per day more. I have done some research on the number of people coming along and I've found some random commentaries talking about the bigger groups that come with Obama versus Bush but I haven't been able to quantify it to a large extent. But I will say this, if you double the size of staff/advisors or whomever the hell is coming on this trecks and the government is paying for it, well that would have a significant impact on the costs. Sure, there are sunk costs, but the more people the more involved the security has to be and the larger the security costs.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:27 PM) No there haven't been. One random nobody claimed this "fact" and all the right wing pubs are parroting it as some sort of confirmed fact. Whoah, I'm not confirming it as fact. I flat out think it is ridiculous to even come close to spending 200 million. But you know what, when this came out, I damn well want to hear a comment from our white house confirming, denying, talking about it. This number is staggering and you guys are all here either saying it didn't happen or try to defend the actual cost. If this did happen (whether Bush or Obama) and we are spending this much to travel internationally, than as far as I'm concerned we need to take a serious look into how much international travel we want to get our president into. Do you guys realize what 1 billion dollars (5 day trip x 200 million per day) could do in this world. Think about those dollar a day you can feed a child advertisements. It is absolutely ridiculous. So what I want to know is for those of you defending the costs, do you really feel that it is worth it for us to spend this much money for our president to travel abroad? And for those of you telling me and Mike that we are making up s***, I ask, since it made public print media and evidently came from someone with at least some authority in India (whether that is very little or a lot, I'm not getting into that), don't we as citizens deserve to hear and get a straight answer? Personally, until I get a straight answer I will only have to assume that there could potentially be some truth to this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:30 PM) The Air Force was spending something like $75 million/trip at the end of the Clinton years. That came out in one of the many, many, many investigations of the Clintons. What did that 75 million per trip cover? Did that cover security and everything or was that just the airfare portion?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:27 PM) Ya know, if it really does cost $200M a day, I'd have no problem with someone looking into it. But the very idea is absurd. I mean, do the math. The President travels probably 20% of the time, so that's about 70 days a year. Are you telling me it costs $14B a year for the President to travel? Do the math. The USSS Presidential detail, the ENTIRE detail, probably has 100-200 people in it, and that number can't magically be reduced because the President travels less often. So its a sunk cost. Same with AF1, it has to be there and in working order under any circumstances. So what are the variable costs? --Fuel and basic service on AF1 --Personnel specifically attached to AF1 and other travel vehicles --Accomodations on location for said staff Look at those three bullet points and tell me, with a straight face, how that could possibly cost $200M per day. Come on, some of you guys work in the real business world, you have some idea what things cost. The very idea that the number is accurate is ridiculous on its face. Actually a government commission as well as a reporter tried looking into this very thing earlier in Obama's administration but were unable to get very far because the secret service would not release figures as to how much they have been spending. They felt it would be a threat to the presidents security.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:23 PM) When there is manufactured outrage over (completely unsubstantiated) travel expenditures and claims that Obama is doing something uniquely expensive, why isn't it fair to examine if that claim has any merit by comparing him to the only comparable President? You guys have done a much better job of demonstrating my point of rumor passing into fact better than I could have ever imagined. And it only took a handful of posts! One big problem. This isn't the first time people have complained about the Obama administration having excel travel costs. Michelle Obama happened to have a huge trip to Spain where she brought out 40 of her best friends and did everything in 10 star style. A lot of people have speculated how much the government picked up the tab because there are lots of loopholes to that matter. For pete sake people were calling her a modern day Marie Antoinette. And no, that isn't a compliment. When people in this country are struggling to find jobs, etc, I find it ignorant to go flashing around you money and wealth when you are living in a home provided by us taxpayers (the white house). But instead I see people flinging mud at Mike and I and comparing us to Carl Everett (who doesn't believe in dinosaurs).

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:12 PM) This totally reminds me of religious arguments... Not really seeing it. There is actually articles talking about this being the case and no article saying that it isn't the case. Science is something completely different. There is a lot of evidence available to prove people that science and evolution exists. They just choose to ignore it. No one has shown me any evidence to tell me that I'm being ignorant here.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:01 PM) itt further proof of unsubstantiated claims passing into fact What unsubstantiated claim am I making? Why don't you please enlighten me. I didn't write the article stating the 200 million and I haven't seen you get off your ass and show me something to prove it wrong.

Think about it, people talk about how much of her personal fortune Meg Whitman pissed away during her campaign (between 160 and 170 million). And that is still less than going to India will cost in one day. That blows me away. Don't you guys realize just what a great deal of money we are talking about when we say 200 million per day? I swear, I'm starting to think caufield makes some sense with cut back government programs and see which ones we need and don't need. Obviously that is a huge extreme but man, I really am not a proponent of the government having the ability to do this sort of stuff and in general the mass inefficiencies that go on blow my mind. I'd love to see a kaizen-burst down on the government. I realize it is typically something done for manufacturing companies, but man, it would be interesting to see how much waste really exists. The problem is our government is the largest conglomerates in the world so fixing it over night is impossible.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:47 PM) $200 million a day isn't "meaningless" That would fund my hometown school system for four years. Its that exact attitude that has put us $14 TRILLION in the hole.

Isn't that why businesses use video conferencing a lot more in general. It is because it is a major cost and time savings versus flying everywhere. Sometimes you need to fly, sometimes you don't. I wonder if the oval office will eventually re-evaluate this stance and travel less or if in general the president is a figure that needs to always be flying places for pure appearance standpiont? And I am ok with him flying within the US and to big sumitts. Also, at this point I'm speaking more generally, not just in terms of Obama but more just the president position in general. It is an interesting debate if it costs that much to send him places, imo.