Chisoxfn

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.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:16 AM) Jeffrey Dahmer did some interesting things. Nice, comparing a CEO to a serial killer.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 10:15 AM) You're about the only person I've ever heard describe her tenure at HP as anything other than a debacle. I never said she was a good CEO. I said she did some interesting things, whether they worked or not is a whole other story.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:48 AM) Fiorina was terrible candidate. She ran on a business-savvy platform, which is a joke because she was so incompetent as an executive. I don't know, Fiorina moved up in ATT, took over Lucent, and did some interesting things at HP. I'd say in general she had a pretty successful life and accomplished a hell of a lot. Was she the best CEO ever, no, but you know what, she did what most of us will never do and did it against more odds as a women (especially in the mid 90's).

Seriously, if we are spending 200 million per day, than I'd rather pay to have the other countries presidents visit us in the US. We can pick up the tab.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:40 AM) And she spent like $150 million of her own money to do it. Wrong candidate, that was Meg Whitman who ran for governor.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:32 AM) GOP establishment candidate Fiorina lost pretty bad too. A bunch of tea party candidates won. Overall, the tea party helped the GOP in the midterms, that much is obvious. If they don't vote, or vote third party no big swing in seats. Fiorina made serious headway against a long-term senator in Boxer in a state where democrats have a 13% advantage in registered voters versus republican. California is as blue of a state as it gets. And well, it could be construed as a microcosym of what happens when you have an entirely blue state (I'm not going to count the governator). And Fiorina got smeared out of the election. 2 weeks ago she had a chance but Boxer hit her below the belt late.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:11 AM) Now here I agree. Hell, as much as I despise both Clinton and Gingrich as people, they were both very smart and very adept at their jobs, and both understood they needed to compromise to make things better. Unfortunately, that relationship was really the last time the Prez-Congress relationship was that effective. Hell, look at Illinois. When Thompson and Edgar were Republican governors, working with Michael Madigan and a heavily democratic legislature, Illinois was actually held up as an example of a state that got things done better than most. Then under Blago and his predecessor, things went to s***. I think Obama needs to decide at this point who he wants to be. Does he want to be a moderate, compromising leader, like a Clinton or an Edgar/Thompson, or does he want to try to fight tooth and nail? And by the way, Boehner and his crew have the SAME question to answer for themselves. I agree with this. And in case you guys haven't seen, in the middle of all my ranting/raving I'm not stating the republicans would have done things differently.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Nov 2, 2010 -> 05:36 PM) Well, the Des Moines Register said there has been no decision on any punishment yet, though initially, Iowa was told none of the players involved would be able to play at Iowa. I read to the contrary on ESPN.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:06 AM) The Democrats aren't a fractured party right now, why would Feingold try to make it one? The GOP is going to have a harder time reconciling the more sane part of their base with the tea party crazies. And out of work Feingold is going to make things very uneasy.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:05 AM) Tea Party can't grow without viable candidates for national office, which they don't have. Also, its been co-opted, and I think it will look different in a couple years than it does now. And I sincerely doubt the GOP makes another jump in 2012. Possible, but unlikely. I mean, despite the fact that we are in a deep recession and the President is not well-liked, the GOP was still not able to take both houses. People realize that the GOP isn't some magic fix, any more than the Dems were in 2008. What will fix this country is compromise and that can only happen when you have a nice split power system. And I fully admit when the republicans got power happy they made massive mistakes too.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 09:03 AM) Why were there so many Dem targets? Why could they pick up so many House seats? Oh, right, because the Dems had such a strong majority. It was a big night for the GOP, pretty much across the board. There's no doubt about that. And if you guys don't think that Obama and the democrats didn't notice where the republicans took power again, you guys would be niave. It was in the significant swing states or even historically democratic states. I'm curious to see if Feingold sticks his nose out and tries to run for the democratic nomination 2 years ago. He just might and that could really make things crazy.

I look at it as the Obamas travel entourage and travel schedule is similar to an executive that overlavishes himself and I think we've all seen that America isn't happy with that. Whether that is the voters or the shareholders of these major corporations, people have made it evident that those in power can't just spend other peoples money like crazy.

I'm not writing off the democratic party, I'm writing off the fact that in 2 more years, more change will occur and the republicans will likely grab a hold of the senate. Whether they get the white house or not as well, I have no idea. Hard to say when you aren't sure who will be running. I also expect the tea party movement to grow more in the next 2 years.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:54 AM) Do you really think the President shouldn't travel? I believe when we are going through a global recession we should make sure we do our part. We should try and limit various things and ensure what is truly necessary and what isn't. Do I know for a fact that we need to go or not go to India, hell no I don't. Don't pretend do, but do I have a problem with Michelle O'Bama going on these ridiculous vacations to spain, spending a ton of money in other places, yeah I do.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:53 AM) Typical? Seriously, the main costs involved are security and supporting air force one. Even if Obama has a larger "entourage" with him, which I have seen no evidence of, the increase in cost for extra hotel rooms and meals would be tiny. Come on Jason, you have to be smarter than to think somehow the cost of security and air travel for the President has somehow materially changed with this or any other new President. Well I had read article and heard pundits state otherwise. Am I saying Obama is spending an extra 200 million, no, but he is certainly spending more and I ask why? And the bigger the entourage the much more significant the security force required and as a result, the security costs increase significantly, which has happened.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:54 AM) ...and it will swing back the other way by about 2014. Would you like to bet on that?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:49 AM) First, look at the bills that DID pass. The Stimulus bill was half tax breaks, which was not the Dems' intention, that was a concession to the GOP. The Health Care bill had all sorts of modifications to it to make it palatable. Clearly, concessions were made for votes. Second, its been well-reported that Obama and his cohorts have reached out to GOP leaders in Congress, and were basically told that there was no interest in compromise. Revolution? Hardly. They took the house, and couldn't take the Senate despite how bad everything is. And did you seriously say Obama is one of the worst Presidents in history? He's not even the worst President in the past decade. They made huge headway in the senate despite it being an election cycle in which by and large it were republican seats up for re-election. They held all of their seats and made significant headway. What happened in the house was the biggest swing in 60+ years.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:46 AM) Revolution? I don't think so. Anymore than 2008 was a revolution. Cycle, maybe. Pendulum, maybe. Revolution, hardly. Biggest swing since social security was passed. I'd say the biggest swing in 60+ years is a pretty powerful mandate of sorts.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:50 AM) Let's not forget that the $200m figure isn't exactly well-sourced. Hell, I don't believe the 200M figure could possibly be true, but regardless, it sounds like it will be at a significant cost to our government and for what I ask?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 08:48 AM) Could you find anything more trivial to complain about? No, not really. Spending massive amounts of taxpayer money is not trivial to me.