StrangeSox

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:39 PM) 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. Why? Why should the White House address random claims of some minor Indian politician that have gotten the right wing in a tizzy? Think about those dollars, try to imagine what they could actually be spending a billion dollars in a week on. Don't give this claim credulity because you don't like Obama and agree with the "He's wasting our money" narrative. We do not know what the costs are. I'm sorry, that's just bad reasoning. You should be skeptical of claims and reject them until their is support. This is just conspiracy theory bulls*** logic.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:32 PM) 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. This neither supports nor refutes your claims and this random $200M claim.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:30 PM) 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). 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.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:27 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. Bingo. If this number was even order-of-magnitude accurate, it has to be including those costs that would be paid anyway. Which was why I mentioned sitting around the WH not being free earlier.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:26 PM) 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. Something being written down or someone making a claim isn't enough to support that claim. You really don't see the problem here?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:20 PM) I remember someone on this exact page, maybe in this exact forum ask me when the Republicians were going to quit blaming Clinton. I'd like to hear when the Dems will stop using Bush as a crutch. No matter what gets brought up about Obama, Bush gets brought up to excuse it. 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!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:19 PM) Dude, seriously? This is like a 4th grade debate class. A guy who is some low level schmo in the Maharastra regional (think county) government throws out a number for the cost per day for a Presidential visit. This isn't some GAO guy, or someone who might actually... you know... know something. The only speculation here is from that dude, and there is not one iota of evidence presented here to suggest that Obama's costs are any higher than the guy before him. I'm tempted to make a snarky comment about this being the Republican thread, but I'm above that.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:07 PM) 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. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 03:16 PM) There is also nothing to prove that it isn't, except your speculation. You're making basic logical errors here. The claim that it costs $200M is assertive, and it needs to be supported. It's not my position in the argument to refute s*** thrown at the wall.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 02:50 PM) 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. itt further proof of unsubstantiated claims passing into fact

I got the pun part, I just couldn't find what it actually stood for. Thank you.

Why is it being referred to as "QEII"?

itt we witness how speculation passes into fact and dominates discussions of ultimately meaningless issues while important issues are ignored.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:27 PM) We're not arguing the same issue here. I'm saying that the drafters of the Constitution were aware of the negatives of political parties and factions, including their ability to take over government and run amok to the detriment at all, and made governing more cumbersome because of it. Justice Stevens right there says they knew these groups were detrimental, and designed the Constitution to check against them. If anything I'd agree that the collusion of the branches of government and the growing authority of the executive wasn't intended. The President is the end all be all of politics today. And unless Congress follows, despite being the in same party, nothing gets done. Congress was supposed to be THE branch of government to govern, while the President was to simply enforce what they produced. It's the opposite now. Today the President mandates legislation and forces the Congress to follow. Oh yeah well I....but..ug...I agree. My point was that the system wasn't designed with the current realities in mind, and that it's significantly harder to pass legislation, particularly in the Senate, than when the Senate first formed. The executive has consistently expanded, and it's not like Obama is doing anything to stop that.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:18 PM) Except that this issue was clearly discussed while the Constitution was being drafted. And was determined to be wrong, and therefore wasn't a part of the designed "checks and balances"

:why you!:

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:06 PM) Read a lot of Hamilton and Adams. Check out the Federalist Papers. They were smart and figured out that parties just lead to factions. It's one of the reasons checks/balances became an important element. Edit: and I don't remember reading anything about them being concerned with inefficient government because of a party system. I should have added Madison too. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 Your wiki link makes my point: ergo political party counter-balance in Congress was not an intended feature of the government. edit: maybe I was reading more into Tex's statement than was there. Yes, the government was designed to be somewhat cumbersome and not react to populist changes, but that's been taken to a new level.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:07 PM) Well, she was running for the Senate. Wouldn't that be part of the government, and hence governance?

Our government wasn't set up with political parties. Tex is right to correct my statement--Washington vehemently opposed them, but they simply didn't exist when the government was formed. So, the idea of part of the checks and balances being minority party opposition doesn't fly. Party politics weren't a consideration. The stimulus, hcr and finance reform were all trimmed down versions of what they should have been. Not entirely because of republican/conservative opposition, mind you, but there's a reason a lot of liberals are dissatisfied with the last two years. You'd be correct to fix the first sentence of your second paragraph by striking out "and everything".

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 01:01 PM) buh? She conned a bunch of people into giving her the CEO job and made a bunch of money for herself. At least that's what I got out of it. Not exactly a strong defense of her record or her potential for governance, though.

Yes, one quote, a few days before the election and after two years of complete refusal to work with Democrats, proves the point that Democrats were completely unwilling to compromise with conservative positions.

The fatal flaw in your argument is that many of the founders were opposed to political parties and the sort of divisiveness we see now. Their intention wasn't to make government ineffective at getting any serious work done.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:17 PM) George W. Bush: Dissenting Voice on the Iraq War (nevermind all those documents leaked recently showing that it was a focus in early 2001) BTW, here's those FOIA documents I was referring to: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/index.htm of note:

Without knowing the numbers, I'd venture a guess that a single coal plant puts out more CO2 in a single day than this whole trip. I could probably find or I could calculate a rough estimate for a typical coal plant, but it'd be hard to estimate the output for a Presidential trip.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2010 -> 12:16 PM) 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. Interesting meaning bad, in this case.

George W. Bush: Dissenting Voice on the Iraq War (nevermind all those documents leaked recently showing that it was a focus in early 2001)