DescentBB

...even his pooch gets his own VTOL aircraft.

"Bo, the president's Portuguese Water Dog, arrived separately on one of two MV-22 Ospreys, a hybrid aircraft which takes off like a helicopter but flies like a plane.

It was the first time the Ospreys have been taken on holiday by a US president."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -home.html

Meanwhile Detroit is basically dead, the great recession goes on and people don't have much 'hope' left...

you have anything to offer, except whining? Obama won, twice, get over it, or produce a real issue. Better yet, provide suggestions to address any major issue facing our nation. Seems to be a lot of interweb whining from Obama critics, but nobody seems to suggest much by way of solutions. You are no different.

There is a solution- vote for the other party!

Clearly they needed to use two planes just so Bo could have one to himself. This is a thing that happened.

Government policy -- high ranking holders of power are not allowed to be on the same plane at the same time ;P

Obama is a man of courage. Those Ospreys are super dangerous.

I wouldn't let my dog fly in one.

Top Gun wrote:Clearly they needed to use two planes just so Bo could have one to himself. This is a thing that happened.

Hehe. An apt application of sarcasm for the implications of the OP.

Whether Obama has courage or not (it's something I wouldn't accuse many people in D.C. of), taking your family on a dangerous aircraft unnecessarily simply cannot denote courage.

Ospreys are cool!

I understand the notion that perhaps the second plane likely wasn't just to carry the dog.

But the real outrage should be that the President needs two planes to take this vacation, regardless of what is on the second plane!
It is like 450 miles by road all within the borders of the U.S.!

He wasn't on either of the 2 Widowmakers. They had just shuttled White House staff, media and Secret Service members Bo and a few of the presidential BASKETBALLS. The have no plans to fly the President on MV-22 Ospreys anytime soon

ThunderBunny wrote:There is a solution- vote for the other party!

Sure. Bush spent $20 million dollars just on his 77 flights to his Texas ranch. The only difference is that he called them "working events".

In fact, Obama has been the smallest spender of taxpayer dollars since Eisenhower. Reagan and Bush II however are the clear winners. So vote for your party? Ha!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... ack-obama/

I have a one track bush.

Lol, Obama could be the smallest spender, because there aints no mo money.

Silly me, I thought the congress did the spending and Obama's proposed budgets were never implemented because he wanted to spend so much it even scared the democrats away from taking it up.

Soooooooooo, we should vote for Republicans from now on so that Congress will give those nice penny-pinching defense contractors as much money as they want, like manna from heaven, and then pay for it with huge tax breaks for the wealthy?

tunnelcat wrote:Soooooooooo, we should vote for Republicans from now on so that Congress will give those nice penny-pinching defense contractors as much money as they want, like manna from heaven, and then pay for it with huge tax breaks for the wealthy?

No. Vote for anything other than the big D or big R

"Go ahead, throw your vote away!" [/simpsons]

" "Go ahead, throw your vote away!" [/simpsons] " [/master's of the two party plantation]

Hey, I'm not saying it's a good system, but that mentality is an extremely self-reinforcing one.

Will Robinson wrote:Silly me, I thought the congress did the spending and Obama's proposed budgets were never implemented because he wanted to spend so much it even scared the democrats away from taking it up.

Well, technically the Congress appropriates the spending, and the Administrative branch does the “actual” spending…with discretion of course.

Spidey wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Silly me, I thought the congress did the spending and Obama's proposed budgets were never implemented because he wanted to spend so much it even scared the democrats away from taking it up.

Well, technically the Congress appropriates the spending, and the Administrative branch does the “actual” spending…with discretion of course.

Ok, but that doesn't change the fact that it has been congress who has dictated how much money the presidents have been spending, or not spending.

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Soooooooooo, we should vote for Republicans from now on so that Congress will give those nice penny-pinching defense contractors as much money as they want, like manna from heaven, and then pay for it with huge tax breaks for the wealthy?

No. Vote for anything other than the big D or big R

What, vote for the crazy tea partiers that keep being offered up as an alternative? Nah. We got enough rotten apples already in office, we don't need to add some poison ones to the barrel. All you have to do is take a gander at the condition of the Republican Party nowadays to see the results.

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Vote for anything other than the big D or big R

What, vote for the crazy tea partiers that keep being offered up as an alternative?

Will, were you referring specifically to the Tea Party, or the more general concept of "anyone but ___"?

---------

Personally, I find that the usual response when I tell someone that I am an independent is, "Oh, so you're a Tea Partier?". Perhaps that means I should start advocating voting "fourth-party"...

Foil, you know he wasn't talking about the Green Party. But even some of them are a little wacko.

Foil wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Vote for anything other than the big D or big R

What, vote for the crazy tea partiers that keep being offered up as an alternative?

Will, were you referring specifically to the Tea Party, or the more general concept of "anyone but ___"?

---------

Personally, I find that the usual response when I tell someone that I am an independent is, "Oh, so you're a Tea Partier?". Perhaps that means I should start advocating voting "fourth-party"...

Anyone but. I usually offer the example of Lesbians For Sensible Shoes party...but truthfully anything not D or R will do for me.

My main reasoning is to deny both of the big two the support they have taken for granted until they stop operating the way they do. Think of it as a time out for the spoiled brats.
It doesn't matter if a third party ever took power, just that enough people vote for anything other and express to their representatives why they did it. If enough of us did then one party and then the other would rapidly adjust their ways in an attempt to retain their power base. they have no core beliefs other than execute strategy to get re-elected and demagogue their share of the dumbmasses into the polling station every couple years.

I've spelled it out to TC a number of times but she reads with the ocular equivalent of someone with their fingers in their ears saying 'I can't hear you'.

Maybe subconsciously she sees the Teaparty as a viable third choice and since they are the antithesis to her deep rooted liberal existence she can't even function while the thought of the TeaParty is present in her mind.

Watch this, Hey TC!.... TEAPARTY.... BOO!!!

Will read Mark Levin's book the liberty amendments. It talks about constitutional amendments proposed not by congress, but by the states based upon article 5, one of them is term limits. It doesn't matter who you vote for unless you limit their power. Ultimately being in Washington will corrupt them if they stay long enough.



"A Constitutional reset is necessary because the progressive project is a cascade of lost freedoms, designed so that each step is irreversible, and every inch of ground taken by the State is claimed forever.  The distribution of power to unelected bureaucrats is a key element of this process.  One of the Liberty Amendments “sunsets” all federal departments and agencies, unless Congress reauthorizes them every three years by majority vote.  Every big-ticket Executive Branch regulation would be subjected to review by a joint congressional committee.  This amendment would pull the plug on the unstoppable federal bureaucracy, forcing every department to perpetually justify its existence, and terminating President Obama’s beloved practice of circumventing Congress to legislate by decree.Another Liberty Amendment likewise reins in the judicial branch, setting term limits for Supreme Court justices, and giving Congress the power to override Supreme Court opinions with a three-fifths vote, without risk of presidential veto.  Three-fifths of the state legislatures can also join forces to knock down a Court decision.  That’s a recurring theme of the Liberty Amendments: the restoration of both congressional and state power.  As Levin repeatedly reminds us, nothing worried the Founders more than the rise of a despotic national executive, such as the one we have now.  The original states never would have signed on to a federal government that turned them into puppets.  There were strong logical arguments against these outcomes, which power-hungry progressives understood quite well, back when they first set about overturning the Constitutional order.  Modern progressives don’t think they need to understand those arguments any more, because the foundation of the total State has been laid, and the clock can never be “turned back,” as one of their favorite slogans has it.  This should leave them at a severe intellectual disadvantage, if the Liberty Amendments become a topic of national debate.Some of Levin’s proposed amendments are intended to clarify language that already exists in the Constitution, such as the much-abused Commerce Clause – lately interpreted as a warrant for unlimited federal control of all human activity, although the Founders most certainly did not intend it to be taken that way.  Our language has changed over the centuries, always in a way that expands the Left’s desire for centralized control.  The authors of the Constitution would find our current understanding of the word “commerce” to be utterly deranged – indeed, they might even ask what the point of their Revolution was, if “interstate commerce” was to become a writ for powers beyond the wildest dreams of daft old King George.Two of the proposed Liberty Amendments are devastating blows against imperial federal power, making it easier for states to amend the Constitution, and giving them a brief window of opportunity to strike down both congressional legislation and Executive Branch legislation.  Levin also makes a compelling argument against the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the direct election of United States senators.  Senators were supposed to be instruments of the state legislatures, while the House of Representatives would be filled by popular vote.  I have never read a better explanation for why this was important, and how it gave state governments a vitally needed hand in the crafting of federal legislation."

Will Robinson wrote:
Watch this, Hey TC!.... TEAPARTY.... BOO!!!

LOL you want to really scare her!!!!!!!!

Hey TC GW is running for office again. Miss him yet

The tea party isn't a viable third choice but ti's not an actual political party. It's just republicans that are even more batshit than other republicans. They all vote R, that's why none of the rest of us take it all that seriously. Actually, you should make it a third party because it would guarantee Democratic victories for the long foreseeable future.

well, it worked that way here in Delaware. The GOP couldn't win statewide office here on a dare right now, after the whole Mike Castle/Christine O'Donell mess. The Tea Party screwed the GOP here, for the forseeable future. Virginia might be an even more significant indicator this fall.

CUDA wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:
Watch this, Hey TC!.... TEAPARTY.... BOO!!!

LOL you want to really scare her!!!!!!!!

Hey TC GW is running for office again. Miss him yet

Actually, all the recent tea party offerings scare me MORE than Dubya. That's how bonkers I think these guys and gals are. So Will, you can yell fire at me all you want, but the tea party itself will forever be marked as a bunch crazy, unhinged, ultra right wingers that make the Republicans look moderate. Even Rick Santelli, who is credited with launching the tea party, has distanced himself from it like the plague.

But CUDA, doesn't the thought of Dubya even getting back into office scare you a little after the royal mess he made? I mean come on! He gave us that wonderful Patriot Act, which Obama, who you loathe as much as I loathe Bush, is now using as a tool to subvert our freedoms and spy on us.

I’m pretty sure Congress gave us the Patriot Act.

But CUDA, doesn't the thought of Dubya even getting back into office scare you a little after the royal mess he made? I mean come on! He gave us that wonderful Patriot Act, which Obama, who you loathe as much as I loathe Bush, is now using as a tool to subvert our freedoms and spy on us.

difference is TC, I just loathe the policies of the man. You loathe the man. And cannot separate the two.

CUDA wrote:

But CUDA, doesn't the thought of Dubya even getting back into office scare you a little after the royal mess he made? I mean come on! He gave us that wonderful Patriot Act, which Obama, who you loathe as much as I loathe Bush, is now using as a tool to subvert our freedoms and spy on us.

difference is TC, I just loathe the policies of the man. You loathe the man. And cannot separate the two.

gotta be honest, my friend. Say what you want, the two of you look identical from here. You have been on Obama since BEFORE policies were ever enacted, and in those days, you were just POSITIVE about aspects of his worldview that have proven not to be true. You tell yourself it isn't personal, but seems every bit as much so as TC's visceral hatred of Bush to one merely reading your words, and especially the relentless focus on every issue, from major to trivial, as if it were crucial.

and especially the relentless focus on every issue, from major to trivial, as if it were crucial.

Glad you noticed I focus on the ISSUES. Not the man

...and giving Congress the power to override Supreme Court opinions with a three-fifths vote, without risk of presidential veto. Three-fifths of the state legislatures can also join forces to knock down a Court decision.

These are the worst ★■◆●ing ideas for government reform that I've ever heard.

Two of the proposed Liberty Amendments are devastating blows against imperial federal power...and giving them a brief window of opportunity to strike down both congressional legislation and Executive Branch legislation.

Wait, here's a third.

It's hilarious how the people who write screeds like that are so razor-focused on the years 1776 and 1787 that they utterly ignore the over 225 years of American history that have occurred since then, as well as the initial failed attempt at a system of national government between the two.

Top Gun wrote:

...and giving Congress the power to override Supreme Court opinions with a three-fifths vote, without risk of presidential veto. Three-fifths of the state legislatures can also join forces to knock down a Court decision.

These are the worst ★■◆●ing ideas for government reform that I've ever heard.

Two of the proposed Liberty Amendments are devastating blows against imperial federal power...and giving them a brief window of opportunity to strike down both congressional legislation and Executive Branch legislation.

Wait, here's a third.

It's hilarious how the people who write screeds like that are so razor-focused on the years 1776 and 1787 that they utterly ignore the over 225 years of American history that have occurred since then, as well as the initial failed attempt at a system of national government between the two.

Glad you explained yourself..... we all understand so clearly why you disagree

Spidey wrote:I’m pretty sure Congress gave us the Patriot Act.

And, some of the states are giving their citizenry some of the most draconian laws in my memory, around mandating what women do with their bodies, and restricting the voting capabilities of legitimate citizens. Also, I agree with the sentiment that so many of the loons that like to cite 1776 or 1784 as if that were the end of societal development or economic progress in the US are completely ignoring reality. The Founders gave us the framework, but clearly left in place a system that could evolve as the nation did.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:I’m pretty sure Congress gave us the Patriot Act.

And, some of the states are giving their citizenry some of the most draconian laws in my memory, around mandating what women do with their bodies, and restricting the voting capabilities of legitimate citizens.

the states have that consititutional right, try not to forget that

Also, I agree with the sentiment that so many of the loons that like to cite 1776 or 1784 as if that were the end of societal development or economic progress in the US are completely ignoring reality. The Founders gave us the framework, but clearly left in place a system that could evolve as the nation did.

Yes evolve by constitutional amendments NOT by presidential executive order OR a willfull intent to ignore a constitution that an oath was taken to "preserve, protect, and defend"
this country is a nation of laws and its leaders cannot ignore those laws just because they are inconvenient for them. The founders in this "framework" were fearful of its leaders becoming tyrannical, and they set in place checks and balances to prevent that from happening

JFTR slick has quoted me out of context, my post was in regard to tc blaming the president for the Patriot Act…not a rubber stamp of the damn thing!

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:I’m pretty sure Congress gave us the Patriot Act.

And, some of the states are giving their citizenry some of the most draconian laws in my memory, around mandating what women do with their bodies, and restricting the voting capabilities of legitimate citizens.

the states have that consititutional right, try not to forget that

to some extent yes, but to some extent, no, they do not. Voting, for instance, is a matter of Constitutional Law, if you restrict it in certain ways.

Also, I agree with the sentiment that so many of the loons that like to cite 1776 or 1784 as if that were the end of societal development or economic progress in the US are completely ignoring reality. The Founders gave us the framework, but clearly left in place a system that could evolve as the nation did.

Yes evolve by constitutional amendments NOT by presidential executive order OR a willfull intent to ignore a constitution that an oath was taken to "preserve, protect, and defend"
this country is a nation of laws and its leaders cannot ignore those laws just because they are inconvenient for them. The founders in this "framework" were fearful of its leaders becoming tyrannical, and they set in place checks and balances to prevent that from happening

The founders even gave people the right to bear arms and form a militia so as to not need a standing army, too. But, times change, needs of the nation change, and thus, we now have a large, government-run military. OK with that?

Please show me where anyone is "restricting" anyone from voting, be honest and lets not use talking points


Article 1 sdction 8

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; 

Interestingly, since the Marines and Coast Guard are off-shoots of the Navy, and the modern Air Force (even though planes were decades from being invented) was initially the Army Air Force, all five branches of the military are Constitutional.