"What? Me worry?"
First, a bizarre TV interview with Jon Stewart. Then a bizarre interview with Ryan Seacrest. Then the election blowout last night followed by a bizarre press conference today. How long ago was it that President Obama was telling crowds that Republicans had to ride in the back seat. Now he is lecturing them on the need for them to cooperate with him? Doesn't he get it?
The answer is a resounding "no".
But what the Hell. Now he is off on a big trip to India and Indonesia. In Mumbai, he not only will stay at the luxurious Taj Mahal Hotel, but is taking over the entire joint! After all, he is traveling with a retinue of 3,000 people. In Indonesia, he will vist some big mosque, third largest in the world, they say.
And the price tag for this "get away from it all" trip?
$200 million.
A day.
Why do you think we need to pay higher taxes?
Bon voyage, Mr President!
18 comments:
It's like the guy who tells the credit card company not to cancel his wife's stolen credit card because the thief spends less than his wife.
Obama's proposals cost more than 200 million a day so we save money for as long as he stays away from Washington.
The guy is not only tone deaf about the mood and nature of the country, he is an ostentatious spender personally. It would be unseemly enough if he were spending his own money but he is spending hard earned tax money (or running up bills for future generations). Of course, this doesn't matter to people who don't pay any income taxes.
.
"First, a bizarre TV interview with Jon Stewart."
How was it bizarre? I'm not saying that it was above criticism, but I don't see how it was in any way "bizarre."
"Then a bizarre interview with Ryan Seacrest."
I didn't hear this one so I can't say for sure that it wasn't bizarre, but I find it hard to believe that it was. I see nothing wrong with the President being more accessible to the public through various media.
"Then the election blowout last night followed by a bizarre press conference today."
I don't understand why you keep using that word. Again, what was "bizarre" about the press conference?
"How long ago was it that President Obama was telling crowds that Republicans had to ride in the back seat."
Not long after Michael Steele was already gloating that Pelosi et al were going to have to move to the "back of the bus" (those are his exact words in quotations).
"Now he is lecturing them on the need for them to cooperate with him? Doesn't he get it?
The answer is a resounding 'no'."
He seemed fairly humble during the press conference. Not lecturing. My take away from it was that the two sides were going to have to work together. Compromise. Reach across the aisle. Don't let you and your people get too full of yourselves already: you only took control of one half of one branch of the federal government.
"But what the Hell. Now he is off on a big trip to India and Indonesia."
The President of the United States going on a diplomatic trip to foreign countries???? Well, I never!
"In Mumbai, he not only will stay at the luxurious Taj Mahal Hotel, but is taking over the entire joint! After all, he is traveling with a retinue of 3,000 people."
Do you actually believe that this is any different than any other modern President in recent history? If so, do you even have any proof to back up such a claim? Because otherwise you just look like a hypocrite for not making these sorts of jabs at our previous President (since he was a conservative like yourself).
"In Indonesia, he will vist some big mosque, third largest in the world, they say."
And... ? So?
"And the price tag for this 'get away from it all' trip?
$200 million.
A day.
Why do you think we need to pay higher taxes?
Bon voyage, Mr President!"
Again, can you tell me and demonstrate to me (with factual proof) how this is any different from any other President in recent history?
"First, a bizarre TV interview with Jon Stewart."
How was it bizarre? I'm not saying that it was above criticism, but I don't see how it was in any way "bizarre."
"Then a bizarre interview with Ryan Seacrest."
I didn't hear this one so I can't say for sure that it wasn't bizarre, but I find it hard to believe that it was. I see nothing wrong with the President being more accessible to the public through various media.
"Then the election blowout last night followed by a bizarre press conference today."
I don't understand why you keep using that word. Again, what was "bizarre" about the press conference?
"How long ago was it that President Obama was telling crowds that Republicans had to ride in the back seat."
Not long after Michael Steele was already gloating that Pelosi et al were going to have to move to the "back of the bus" (those are his exact words in quotations).
"Now he is lecturing them on the need for them to cooperate with him? Doesn't he get it?
The answer is a resounding 'no'."
He seemed fairly humble during the press conference. Not lecturing. My take away from it was that the two sides were going to have to work together. Compromise. Reach across the aisle. Don't let you and your people get too full of yourselves already: you only took control of one half of one branch of the federal government.
"But what the Hell. Now he is off on a big trip to India and Indonesia."
The President of the United States going on a diplomatic trip to foreign countries???? Well, I never!
"In Mumbai, he not only will stay at the luxurious Taj Mahal Hotel, but is taking over the entire joint! After all, he is traveling with a retinue of 3,000 people."
Do you actually believe that this is any different than any other modern President in recent history? If so, do you even have any proof to back up such a claim? Because otherwise you just look like a hypocrite for not making these sorts of jabs at our previous President (since he was a conservative like yourself).
"In Indonesia, he will vist some big mosque, third largest in the world, they say."
And... ? So?
"And the price tag for this 'get away from it all' trip?
$200 million.
A day.
Why do you think we need to pay higher taxes?
Bon voyage, Mr President!"
Again, can you tell me and demonstrate to me (with factual proof) how this is any different from any other President in recent history?
Anon.
What the hell is the president of the united states doing being interviewed by those two? To appeal to the younger audience, obviously.
As to me digging up research comparing the costs and size of this trip to other presidents, I frankly don't have time. How bout you do it and report back to me.
PS Don't forget those 34 battleships docked off Mumbai.
"As to me digging up research comparing the costs and size of this trip to other presidents, I frankly don't have time. How bout you do it and report back to me."
How about this: if you're not willing to do the research and back up your assertions and insinuations with facts and evidence then don't make them in the first place! The initial burden of proof is on the person that MAKES the claims, not those that question them.
"What the hell is the president of the united states doing being interviewed by those two? To appeal to the younger audience, obviously."
And what is wrong with that, exactly? He's President, not King.
Yet if he refused these interviews you'd probably call him an elitist. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, with you.
I am right there with you Anonymous! What is wrong with the POTUS being interviewed by Seacrest. The POTUS is in his element, as he is on the same plain with the J-Lo feud and Seacrest, probably belongs on the ENTERTAINMENT News because he is so entertaining, could make a showing on American Idol and maybe work with Seacrest on the Golden Globen "Red Carpet".
Now for the math lesson. Let's see, 200 million a day times 5, equals 1 billion dollars. What a great "business" trip! It certainly shows how the POTUS is getting in line with the Nation's concern with excessive spending!
Squid
Anonymous,
What are you, my editor? My figures for the Obama trip come from news reports. You wanna know how previous presidential trips went and how much they cost, be my guest.
Obama is an elitist>
But the insinuation, the implication, is that the expenses for this trip are out of the norm for a modern President in comparison to other recent ones we've had, otherwise you wouldn't even mention it in the first place! You're making these implications, so BACK THEM UP.
Hey Anonymous,
Why don't you stick your thumb in your ear and go bowling?
To this enlightening and scintillating conversation, I can add nothing. Why don't you all go have a forum at UC Santa Cruz?
The funny thing about this whole debate with you and the anonymous one is that your story is a crock of sh** in the first place:
http://factcheck.org/2010/11/ask-factcheck-trip-to-mumbai/
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/india.asp
Lance, don't you know that Fact Check is only a reliable source when they agree with Gary?
I do feel a little silly debating that whole point now, because I should have realized it was too absurd an amount to be true, but it still goes to show that Gary loves to throw around these sorts of dubious claims without any research or evidence being put behind them.
So...any chance for a retraction for posting such a blatantly absurd story?
Lance,
It appears that the 200 million a day (which came from an Indian source) has been refuted, yet the issue-and the question went all the way to the White House press conference and Robert Gibbs. At this point no one knows the figure.
Ummm...yeah, but you "conservatives" were really quick to repeat it like it was a fact - even though it was totally ridiculous.
Lance,
The "retraction" was what I just commented. What about the 3000 person retinue and the Hotel Taj Mahal. How much do you think that will cost?
Quit dodging the point, Gary.
Post a Comment