The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

I think the real fear is having terrorists preach to other inmates and create new terrorists, not some physical outside attack.

I highly doubt any terrorists would be put in with the general population. And if they were, I don't think they'd last a day.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And if they were, I don't think they'd last a day.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

molson already addressed this. Obama said that he wouldn't release anyone if they would endanger our national security; in that respect, should the courts have to prove innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt?

I don't know. I'd like to point out that I've now traveled from a standpoint of wanting the detainees tried in civilian courts and released if necessary to agreeing to a need for non-civilian courts in some cases. I'm still not exactly 100% comfortable with where we stand with these folks, though I am glad that they finally released the students, farmers and taxi drivers.

I don't think all the outrage is about having the terrorists possibly escape. I believe that most people are upset since the facilities may become targets and they would suffer collateral damage.

These people need a reality check, then. There are plenty of higher-value and lesser-defended targets out there for the terrorists. Plus, I would assume (and hope) that prisons on U.S. military bases (and the bases themselves) already have plans in place to repel terrorist attacks. And I would assume that ADX Florence has some sort of contingency scenario in place.

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

I think the real fear is having terrorists preach to other inmates and create new terrorists, not some physical outside attack.

The "worst of the worst" will end up in solitary 23 hours a day and have no contact with other inmates. Current detainees sentenced to lesser sentences would, I'd assume, be separated from the general prison population for a) their own protection and b) to avoid this kind of scenario.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

These people need a reality check, then. There are plenty of higher-value and lesser-defended targets out there for the terrorists. Plus, I would assume (and hope) that prisons on U.S. military bases (and the bases themselves) already have plans in place to repel terrorist attacks. And I would assume that ADX Florence has some sort of contingency scenario in place.

I was speaking to the possibility of moving these prisoners to public facilities. If they're going to military prisons, then I agree with you.

[flere-imsaho]

One, I would assume that most, if not all, prisons already have some sort of contingency planning in effect for external threats. These will need to be enhanced, but it's not exactly a new concept.

Two, I guess I don't see the value proposition for Al Qaeda in storming a U.S. SuperMax facility to free some of their own members, given the difficulty involved in getting into the facility, and the very, very unlikely chance of success (in getting away). Especially when compared to missions to hit other targets of value that are comparatively much less guarded.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

How does a guy who believes that painting everyone's roof white would help in the global warming fight got a Nobel Peace Prize?

Obama's green guru calls for white roofs - Telegraph

Even #2 is taking pot-shots at his boss's reliance on teleprompters.

RealClearPolitics - Video - Biden Jokes About Breaking Obama's Teleprompter

[Flasch186]

facts, dont let them get in the way of anything.

[Flasch186]

dude, i sell new homes with roofs too. Its a fact that different colors on objects absorb or reflect heat. I mean, crap, I learned that in day school.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

dude, i sell new homes with roofs too. Its a fact that different colors on objects absorb or reflect heat. I mean, crap, I learned that in day school.

So, this is proof that he's correct that white roofs will reduce the effects of global warming? Interesting.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So, this is proof that he's correct that white roofs will reduce the effects of global warming? Interesting.

Oddly enough the answer is in the first two paragraphs.

Professor Steven Chu, the US Energy Secretary, said the unusual proposal would mean homes in hot countries would save energy and money on air conditioning by deflecting the sun's rays.

More pale surfaces could also slow global warming by reflecting heat into space rather than allowing it to be absorbed by dark surfaces where it is trapped by greenhouse gases and increases temperatures.

But I'm sure you know more than Dr. Chu.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Oddly enough the answer is in the first two paragraphs.

But I'm sure you know more than Dr. Chu.

The point about air conditioning is a relative no-brainer. The point concerning the overall effect on the greenhouse effect when rays are deflected is based on a study by three of Mr. Chu's friends that hasn't come anywhere close to being widely accepted as fact.

[JPhillips]

What kind of world do we live in when a scientist can believe in research conducted by other scientists? Just another step in the slow march to sociafacism.

[Flasch186]

sometimes MBBF hangs his hat on an argument that makes him lose credibility....

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What kind of world do we live in when a scientist can believe in research conducted by other scientists? Just another step in the slow march to sociafacism.

Yes, group think is always a good thing, especially in a situation such as global warming.

[Flasch186]

wow

[miked]

Burn the books!!2!1!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yes, group think is always a good thing, especially in a situation such as global warming.

But wait, three posts earlier the problem was that not enough people believed.

Too little groupthink is the new too much groupthink.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But wait, three posts earlier the problem was that not enough people believed.

Too little groupthink is the new too much groupthink.

Dizzy spin there.

We'll just agree to disagree. I have a major issue with a 'leader' in our country deciding that painting houses is the way to slow global warming.

[miked]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Dizzy spin there.

We'll just agree to disagree. I have a major issue with a 'leader' in our country deciding that painting houses is the way to slow global warming.

Because you are an expert?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Dizzy spin there.

We'll just agree to disagree. I have a major issue with a 'leader' in our country deciding that painting houses is the way to slow global warming.

Funny that your original post states "would help" but now you say it's THE way.

[RainMaker]

The white roof plan does work depending on where you live. Doesn't make a lot of sense here (Chicago) to have it year round, but down South I know it lowers energy bills by 10-20%.

My old office building use to paint it white in April and then back to black in September. It probably cost thousands to paint so I imagine they were saving much more than that in cooling bills. They were one of a bunch that added solar panels and wind turbines this year though so I'm not sure if they are still doing the painting thing.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I have a major issue with a 'leader' in our country deciding that painting houses is the way to slow global warming.

Regardless of whether it prevents global warming, it does lower energy costs a lot in hotter climates and thus the emissions we are putting in the air.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Regardless of whether it prevents global warming, it does lower energy costs a lot in hotter climates and thus the emissions we are putting in the air.

And I agree with that as I stated several posts ago.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

And I agree with that as I stated several posts ago.

So what's the problem then? The guy has a cool plan that will lower energy costs and the amount of shit we pump in the air.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So what's the problem then? The guy has a cool plan that will lower energy costs and the amount of shit we pump in the air.

But it sounds funny. It's like someone suggesting that keeping your tires properly inflated could reduce gasoline consumption.

Ha-ha-ha!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But it sounds funny. It's like someone suggesting that keeping your tires properly inflated could reduce gasoline consumption.

Ha-ha-ha!

I know you meant that as a joke, but that's exactly the point. However, I'll fully admit that I regularly overestimate the common sense of the average American citizen, so perhaps we need leaders that can dumb it down for the common citizen.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I know you meant that as a joke, but that's exactly the point.

The journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

[Galaxy]

Can someone tell me something. Why is it that we, and Obama, blast the CEOs for flying private jets, but it's okay for Obama to spend hundrends of thousands of taxpayer on his "date night" trips?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Can someone tell me something. Why is it that we, and Obama, blast the CEOs for flying private jets, but it's okay for Obama to spend hundrends of thousands of taxpayer on his "date night" trips?

I was actually wondering about that myself. The First Couple took a smaller jet than the usual Air Force One, so good for them for that. At the same time, this is one of those items that I think presidents should be paying for themselves.

I'll leave it up to an environmentalist to try and figure out what the carbon footprint of the date night was.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I was actually wondering about that myself. The First Couple took a smaller jet than the usual Air Force One, so good for them for that. At the same time, this is one of those items that I think presidents should be paying for themselves.

I'll leave it up to an environmentalist to try and figure out what the carbon footprint of the date night was.

I believe this is his second or third "date" trip (does he know that DC is a pretty solid restaurant city) since he took office. Throw in the Statue of Liberty photo mess, it amazes me.

[CamEdwards]

Apparently the D.C. area is only good for trips to burger joints (Hell Burger and Five Guys so far).

[molson]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Can someone tell me something. Why is it that we, and Obama, blast the CEOs for flying private jets, but it's okay for Obama to spend hundrends of thousands of taxpayer on his "date night" trips?

Please, that's just not as a big a deal as Sarah Palin's wardrobe.

It's a recurring lesson that covers everything from wasteful spending, to military tribunals. "If Obama does it it's OK".

[Flasch186]

I agree that he shouldnt be doing this. ITs a bad precedent although it's a good example that people should make time for "date nights" but it's not the right time for this...maybe 3 years ago.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I agree that he shouldnt be doing this. ITs a bad precedent although it's a good example that people should make time for "date nights" but it's not the right time for this...maybe 3 years ago.

The idea of "date night" doesn't bother me. I actually kind of find it a little refreshing in a way.

I just don't why he has to load up the jet with fuel and the SS and go to NY or Chicago just for dinner and a date. It's even worst in this economy. I mean, DC is a becoming a top-notch restaurant town. They can't get in the limo and stay close to home?

As someone noted earlier, Palin got flacked for her clothes (paid by donations, where this is taxpayer money). Why shouldn't he get it?

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I agree that he shouldnt be doing this. ITs a bad precedent although it's a good example that people should make time for "date nights" but it's not the right time for this...maybe 3 years ago.

Even so, I wouldn't object to a date night in Baltimore or Washington or even NYC if he was already there on business previously. Were it three years ago, I still would have objected had GWB and Laura done the same thing and the opposition definitely would have considering they thought the economy was crap pretty much the entire Bush presidency.

It's a little worse IMO for Obama to do this because one of his negatives is that he's generally been considered an elitist of some stripe regardless of whatever background he truly has and this sort of thing only seems to reinforce that point. Were Bragelina (or another Hollywood/NYC power couple) to do a "date night" like this, it'd be a story on ET (and applauded, even, because that's just what big stars do and we want to have a peek into such glamorous lifestyles, after all).

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The point about air conditioning is a relative no-brainer. The point concerning the overall effect on the greenhouse effect when rays are deflected is based on a study by three of Mr. Chu's friends that hasn't come anywhere close to being widely accepted as fact.

Are you an idiot? Seriously?

[Flasch186]

The pathword ith "Penith"

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

While I'll agree with the argument that Obama probably shouldn't be jetting off to New York on the taxpayer dollar, I do think that even a date night in D.C. is probably going to run 10K for the taxpayers at a minimum. It's not cheap to have a dedicated Secret Service troop running around inspecting every person entering and exiting a given location and monitoring the joint for the whole night. Tack on security means to and from the location, and it's a pretty big operation that's needed to keep our commander-in-chief safe.

At some level, Obama made his own bed here. His criticisms of other people's excesses now have come back to roost when he does the same thing, whether it's a trip to Vegas or New York on the taxpayer dollar.. It's definitely hypocritical at a minimum.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

While I'll agree with the argument that Obama probably shouldn't be jetting off to New York on the taxpayer dollar, I do think that even a date night in D.C. is probably going to run 10K for the taxpayers at a minimum. It's not cheap to have a dedicated Secret Service troop running around inspecting every person entering and exiting a given location and monitoring the joint for the whole night. Tack on security means to and from the location, and it's a pretty big operation that's needed to keep our commander-in-chief safe.

At some level, Obama made his own bed here. His criticisms of other people's excesses now have come back to roost when he does the same thing, whether it's a trip to Vegas or New York on the taxpayer dollar.. It's definitely hypocritical at a minimum.

Really, this is what we get worked up about? Bush would fly out to Texas for his vacations, least Obama's staying local.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

Really, this is what we get worked up about? Bush would fly out to Texas for his vacations, least Obama's staying local.

Uh, that's apples to oranges at its finest. Crawford was Dubya's home. No one's going to complain when Obama goes home to Chicago for a week. Even Hawaii is perfectly understandable since he has family there. That's much different than going off for an evening date night.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Uh, that's apples to oranges at its finest. Crawford was Dubya's home. No one's going to complain when Obama goes home to Chicago for a week. Even Hawaii is perfectly understandable since he has family there. That's much different than going off for an evening date night.

It's still time off from work, and Crawford wasn't really Bush's favorite spot, that's why he moved to Dallas after his term was up.

I'm more inclined to have Obama stay in D.C.

It's not apples and oranges, it's just nitpicking over nothing.

[RainMaker]

I'm not a fan of it during these economic times but it's hard to say a President isn't allowed to go out and entertain themselves (and act like normal people). I think all Presidents have done personal things that have cost the taxpayers money. Whether it's going out to dinner and a play or attending a sporting event. I don't really think it's a big deal to be honest with you, although I can see how some would get their feathers ruffled.

Ultimately it probably plays out pretty well with women who think it's romantic that a husband is taking his wife out on the town for a date.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

I'm more inclined to have Obama stay in D.C.

We agree. He can certainly go elsewhere besides home if he chooses, but he should pay for it out of his own pocket.

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

It's not apples and oranges, it's just nitpicking over nothing.

Contradictory statement here. In the previous statement, you said it was better for him to stay in D.C. So why is it nitpicking over nothing if he goes on personal date nights at taxpayer expense to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars? He literally spend the entire tax bill of someone making $75K-100K in one evening on a date night. That's not 'nitpicking over nothing'.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think all Presidents have done personal things that have cost the taxpayers money.

I'm sure they have, but does that mean it should be done? Is this the president of change or the president that finally bucks the trend to do what's right? Are we going to argue whether it's been done before or whether it's the proper use of taxpayer money?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm sure they have, but does that mean it should be done? Is this the president of change or the president that finally bucks the trend to do what's right? Are we going to argue whether it's been done before or whether it's the proper use of taxpayer money?

I think it's kind of silly to expect a President not to be able to enjoy himself and relax in his downtime. You work much better when you've had time to recharge your batteries from time to time. It's why many high stress jobs have mandatory vacation time for their employees.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think it's kind of silly to expect a President not to be able to enjoy himself and relax in his downtime. You work much better when you've had time to recharge your batteries from time to time. It's why many high stress jobs have mandatory vacation time for their employees.

I agree. He should be able to do anything he wants, just like you and I do. With that said, don't we pay if we want to drive or fly somewhere else for a night or a vacation that's personal in nature? If Mr. Obama wants to go somewhere, he can pay for the personal outing out of his own pocket. There's a huge difference between him going out in D.C. and him flying to New York.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I agree. He should be able to do anything he wants, just like you and I do. With that said, don't we pay if we want to drive or fly somewhere else for a night or a vacation that's personal in nature? If Mr. Obama wants to go somewhere, he can pay for the personal outing out of his own pocket. There's a huge difference between him going out in D.C. and him flying to New York.

You really want your President flying coach on American Airlines? Or renting a Toyota Camry for a couple days and making the drive to New York?

[sterlingice]

Well, it's the only safe and responsible way to do things

Politics is fun. I do so love when we miss the big picture and focus on little stupid crap

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You really want your President flying coach on American Airlines? Or renting a Toyota Camry for a couple days and making the drive to New York?

Of couse not. Even a symbolic gesture would go a long way. I'll give you an example.

Business class to NYC: $500
Private aircraft: $9,000
Staffing to keep President secure: $15,000

Let's assume the above numbers are accurate for sake of the discussion. The President has to have a staff available to him for security purposes. So we'll assume the $15K is a sunk cost whether he goes out in D.C. or in NYC. He doesn't have to pay any of that. The private aircraft is also a must for security purposes, but I certainly don't expect him to pay that amount. If the business class seat for that flight would have been $500, make him pay $1,000 for the two of them. In that case, he's not paying any more than any other citizen would for a date night trip, while acknowledging that it's a personal elective trip and, security concerns aside, he would pay that amount as a regular citizen. A simple move like that would defuse much of this criticism IMO.

[RainMaker]

So the issue is that you want him to go to Expedia, figure out what it costs to fly from D.C. to New York and then cut the Treasury a check for a couple hundred bucks?