Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Josh_R, Apr 26, 2012.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...g-group-claims/?test=latestnews#ixzz1tCepo6AA
Good for her, she deserves a break every now and then. As Obama said its you and I that need to do some sacrificing for the good of the country.
For someone who wasn't born with a silver spoon in her mouth, she sure knows how to spend like she was.
I've got no problem with someone spending that kind of money if they earned it (or their husband earns it and consents to spending it that way). I don't even have a major problem with First Ladies going on trips like this if there's even a shadow of an excuse for it.
That said, has anyone done an apples-to-apples analysis of how many times First Lady Obama has gone on these trips? Is anyone claiming this was a legit trip, to some kind of conference or something? I mean, yeah, it's Mallorca which is one of the fancier vacation destinations in Europe, but was there some kind of women's conference there to give her the excuse?
How much did we blow in Afghanistan in the same time period?
She only spent around half of what one tomahawk cruise missile launched at Libya costs and 100 and some were launched just on the first day. Every cruise missile was 2 vacations so just on what was spent the first day she could have went on 200 vacations. Its a steal if you ask me.
Can't argue with this logic...
I think there's a term for that. I forget what it is. Something rich?
Does that include the hookers and blow? "whaa"
I suppose pointing out that wars are one of the few things tax dollars are supposed to be spent on would be lost on you.
Yes, because republicans like to bastardize that as well.
The Messiah does something indefensible? Change the subject.
Not on wars that have been clearly lost.
What a god damn waste of resources. We're allowing for a Vietnam 2.0 to take place. The Taliban isn't going anywhere, the National security forces are even more incompetent then the ARVN!!
He never said the wars were justified or ran well, just that they are something the Constitution allows the federal government to tax for and spend money on. I'm sick of the wars myself, but our nation's defense in general is a better expenditure of tax dollars than the first lady's vacations.
So it's a typical Don strawman. Spending money we don't have = OK if the Constitution says it. Maybe we could classify all trips by the First Family as military expenditures. That way Don can sleep soundly at night
Anyone who justifies this is a booger eating moron.
Why is it difficult to justify providing necessary security detail to the family of the most powerful person on the planet?
Paging Miley Cyrus to the Wackbag thread!
I don't see the problem here. It's not like America as a whole is known for being 'thrifty'.
He's not the most powerful person on the planet. That title goes to the Chinese prime minister. He literally has life and death power over more than a billion human beings. He can kill anyone in China, without any justification or repercussions. Your piece of shit Messiah only has the power to steal and spend about half the income of 300 million people, and even that only if he has enough piece of shit accomplices in Congress. That's a lot less power.
And the problem isn't with their security. The problem is the difference between the cost of it if they stay in the US vs. going on a tour of Europe, and the fact that they don't care about that difference of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It's difficult to justify the WIFE of the most powerful person on the planet taking a half million dollar vacation, dummy. No one is saying she should have taken a flight on Continental with no security. If these assholes want take vacations from doing nothing all day, let them hire their own security or pay the FULL cost for AF-1 and the Secret Service detail. It really isn't that hard to understand, and I know you are smart enough to get it, but are purposefully doing the old liberal "what, I don't see what everyone is so upset about" routine.
I assume it's not your money. Otherwise I can't imagine how you could not see the problem.
If someone spent any of your money on a ridiculously expensive holiday for his wife, without your permission, you would see the problem.
So what is the delta in costs between the security detail provided in the USA and the security provided in Spain?
How about the First Lady has a staycation when the economy is in the toilet, Mayr? You don't ALWAYS have to defend them.
I'm not defending shit, just pointing out how pathetic the outcry of the usual suspects is. I agree with you but claiming that "The First Lady had an OUTRAGEOUS vacation because the taxpayers had to foot the security detail" is disingenuous.
I think you are reading it wrong. Nobody is saying she shouldn't have security. What people are saying is that the cost of security shouldn't be an automatic. If security is very expensive, don't fucking go there on vacation. Security doesn't factor in to the decision of where to go in terms of how much it would cost and that isn't ok. I'm even willing to look the other way when it is the President himself that is on vacation, but not his dumb family.