[quote]siouxperman wrote:
It’s been pretty munch debunked as a retarded story from India. Idiot fox.[/quote]
However, we will see the cost after he’s back. The average trip for presidents is about 2 million a day. How much do we think this one will shake out at? Guesses?
I bet close to 10 Million a day given the parade going.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
It’s been pretty munch debunked as a retarded story from India. Idiot fox.[/quote]
However, we will see the cost after he’s back. The average trip for presidents is about 2 million a day. How much do we think this one will shake out at? Guesses?
I bet close to 10 Million a day given the parade going.[/quote]
Why even chastise the president for this? Foreign policy is a big part of the presidency
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
It’s been pretty munch debunked as a retarded story from India. Idiot fox.[/quote]
However, we will see the cost after he’s back. The average trip for presidents is about 2 million a day. How much do we think this one will shake out at? Guesses?
I bet close to 10 Million a day given the parade going.[/quote]
Why even chastise the president for this? Foreign policy is a big part of the presidency[/quote]
I don.t know, have you seen what kind of financial shapw the US is in. He could have just picked up a phone if he wanted to talk to them.
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
It’s been pretty munch debunked as a retarded story from India. Idiot fox.[/quote]
However, we will see the cost after he’s back. The average trip for presidents is about 2 million a day. How much do we think this one will shake out at? Guesses?
I bet close to 10 Million a day given the parade going.[/quote]
Why even chastise the president for this? Foreign policy is a big part of the presidency[/quote]
So then it’s cool to outspend all your predecessors? His track record is proving this, and deserves scrutiny. Like I said, Ave cost per day for a presidential entourage is 2 million a day. We will see. You would be good with 10 million a day?
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
It’s been pretty munch debunked as a retarded story from India. Idiot fox.[/quote]
However, we will see the cost after he’s back. The average trip for presidents is about 2 million a day. How much do we think this one will shake out at? Guesses?
I bet close to 10 Million a day given the parade going.[/quote]
Why even chastise the president for this? Foreign policy is a big part of the presidency[/quote]
So then it’s cool to outspend all your predecessors? His track record is proving this, and deserves scrutiny. Like I said, Ave cost per day for a presidential entourage is 2 million a day. We will see. You would be good with 10 million a day?
[/quote]
The actual cost of the trip hasn’t even been determined yet so why even make a argument out of it?
This is really an overall losing “got 'cha/told 'ya so”!
The average cost of this trip is most likely not out of line with similar trips done by other Presidents.
The Pentagon has OFFICIALLY stated that the “1/4 of Navy Ships” used for the trip was rediculous. (Their words).
Mufasa
Given that so many of our military are giving the ultimate sacrifice in AfPak, given just how important AfPak is to our security, particularly “Pashtunistan,” and given how important India is to this region, it’s pretty hard to argue against a presidential visit, even if that visit is “expensive.”
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
[quote]siouxperman wrote:
It’s been pretty munch debunked as a retarded story from India. Idiot fox.[/quote]
However, we will see the cost after he’s back. The average trip for presidents is about 2 million a day. How much do we think this one will shake out at? Guesses?
I bet close to 10 Million a day given the parade going.[/quote]
Why even chastise the president for this? Foreign policy is a big part of the presidency[/quote]
So then it’s cool to outspend all your predecessors? His track record is proving this, and deserves scrutiny. Like I said, Ave cost per day for a presidential entourage is 2 million a day. We will see. You would be good with 10 million a day?
[/quote]
The actual cost of the trip hasn’t even been determined yet so why even make a argument out of it? [/quote]
I said we will see. Made no argument except a prediction of close to 10 million.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]SUPER-T wrote:
The info came from an article from India on Nov. 2nd. MSNBC should do a little research before they report on something. [/quote]
Ya i know it came from a report in India idiot, still doesnt change the fact alot of Republican pundits ran that story and acted like it was fact.
[/quote]
Keith Olbermann couldn’t run with the story because he was suspended for writing checks to liberals. Ha ha, I know, I know it doesn’t apply to this thread but I just had to mention it. I can see him home talking to himself in the mirror: “The audacity of the network to suspend me over such a trivial viiiiolaaaation.” Ha ha…
[/quote]
Stewart had a pretty good bit about how fox just cuts out the middleman and hires the politicians.
Not being pro olbertits in any way. not a fan
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
She’s a lesbian vampire.
And she’s mad that her party lost. No death panels = no free food for her kind.
I can’t blame her though. I’d be mad if the republicans just emptied my fridge too.
I just put it on the internet. Now it is true.[/quote]
Way to go on not responding to this particular topic at all. Same goes for almost everybody else in this thread.
Rachel Maddow: 2+2=4
Rightwingers: Oh yeah, you’re an ugly lesbian cunt.
[quote]
Well idiot, you did not say that in your post, nor did the 14 min ear rape I got from Maddow. Are you suggesting that reports from the press in India are wrong?[/quote]
It doesn’t matter. Fox can’t just quote such obvious bs and state that as a fact.
[quote]
I love how Maddow plays clips of people saying stuff that she disagrees with, she then makes fun of them and says they are wring, but does not prove thme to be wrong with facts.[/quote]
Because she didn’t prove that scientist aren’t developing mice with fully functional human brains?
who is rachel maddow and why should we care?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
who is rachel maddow and why should we care?[/quote]
She’s on MSNBC and the clip is hilarious. She rips on Fox for like 15 minutes, though she calls it the closed-circuit conservative media.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
who is rachel maddow and why should we care?[/quote]
The fuck have you been?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Given that so many of our military are giving the ultimate sacrifice in AfPak, given just how important AfPak is to our security, particularly “Pashtunistan,” and given how important India is to this region, it’s pretty hard to argue against a presidential visit, even if that visit is “expensive.”[/quote]
What?
Americans need to pay gazillions for people who pay the “ultimate sacrifice” for their naivete and gullibility or lack of other employment opportunities?
Cant they just do the decent thing and jump in front of a train or get a job flipping burgers?
Americans pay for what they believe to be their security and/or they duty.
and yes, their president should act accordingly.
no one is forcing them to pay.
if they didn’t wanted it, they could have voted for a libertarian candidate, dismantled their army, destroyed their oh-so-expensive-and-unnecessary weapons and been invaded by a random foreign nation decades ago.
but, surprisingly enough, they didn’t do that.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Americans pay for what they believe to be their security and/or they duty.
and yes, their president should act accordingly.
no one is forcing them to pay.
if they didn’t wanted it, they could have voted for a libertarian candidate, dismantled their army, destroyed their oh-so-expensive-and-unnecessary weapons and been invaded by a random foreign nation decades ago.
but, surprisingly enough, they didn’t do that.[/quote]
Maybe you should google the difference between libertarianism and anarchism.
I may be dogmatic, but I dont think you quite get my dogmas.
both anarchism and libertarianism have multiple and often contradictory stances on these issues.
feel free to replace “dismantled their army, destroyed their oh-so-expensive-and-unnecessary weapons and been invaded by a random foreign nation” by “privatized their army and became the subjects of a neofeudal corporation” if it fits your dogmas better.
[quote]kamui wrote:
both anarchism and libertarianism have multiple and often contradictory stances on these issues.
feel free to replace “dismantled their army, destroyed their oh-so-expensive-and-unnecessary weapons and been invaded by a random foreign nation” by “privatized their army and became the subjects of a neofeudal corporation” if it fit your dogmas better. [/quote]
I am more of a Jeffersonian minarchist.
I think thát arnies are necessary and one of the few justifications for its existence a government actually has.
Does not change that I refuse to mourn for dumbasses who died for “God and country”.
That is just natural selection taking its course.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Given that so many of our military are giving the ultimate sacrifice in AfPak, given just how important AfPak is to our security, particularly “Pashtunistan,” and given how important India is to this region, it’s pretty hard to argue against a presidential visit, even if that visit is “expensive.”[/quote]
What?
Americans need to pay gazillions for people who pay the “ultimate sacrifice” for their naivete and gullibility or lack of other employment opportunities?
Cant they just do the decent thing and jump in front of a train or get a job flipping burgers?
[/quote]
lol. I think the “gazillions” are for the people still living. And isn’t the “ultimate sacrifice” part of the price? (maybe you don’t understand what “ultimate sacrifice” means?)
I’ll give you a 2/10 since I actually responded…pretty weak though.
If you want to make any real arguments or address any of my actual points instead of just throwing up “witty” strawmen, be my guest. You can repeat your “dogmas” too if you feel the need, I guess.
EDIT: I see you’ve already started with your oh-so-important dogmas.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Given that so many of our military are giving the ultimate sacrifice in AfPak, given just how important AfPak is to our security, particularly “Pashtunistan,” and given how important India is to this region, it’s pretty hard to argue against a presidential visit, even if that visit is “expensive.”[/quote]
What?
Americans need to pay gazillions for people who pay the “ultimate sacrifice” for their naivete and gullibility or lack of other employment opportunities?
Cant they just do the decent thing and jump in front of a train or get a job flipping burgers?
[/quote]
lol. I think the “gazillions” are for the people still living. And isn’t the “ultimate sacrifice” part of the price? (maybe you don’t understand what “ultimate sacrifice” means?)
I’ll give you a 2/10 since I actually responded…pretty weak though.
If you want to make any real arguments or address any of my actual points instead of just throwing up “witty” strawmen, be my guest. You can repeat your “dogmas” too if you feel the need, I guess. [/quote]
Here is one of my dogmas:
Forcing other people to live the way you see fit is bad mkay?
If you get shot doing that, it really is unfortunate, isnt it?
