I Wear Pants;549076 wrote:While I think KnightRyder is over reacting here, I do believe that Fox could have easily realized this $200 million number wasn't real if it thought about it at all.

Doesn't mean they did anything wrong or that other networks don't do too. Just sloppy.

do you think fox aired this nonsense without no thought? really how much thought does it take to realize this is bull? i believe that fox aired it knowing it false, but also knowing their viewers would buy it. with no facts to back it up

KnightRyder;550017 wrote:do you think fox aired this nonsense without no thought? really how much thought does it take to realize this is bull? i believe that fox aired it knowing it false, but also knowing their viewers would buy it. with no facts to back it up

In the age of Internet rumors and lax reporting standards, Fox is no different than anyone else -- and better than many.

I Wear Pants;549959 wrote:What makes you think that this trip is any more expensive than past presidential trips?

Never said I thought this trip is more expensive and why should that matter? That is the same excuses our parents were supposed to wash out of our heads when we were children. I bet you will find about 10-20% waste in every government endeavour.

I Wear Pants;549959 wrote:What I mean is that you probably wouldn't even be saying anything if it weren't for the ridiculous $200 million claim.

Maybe not on this particular issue, but I and people like me have been bitching about government waste of taxpayer dollars for decades. It made its way to the press and onto this site so we are talking about it.

I Wear Pants;549959 wrote:And before you go "well why don't they just tell us", have they ever made it a habit to do that during/right after presidential trips? Did we hear the exact cost of all of Bush's, and Clinton's trips during or directly after?

Here we go again with Bush/Clinton/Reagan it was like this. I don't give a shit if George Washington did something a certain way. If it was wrong and their was government waste, it should be questioned and changed. I have no doubt that plenty of waste and excess existed in our first government.

Part of the reason there is more critisim the last few years is because many Americans are hurting financially and have been forced to tighten their belts. They have every right to question and critisize any government expenditure.

KnightRyder;550015 wrote:its not up to the goverment to present anything. the burden of proof is on the accuser. and what proof has the accuser provided?

Any allocation of taxpayers dollars can be called into question for any reason by the public or press. This kind of information should be made readily available to the public.

majorspark;550025 wrote:Never said I thought this trip is more expensive and why should that matter? That is the same excuses our parents were supposed to wash out of our heads when we were children. I bet you will find about 10-20% waste in every government endeavour.



Maybe not on this particular issue, but I and people like me have been bitching about government waste of taxpayer dollars for decades. It made its way to the press and onto this site so we are talking about it.



Here we go again with Bush/Clinton/Reagan it was like this. I don't give a shit if George Washington did something a certain way. If it was wrong and their was government waste, it should be questioned and changed. I have no doubt that plenty of waste and excess existed in our first government.

Part of the reason there is more critisim the last few years is because many Americans are hurting financially and have been forced to tighten their belts. They have every right to question and critisize any government expenditure.

You're right here then I guess.

I still refuse to get upset about this though when there are better things for me to get upset about.

And the Bush/Clinton/Reagan/Washington comment I was thinking more about the talking heads and leaders of the Republican party than anyone on here. I just hate how those talking heads act like Obama is the first president to take trips or the first one to campaign during midterms. That doesn't mean that it's right since others did it. I just wish they'd mention it is all.

I think it makes sense to talk about the past, in this situation...because it demonstrates, quite simply, that Presidents are expected to travel, it is part of their job, etc.

majorspark;550032 wrote:Any allocation of taxpayers dollars can be called into question for any reason by the public or press. This kind of information should be made readily available to the public.

says who?

Writerbuckeye;550023 wrote:In the age of Internet rumors and lax reporting standards, Fox is no different than anyone else -- and better than many.

the age of lax reporting standards were ushered in by fox. fox , as many posters state is supposedly #1. is it to much to ask for, that they check the for facts before airing story? this just a blatant disregard for the truth and just another attempt by fox to smear a democrat president.

KnightRyder;550335 wrote:says who?

Now you're just being stupid.

What happen to this Obama transparent government the Public Servant sold to many of you weak minded entitlement Acorn card carrying individual ...... Seems the idea of providing public documentation for a field trip to pick up bath towels can’t be publicized to the publics sector …Why?

I will tell you why? Because in the end and after the media stop squiring about the wonderfulness of Obama the end product will be failure….

Belly35;550379 wrote:What happen to this Obama transparent government the Public Servant sold to many of you weak minded entitlement Acorn card carrying individual ...... Seems the idea of providing public documentation for a field trip to pick up bath towels can’t be publicized to the publics sector …Why?

I will tell you why? Because in the end and after the media stop squiring about the wonderfulness of Obama the end product will be failure….

so are you saying he fall in the category of GWB?

Yes he does. The problem is that Obama said he'd be different on that front and sadly he hasn't so far. Hopefully he starts to do better on that front as even the Obama haters on this board can agree that they'd feel a bit better with some more dialogue and transparency even if it's about programs they don't like.

He's not worse than Bush in that regard but we're not deriding Obama because he's necessarily less transparent than his predicessors. The problem is that he said he'd be better than them. It's like if the Yankees lose in the first round of the playoffs. That's not a bad year by any means. The problem is that they promise to win the World Series every year. If you make a promise and then don't keep it you're open to some criticism.

I'm not on the "Obama is a communist Muslim ruining the country" bandwagon but I could use a bit more dialogue and transparency from the White House.

I Wear Pants;551245 wrote:Yes he does. The problem is that Obama said he'd be different on that front and sadly he hasn't so far. Hopefully he starts to do better on that front as even the Obama haters on this board can agree that they'd feel a bit better with some more dialogue and transparency even if it's about programs they don't like.

He's not worse than Bush in that regard but we're not deriding Obama because he's necessarily less transparent than his predicessors. The problem is that he said he'd be better than them. It's like if the Yankees lose in the first round of the playoffs. That's not a bad year by any means. The problem is that they promise to win the World Series every year. If you make a promise and then don't keep it you're open to some criticism.

I'm not on the "Obama is a communist Muslim ruining the country" bandwagon but I could use a bit more dialogue and transparency from the White House.

Pretty much how i feel.

Keep waiting. The transparency thing will never happen as long as Obama continues to sign BS, asinine and unwanted legislation. There was a reason there was no transparency during the healthcare "reform" debacle, as an example.

Agreed, i hate the health care bill.

But, the point is, i want a lot more out of Obama, i'm not happy with him, but i'm also not going to turn into Belly et al. and call him a Kenyan Muslim Communist, or whatever they're calling him nowadays.

cbus4life;551556 wrote:Agreed, i hate the health care bill.

But, the point is, i want a lot more out of Obama, i'm not happy with him, but i'm also not going to turn into Belly et al. and call him a Kenyan Muslim Communist, or whatever they're calling him nowadays.

What's wrong with being a Muslim? Are you saying one is unfit to hold the highest elected office in the world?

I'm really curious to see how Obama responds over the next two years. It seems a lot of Dems in Congress (and some governors) are distancing themselves from him.

majorspark;550032 wrote:Any allocation of taxpayers dollars can be called into question for any reason by the public or press. This kind of information should be made readily available to the public.

did GWB show the american public proof that WMD's existed before invading iraq? was that invasion a allocation of taxpayers dollars?

oh thats right he didnt have any proof

KnightRyder;551870 wrote:oh thats right he didnt have any proof

Did Congress and the Senate have proof ...oh! That right they where Democrat Majority but that does not count

Belly35;551904 wrote:Did Congress and the Senate have proof ...oh! That right they where Democrat Majority but that does not count

since when did he need the approval of congress and the senate to invade iraq.

KnightRyder;552094 wrote:since when did he need the approval of congress and the senate to invade iraq.

Declaration of War, per the Constitution.
Now, while Bush did not seek the official declaration, he did send Congress a blank check for military operations against Iraq in 2003.
The last official declaration of war was WWII.

Belly35;551904 wrote:Did Congress and the Senate have proof ...oh! That right they where Democrat Majority but that does not count

The 2003 Senate was Democrat, by a margin of 1 or so and the House was Republican.

KnightRyder;551867 wrote:did GWB show the american public proof that WMD's existed before invading iraq? was that invasion a allocation of taxpayers dollars?

He did, or at least the Intelligence Community and DoD and State did. Turned out, the information was false.
But, you are something that the war was extremely costly and the DoD full costs were hidden or not known till at least 2007. Obama's FY 2010 budget was the first to include Iraq in the DoD budget itself and not a supplement as before.

ptown_trojans_1;552141 wrote:He did, or at least the Intelligence Community and DoD and State did. Turned out, the information was false.
But, you are something that the war was extremely costly and the DoD full costs were hidden or not known till at least 2007. Obama's FY 2010 budget was the first to include Iraq in the DoD budget itself and not a supplement as before.

well how did colin powell know that there was no WMD's? how did he know the info was false if GWB didnt?

ptown_trojans_1;552129 wrote:Declaration of War, per the Constitution.
Now, while Bush did not seek the official declaration, he did send Congress a blank check for military operations against Iraq in 2003.
The last official declaration of war was WWII.

they sent a check for his war on terrorism