Um, Ken..., or, suddenly, $24,000.00 for a evening out in NYC seems like a bargain...

On Wed, 03 Nov 2010 16:19:42 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
snip
Don't you have anything better to do than yap at the
President's ankles like a little, deranged chihuahua ?

Ken, I gotta tell you, if the 200 mil a day figure is remotely close to the
actual cost, I do not consider it "yap(ping) at the President's ankles," and I
do not believe for a second that if this were Bush (or any other Republican)
that you would consider it any less than what it would be, if true - a
disgusting thing.

Presidents and their families travel abroad, it's part of the
job. Where were you when Shrub traveled abroad ?

He never went anywhere - ask Sarge...

....but funny you should ask - I remember the Dems going bat**** about some trip
Bush, um, didn't take, that cost something like 3.5 million total, and had a
campaign-ish stop on the return, for which the GOP only paid something like 50
grand and the Dems said it should have been more like a mil (IIRC, it was
something like dropping off a Congressperson "at home," obviously via AF1, and
doing a grip-and-grin with them). Basically, it was some attempt at, er,
bush-league payback for the bush-league Lincoln bedroom shtick, but the numbers
are there as to cost of POTUS travel. Hell, Clinton's little ride on the Orient
Express (or was it the Great Lewinski-Dodging Safari...) only set the taxpayers
back about 40 mil, IIRC, for the entire thing. And I remember some Dems raising
hell with some trip Bush, er, didn't take and around 600 or so people went
(about 1/3 being security) in 3 planes (2 passenger and 1 cargo, which is about
SOP for any such Presidential travel - at least 2 - AF1, generally one of the
VCs/747s, and a large C17 transport for the limo and hardened ground transport,
etc. - the S.S. doesn't book from Avis and cross their fingers for a 2-class
upgrade when they get there...). But this, sheesh, it's the friggin' Berlin,
er, Mumbai airlift...

IAC, the story has been picked up by other media, including, obviously,
Limpdick, Malkintent, etc., but also a few "mainstream" outlets and the White
House commented on it. The "official comments" are not good - basically, they
immediately claimed the numbers were "wildly inflated" (without so much as
checking on _anything_), but for "security reasons" they could not give any
numbers of any kind as to the actual cost of anything. Um, yeah..."security
reasons"...good one, guys...I'm sure every terrorist from al Quida to the
Baader-Meinhoffers are sitting around whining that if only someone would slip up
and let out what the canapes cost, they could destroy the
infidels/capitalists/whatevers...and they really had their lil' ol' hearts set
on a hearty "MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"...

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Presidents and their families travel abroad, it's part of the
job. Where were you when Shrub traveled abroad ?

snip

The travel budget is a non-issue, a joke and a clumsy smear attempt
perpetrated by whackjobs like you. The President of the United States
is not going to go overseas flying economy class and bedding down at
a youth hostel. It costs what it costs. And that's true no matter if
the letter after the president's name is a D or an R.

Clearly you're obsessed and deranged. Seek help.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 09:47:21 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

The whackjob President of the United States is Clearly obsessed and deranged.
--
Ken Fortenberry

Wow...that's a surprising statement, coming from you...

HTH,
R
....hey, as long as we're playing the ol' snippedy-snip game...

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Clearly you're obsessed and deranged. Seek help.

snip

Your Obama obsession is truly pathological. When I suggested
you seek help I was not employing a rhetorical device, I mean
it Rick, seek help you're not rational.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:48:12 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Obama is truly pathological. When I suggested it
I was not employing a rhetorical device, I mean
it - not rational.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Man, I don't think he's pathological...oh, he may not always be rational, but I
think it is excessive for you to call him "pathological."

HTH,
R
....oh, sure, you may THINK you are saying one thing, but WE know what you REALLY
mean...

wrote:
snip

You've got a screw loose, poor thing.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Nov 4, 9:39*am, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:48:12 -0500, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
Obama is truly pathological. When I suggested it
I was not employing a rhetorical device, I mean
it *- not rational.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Man, I don't think he's pathological...oh, he may not always be rational, but I
think it is excessive for you to call him "pathological."

HTH,
R
...oh, sure, you may THINK you are saying one thing, but WE know what you REALLY
mean...

Richard, outing you on this stuff just gets easier and easier. Here is
a cite. EVEN RUPPERT MURDOCK's WSJ gagged at your lie, well lets just
say the lie you passed on. WJS says your take is bullcrap. Do you even
care?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/1...s-obamas-asia-...

Why do you think that it is necessary to pay your Rightard dues by
posting the crap from the Rightard Morning Talking Points E-mail on
ROFF? Can't you find some other more fertile field to grow these ****
cabbages? Or at least disguise it better? There are enough real issues
and differences if one really must post polit stuff.

Dave

DaveS wrote:
... There are enough real issues
and differences if one really must post polit stuff.

Hear, hear.

If you want to talk about really costly scandals you can
talk about the EP-3E Aries II aircraft which collided with
a Chinese jet over the South China Sea in April 2001. The
pilot along with 23 other officers and enlisted men on board
managed to make an emergency landing on Chinese soil. The
Chinese returned the 24 sailors but kept the aircraft.

The sailors, hereafter referred to as the bozos, were attached
to the National Security Agency, also bozos but let's not make
this complicated. The bozos were supposed to disable and destroy
all the equipment and software on the aircraft especially the
N.S.A. operating system on the computers. The bozos erased the
hard drive but they didn't destroy it.

The Chinese reverse-engineered the N.S.A. operating system and
had a detailed road map for decrypting the Navy's intelligence
and operational data which they proceeded to do until Obama's
team came on board. Obama ordered the complete replacement of
the EP-3E operating system at a cost of many, many trips to
India. The Navy has "no comment" and the actual cost is classified.

This is all prelude to the battle over who will be in charge
of cyber security, the N.S.A. and the military or civilians.
Really, there's a battle. The same bozos who couldn't find their
own asses with both hands and a flashlight want to be in charge
national cyber security. I wish I were joking.

Thank god for Obama, if not for him the Chinese would still be
reading about everything the Navy was up to and the military-
cyber complex would be even more a menace than it is currently.
Who do you want in charge of cyber security, the whiz kids with
the nose rings and tattoos or the bozos who join the military
because they're not bright enough to get a real job ? And who
do you think the Republicans would put in charge ?

This is the real ****, not some travel budget crap whipped up
by the whackjobs.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Nov 5, 11:15*am, DaveS wrote:
On Nov 4, 9:39*am, wrote:





On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:48:12 -0500, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
Obama is truly pathological. When I suggested it
I was not employing a rhetorical device, I mean
it *- not rational.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Man, I don't think he's pathological...oh, he may not always be rational, but I
think it is excessive for you to call him "pathological."

HTH,
R
...oh, sure, you may THINK you are saying one thing, but WE know what you REALLY
mean...

Richard, outing you on this stuff just gets easier and easier. Here is
a cite. EVEN RUPPERT MURDOCK's WSJ gagged at your lie, well lets just
say the lie you passed on. WJS says your take is bullcrap. Do you even
care?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/1...s-obamas-asia-...

Why do you think that it is necessary to pay your Rightard dues by
posting the crap from the Rightard Morning Talking Points E-mail on
ROFF? Can't you find some other more fertile field to grow these ****
cabbages? Or at least disguise it better? There are enough real issues
and differences if one really must post polit stuff.

Dave- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hopefully this is a better addy for the Wall Street Journal put down
of the bogus Rightard lies about the cost of the Obama Indian trip. In
any case you can check out their fact finding in the WSJ of 11/4/10.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/1...mas-asia-trip/

Dave

i wonder if he ( ass wipe - o'bummer ) is going to India to allow
them to take out Pakistan?

Probably not, more like he needs tech support for his Dell.....