Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -home.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've heard it stated that the Obama's "sent" an Osprey to go pick up their dog. But I don't know if that's true. Was it perhaps a situation where the Osprey was going to be transporting Secret Service agents or something "official" anyway and the Obama's just asked that the dog be brought along?

It's bad either way. Whichever party, this thing we do with Presidents where we treat them like royalty and allow them to personally benefit in ways unrelated to their job responsibilities from public funds, goods, equipment, and facilities is disgusting. No way a military aircraft should be used to fly a dog to a family vacation site. But it wouldn't be AS bad if the aircraft was making the trip for official purposes anyway.

Seriously, public resources should only be expended for things directly related to the President's job responsibilities and for his security. And even that is over the top now. The President is not THAT important. The security afforded to the person holding that position now is over the top. Way more resources than are reasonably necessary are devoted to it and they go way to far in disrupting the lives of others in trying to ensure it.

Again: The President is just the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of government. Taxpayer funds beyond what is absolutely necessary to ensure a REASONABLE level of security should not be expended to support them going on vacation. And they shouldn't be able to use military aircraft to fly their dogs around. That sort of thing.

JohnStOnge wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -home.html

I've heard it stated that the Obama's "sent" an Osprey to go pick up their dog. But I don't know if that's true. Was it perhaps a situation where the Osprey was going to be transporting Secret Service agents or something "official" anyway and the Obama's just asked that the dog be brought along?

It's bad either way. Whichever party, this thing we do with Presidents where we treat them like royalty and allow them to personally benefit in ways unrelated to their job responsibilities from public funds, goods, equipment, and facilities is disgusting. No way a military aircraft should be used to fly a dog to a family vacation site. But it wouldn't be AS bad if the aircraft was making the trip for official purposes anyway.

Seriously, public resources should only be expended for things directly related to the President's job responsibilities and for his security. And even that is over the top now. The President is not THAT important. The security afforded to the person holding that position now is over the top. Way more resources than are reasonably necessary are devoted to it and they go way to far in disrupting the lives of others in trying to ensure it.

Again: The President is just the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch of government. Taxpayer funds beyond what is absolutely necessary to ensure a REASONABLE level of security should not be expended to support them going on vacation. And they shouldn't be able to use military aircraft to fly their dogs around. That sort of thing.

This is a relatively recent phenomenon that has gotten less entertaining as it grows...
It started with BUSH watch 2005 because he spent some money going somewhere deemed unnecessary by MSNBC and was therefore subject to additional scrutiny from the biased press

The Apex was when FOX News reported that the Obama trip to Africa was costing 1 billion dollars
then they adjusted and said 100 Million...
Then they corrected it again only after the entire free would pointed out that too was an obvious lie
Finally they relaxed their figures again

Jeezus people...

And Now this / when does this get old..?

I agree it's wasteful.

This is even more disgusting than what's his name from XYZ bank spending $80,000 on an office toilet while Rome burned back in 2008. But hey, what's his name was a "capitalist" who made his money in the "free market" so there'd be no reason for JSO or any other conk to start a thread about that kind stuff...on account of the free market and such.

IF, agents or government officials were leaving DC for Martha's Vineyard and were asked to bring the dog, then I don't see problem.

Why bother being part of the ruling class if you have to play by the same rules as the peasants?

File this under 'who gives a flying vertical fuck'...pun very intended.

Ibanez wrote:IF, agents or government officials were leaving DC for Martha's Vineyard and were asked to bring the dog, then I don't see problem.

That would make it a lot more defensible. However, if you know anyone who works for the Executive Branch of the Federal government you should talk to them about how stringent the Ethics rules are and how anything that creates even the impression that one is enjoying any special benefit by virtue of working for the Executive Branch must be avoided. Basically, the rule is that if any member of the general public would not get the same benefit then the Executive Branch employee can not get it.

And I'm pretty sure a member of the general public couldn't get the military to put their dog on an Osprey for them and bring it to their vacation site whether the Osprey was going there anyway or not.

kalm wrote:I agree it's wasteful.

This is even more disgusting than what's his name from XYZ bank spending $80,000 on an office toilet while Rome burned back in 2008. But hey, what's his name was a "capitalist" who made his money in the "free market" so there'd be no reason for JSO or any other conk to start a thread about that kind stuff...on account of the free market and such.

It's not so much that it's wasteful. It's that it is a very cavalier abuse of power. It's a "let them eat cake" action. I mean think about it. Would YOU do that? Seriously. You're President of the United States and there are a bunch of people out there having a hard time. Are you going to direct a military aircraft be dispensed to pick your DOG up and bring it to you while you're vacationing in a mansion? How "tone deaf" would you have to be to do that?

That's IF that's what he did. As I said, if the Osprey was coming anyway to bring other things that could arguably be related to official purposes such as providing security it would be somewhat different. I'd still think it's over the top. It'd still be something none of the "peasants" working in the Executive Branch would be allowed. But there would be more of an argument for it.

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:I agree it's wasteful.

This is even more disgusting than what's his name from XYZ bank spending $80,000 on an office toilet while Rome burned back in 2008. But hey, what's his name was a "capitalist" who made his money in the "free market" so there'd be no reason for JSO or any other conk to start a thread about that kind stuff...on account of the free market and such.

It's not so much that it's wasteful. It's that it is a very cavalier abuse of power. It's a "let them eat cake" action. I mean think about it. Would YOU do that? Seriously. You're President of the United States and there are a bunch of people out there having a hard time. Are you going to direct a military aircraft be dispensed to pick your DOG up and bring it to you while you're vacationing in a mansion? How "tone deaf" would you have to be to do that?

That's IF that's what he did. As I said, if the Osprey was coming anyway to bring other things that could arguably be related to official purposes such as providing security it would be somewhat different. I'd still think it's over the top. It'd still be something none of the "peasants" working in the Executive Branch would be allowed. But there would be more of an argument for it.

Since when do you give two shits about that?

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:I agree it's wasteful.

This is even more disgusting than what's his name from XYZ bank spending $80,000 on an office toilet while Rome burned back in 2008. But hey, what's his name was a "capitalist" who made his money in the "free market" so there'd be no reason for JSO or any other conk to start a thread about that kind stuff...on account of the free market and such.

It's not so much that it's wasteful. It's that it is a very cavalier abuse of power. It's a "let them eat cake" action. I mean think about it. Would YOU do that? Seriously. You're President of the United States and there are a bunch of people out there having a hard time. Are you going to direct a military aircraft be dispensed to pick your DOG up and bring it to you while you're vacationing in a mansion? How "tone deaf" would you have to be to do that?

That's IF that's what he did. As I said, if the Osprey was coming anyway to bring other things that could arguably be related to official purposes such as providing security it would be somewhat different. I'd still think it's over the top. It'd still be something none of the "peasants" working in the Executive Branch would be allowed. But there would be more of an argument for it.

If I were the prez I'd sic ol' Cletus on you and laugh while he took a chunk out your sorry ass.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Ibanez wrote:IF, agents or government officials were leaving DC for Martha's Vineyard and were asked to bring the dog, then I don't see problem.

That would make it a lot more defensible. However, if you know anyone who works for the Executive Branch of the Federal government you should talk to them about how stringent the Ethics rules are and how anything that creates even the impression that one is enjoying any special benefit by virtue of working for the Executive Branch must be avoided. Basically, the rule is that if any member of the general public would not get the same benefit then the Executive Branch employee can not get it.

And I'm pretty sure a member of the general public couldn't get the military to put their dog on an Osprey for them and bring it to their vacation site whether the Osprey was going there anyway or not.

Yeah, I'll get right on that.

I thought this thread was going to be about a raptor snatching a dog. Was hoping for video.

CID1990 wrote:I thought this thread was going to be about a raptor snatching a dog. Was hoping for video.

Me too, my first thought was "must be a small dog".

JohnStOnge wrote:

Ibanez wrote:IF, agents or government officials were leaving DC for Martha's Vineyard and were asked to bring the dog, then I don't see problem.

That would make it a lot more defensible. However, if you know anyone who works for the Executive Branch of the Federal government you should talk to them about how stringent the Ethics rules are and how anything that creates even the impression that one is enjoying any special benefit by virtue of working for the Executive Branch must be avoided. Basically, the rule is that if any member of the general public would not get the same benefit then the Executive Branch employee can not get it.

And I'm pretty sure a member of the general public couldn't get the military to put their dog on an Osprey for them and bring it to their vacation site whether the Osprey was going there anyway or not.

WTF are you talking about? Being President is ONE BIG SERIES OF SPECIAL BENEFITS GAINED BY VIRTUE OF WORKING FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

JohnStOnge wrote:

kalm wrote:I agree it's wasteful.

This is even more disgusting than what's his name from XYZ bank spending $80,000 on an office toilet while Rome burned back in 2008. But hey, what's his name was a "capitalist" who made his money in the "free market" so there'd be no reason for JSO or any other conk to start a thread about that kind stuff...on account of the free market and such.

It's not so much that it's wasteful. It's that it is a very cavalier abuse of power. It's a "let them eat cake" action. I mean think about it. Would YOU do that? Seriously. You're President of the United States and there are a bunch of people out there having a hard time. Are you going to direct a military aircraft be dispensed to pick your DOG up and bring it to you while you're vacationing in a mansion? How "tone deaf" would you have to be to do that?

That's IF that's what he did. As I said, if the Osprey was coming anyway to bring other things that could arguably be related to official purposes such as providing security it would be somewhat different. I'd still think it's over the top. It'd still be something none of the "peasants" working in the Executive Branch would be allowed. But there would be more of an argument for it.

You're copying BDK. He used the same exact "let them eat cake" line on the same topic in a different thread.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Ibanez wrote:IF, agents or government officials were leaving DC for Martha's Vineyard and were asked to bring the dog, then I don't see problem.

That would make it a lot more defensible. However, if you know anyone who works for the Executive Branch of the Federal government you should talk to them about how stringent the Ethics rules are and how anything that creates even the impression that one is enjoying any special benefit by virtue of working for the Executive Branch must be avoided. Basically, the rule is that if any member of the general public would not get the same benefit then the Executive Branch employee can not get it.

And I'm pretty sure a member of the general public couldn't get the military to put their dog on an Osprey for them and bring it to their vacation site whether the Osprey was going there anyway or not.

I know one person that works in the WH and ethics are good ideas and not actually guidelines.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I thought this thread was going to be about a raptor snatching a dog. Was hoping for video.

Me too, my first thought was "must be a small dog".

I also thought this at first. This thread is a big disappointment.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWFtWzFbXCY[/youtube]

Ibanez wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
It's not so much that it's wasteful. It's that it is a very cavalier abuse of power. It's a "let them eat cake" action. I mean think about it. Would YOU do that? Seriously. You're President of the United States and there are a bunch of people out there having a hard time. Are you going to direct a military aircraft be dispensed to pick your DOG up and bring it to you while you're vacationing in a mansion? How "tone deaf" would you have to be to do that?

That's IF that's what he did. As I said, if the Osprey was coming anyway to bring other things that could arguably be related to official purposes such as providing security it would be somewhat different. I'd still think it's over the top. It'd still be something none of the "peasants" working in the Executive Branch would be allowed. But there would be more of an argument for it.

You're copying BDK. He used the same exact "let them eat cake" line on the same topic in a different thread.

Pretty sad when you have to get your material from BDMBSHT.

To Johnny's point:
This president has proven (over and over again) that he is not "change" nor is he that interested in "Change"
it's the same old same old / again and again

He's a master Politician (and that is NOT a compliment) who got elected to the highest post

Chizzang wrote:To Johnny's point:
This president has proven (over and over again) that he is not "change" nor is he that interested in "Change"
it's the same old same old / again and again

He's a master Politician (and that is NOT a compliment) who got elected to the highest post

And unlike his predecessor he doesn't have stupidity for an excuse.

houndawg wrote:

Chizzang wrote:To Johnny's point:
This president has proven (over and over again) that he is not "change" nor is he that interested in "Change"
it's the same old same old / again and again

He's a master Politician (and that is NOT a compliment) who got elected to the highest post

And unlike his predecessor he doesn't have stupidity for an excuse.

Agreed,
However Obama's not nearly as "smart" as we were led to believe either

Chizzang wrote:

houndawg wrote:


And unlike his predecessor he doesn't have stupidity for an excuse.

Agreed,
However Obama's not nearly as "smart" as we were led to believe either

Sweet Jesus, there's the understatement of the year. Just unplug his teleprompter and you see just what a village idiot he really is.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Agreed,
However Obama's not nearly as "smart" as we were led to believe either

Sweet Jesus, there's the understatement of the year. Just unplug his teleprompter and you see just what a village idiot he really is.

He's still freaking Steven Hawking compared to his predecessor - no excuse.