I only mentioned McCain and Powell. I know some of you think they are Republican in Name Only, but that's because the Republican Party itself has changed... drastically. If we use traditional conservative values as a measure, the term RINO would be more accurately applied to the current GOP itself.

In light of what's happening in Syria, that isn't surprising - it means that Obama is standing his ground and it pisses the Russians off. I guess you think that's a bad thing.


Absolutely! Do you have any idea how much business is accomplished on golf courses and at sporting events? Why do you think our stadiums are being overtaken by corporate boxes?

Here's something else you probably haven't thought of... The president actually has two jobs...

1. Head of Government
2. Head of State.

The British have a much better system, where each job is handled by a different person... the Prime Minister is the head of government, rolls up his sleeves and get's to work while the monarch serves as the Head of State, so special appearances, ceremonies, all that good-will stuff. But unfortunately, our system saddles the president with both jobs.

Throughout human history heads of state have always appeared in extravagant settings and much of it has to do with representing the power or importance of the nation he represents. Cathedrals are a great example of using extravagance to represent importance and as silly as it seems, it DOES have an effect on people. So it makes sense that being head of state still carries that stipulation. If we had a president that insisted on driving his own car and eating out of brown bags to save money, the message he would be sending the rest of the world would be that the USA is poor and incapable - just look at their leader eating P&J sandwiches. How sad.

So excuse me for saying this, but you guys are bitching about something you don't really understand and you're doing it because first and foremost you hate the president... Everything else is subsequent.


Stooges of the Zionists? Are you being anti-Semitic now?

Personally, I'd rather see my president flying around the world and talking to people about political issues than hiding out on his ranch. As far as I am concerned, it's money better spent.

Let me get this straight... You are saying that we spent $1.4 billion just on Michelle Obama in one year... I don't buy it.

Again... You're either going to have to provide some sources or the numbers along with your comments goes in the "I hate Obama" bucket.

And that's fine for the rage rallies - but when people start having intellectual conversations the difference becomes important.


Yes, I understand the struggle with federal influence over education and I have mixed feelings about it. But if education or some part of education is brought under federal jurisdiction the 10th won't be "blown out" as long as the change is mandated constitutionally, as an amendment for example.


In my intro post, I mentioned my feelings about this. I think the nation is far too large for one central government to control. I am something of an anti-federalist in that sense. In fact, the framers of the Constitution originally intended to provide one representative for every 50-60,000 people. That's pretty decent representation. Today, the average size of a district is 700,000 people and growing. That's NOT very good representation. From 1790 to 1910, the number of districts increased every ten years in order to keep up with the increasing population. In 1910 the number of representatives reached 435. In 1929 Congress passed a bill that says the number of representatives will stay at 435 regardless of how large the population gets. That should have been the indication way back then that the country has outgrown it's federal government.

You might want to take a look at this...
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

leftist controllers... I like that.
Homophobia is a word recognized by enough people to function as an effective word. Wikipedia defines it as a word that "encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender."



Tasine - you are referring to a small subset of the gay community. I think it's a fault to assume the behavior of these "flamers" is a reflection of the typical behavior of gay people.


Says who? if not me, the courts or the lawmakers then who? The... inventor of reality? LOL.


Which legislation are you talking about? DOMA? Of course it wasn't. That law was a strike *against* equality. Are you getting confused as to what side I'm on?


Well, it DOES divide us... Not sure how you think it suits the socialists and communists. I'd love to you explain that one. Psychopaths? Really? I didn't know psychopaths were so organized that they had a political interest.


LOL - I don't even know what the "politically correct" crowd is. I think it depends on beholder, but if you're referring to the people who advocate equality, then it's funny how you say they don't have a moral bone in their entire "structure". Seriously, where do you people come up with this stuff?


Wow... what kind of drugs are you taking?

First of all, the only law being discussed in this topic is DOMA... As in Defense Of Marriage Act, a law that excludes homosexuals from marriage rights. Here you are throwing every rotten tomato you can find at this law while ranting about how equality is such BS.

Then, as if it couldn't get any better - you go off on how being politically correct destroys civilizations.

Ah... *whew* thank you for the laugh.

When you get the real estimate - specifically for the additional cost of his family safari. I'll let you know if I support it or not.

Dude... c'mon. *think* about this...
...the state..(government).
...the city..(government).
...the county..(government).

are you *seeing* this?



OK... took me a couple of reads but I think I see what you are saying... some services I listed are covered by the city government, not the federal government... it's still government oldroy... It's still politicians and taxes. Not private enterprises.



Yep, got all that. You just gave us a fine run down on how various levels of government pay for everything on my list.

BTW, I'm not a "prog"

I agree with a lot of things progressives advocate, but I navigate by a different star. Progressives are essentially protectors of big business against revolution. A movement initiated by Teddy Roosevelt's administration in the face of the extreme popularity of socialism and it's potential for extreme impact on the currently profitable economic system.

It was a genius move where the government chose to negotiate with labor unions rather than socialists and it may be the reason why communism never really stood a chance in America.

Here's the progressive movement in a nutshell...
Throw the dog a bone - how hard can that be?

...So instead of provoking riots and revolution like the kings of Russia and France, why not toss a few bones..? what will it take to calm you workers down? What would it take to distract you, to placate you? So you keep working and we keep owning?

...and here we are, entering a new era where the powers of wealth are expanding to global dimensions and growing impatient with the need to pacify American workers. So they take out an insurance policy called the United States Government and set it up with the ability to drop all that sissy progressive crap and just put the US labor force in prison. Reduces labor cost.

Somewhere between now and there, is where progressives and I will part ways.

...furthermore ;)

To return to the point... It started here...



...to which I explained, corporations don't actually charge taxes, but they *do* charge a sale. Then I said...



...to which you responded...



...so, what does all this nonsense about what kind of person I am have to do with whether or not corporations charge people for their extravagance?

Typical delusion found in the ignorant depths of useful idiots. Not that it makes any difference to you but my signature is actually *on* a corporate charter... I was the CTO and fellow founder of a small corporation of 12 people. Since then, I have continued to make a good living working on contracts with major corporations.

So yeah... I hate corporations. :roll:

What I hate is how our democracy is turning into a plutocracy because of the increasing influence that *some* corporations have over our government, often at the expense of the people. I also hate people who think all corporations are the same and so any critic of a corporate scam is anti-corporation in general. It's such a stupid view.


I'm willing to bet that I know far more about that than you do. I charge a billing rate for my services and I have to remain competitive or I don't get the job. So I *do* get the concept there Sparky. By the same token, the government can't raise their taxes to whatever level they desire either. They have to contend with due-process which involves opposition, arguments and then the tax gets put to a vote.



Well, I don't work for the government, I am a self-employed consultant that works with Fortune 500 companies and I have NEVER joined a union. So you're character judgment really sucks. Maybe you just don't have a clue what I am talking about. Maybe you like so many others here, just look to see what "side" you think someone is on and then choose not to pay attention to what is actually being said.

Maybe this is why they call people like you, useful idiots.

Yes, you do.
You HAVE to eat, right? So... you HAVE to buy food. Maybe we can choose *which* producer we buy food from, but again, at the bottom line - you STILL HAVE to buy a product. What about electricity? Ya want that? What about water? Want that too? Well.... those are products to. And with utilities like water and electricity many of us don't get to choose who we buy it from. OK, so maybe no one is actually telling you that you HAVE to buy water. But then again, no one really has to.



Why do people just say things like that? You don't even know.

President Obama spent 78 days on vacation from 2009 to 2011. At the three year mark into their first terms, George W. Bush spent 180 days on vacation and Ronald Reagan spent 112. Bush has the current record for spending time on vacation which amounted to 32% of his entire presidency.

Maybe Obama spends more per day while on vacation... I don't really know and you probably don't either. So all I'm saying at this point, is I don't think it's likely that Obama has the record for spending tax money on vacations. You're either going to have to provide some numbers and sources or your comment goes in the "I hate Obama, so I say anything to criticize him" BS bucket.

Appearance can be deceiving. ;)


Yes... I know all this...

...So?

Look, I'm not denying, nor have I ever denied the added cost of taking additional people on his trip. I'm just saying it's business as usual. You folks seem to think this is something outrageous and new. I suppose you didn't have any comment for when the Bush took his retarded wife and drunk-ass daughters on his vacations, which is how he spent an amazing 32% of his presidency. Even FDR, who was in office 12 years from 1933 to 1945, was on vacation less days than President Bush at 958 days. You wanna get into this? Of course you don't because you LIKE Bush... so a different set of standards for him, right?

Now, my comparison to private industry was to further emphasize the point that this is normal business for executives in all sectors, public AND private and that the impact on our wallets is essentially the same. A certain percentage of the money we spend on taxes supports the luxuries of our statesmen and a certain percentage of the money we spend on the price for just about everything we buy also supports the luxuries of private executives.

Bottom line... wrong or right... it's business as usual and Obama is NOT an exception.

OK...

First of all the government doesn't "make money" The government is a non-profit organization. What it does is collect taxes to cover the cost of the services it provides.

So... what are these services? What do we get in return for the taxes we spend?

Well, we get...

> police protection.
> fire protection.
> military protection.
> postal services.
> roads
> schools.
> libraries.
> prisons.
> hospitals.
> quality assurance for food.
> protection from slave wages.
> protection from corporate monopolies.

I can go on and on, but this should be enough to deliver the point.

Were you the one who said you built roads through Wyoming? Where do you think your paycheck came from? Taxes.

What about your pal Dutchman - Mr. Military... where do you think HIS paychecks came from? Uh... taxes.

You guys were PART of the government-funded service industry and you don't even know how it works?

... don't forget the biggest chunk of taxes - being spent on the debts incurred by all those conservatives leaders in the past who preferred to *borrow* money to cover their expanding government so they can tell their useful idiots that they aren't spending tax money.

Yeah, so it's not tax money until the Democrat comes in to actually pay the bills. Look, it's really not that complicated. It actually blows my mind how so many conservatives go out of their way to deny the obvious. This is how I know the conservative base is not based on rational thinking but on emotional prejudice.

You prove this to me every day.

Uh... Corporations don't charge taxes oldroy... The comparison I am making is at the bottom line... that part you never seem to get to. The part where $5 spent is $5 spent... At the bottom line, it doesn't matter if the expenditure is a tax or a price tag... it's *still* $5 gone.

Corporations *do* in fact charge higher prices for their products to cover their cost of production, paid vacations for their employees, luxuries for their executives and sometimes their sales departments AND maximized profits for their investors.

In other words... business... as... usual...