I hope Rush Limbaugh's kidneys fail.

[QUOTE="Maniacc1"]

Do you really think Obama himself allowed the plane to fly over Manhattan? Try Louis Caldera. Did he make the joke about kidney failure, or was he unaware of what a comedian hired at the dinner would say? Can you prove he was laughing at the jokes? I like to judge my presidents off of foreign and domestic policy, maybe that's just me.

Shame-usBlackley

So it's okay that the president doesn't know what his plane is doing? Most people I know would call that inept, no?

And it doesn't matter whether he was "unaware" of what she would say, that's what the term "character" means. Are you saying that if someone applauded at a KKK rally that that shouldn't be held against someone because they were unaware of what was going to be said? What a weak argument.

Obama's foreign policy blows too. And domestically, how are you liking the new and improved Patriot Act, chief?

Foriegn policy blows, I guess actually trying to make people like the U.S. is a bad thing, we should just invade anybody who doesn't like us. And Obama is horrible he hasn't manufactured enough evidence to start an unjust war.

Patriot Act = Congress

Patriot Act was here when Bush was president too.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]So it's okay that the president doesn't know what his plane is doing? Most people I know would call that inept, no?>-Sun_Tzu-

Well, he should've. For God's sake, anytime the plane takes off he should be briefed on it. If for no other reason that it costs 350 large and a military escort to do so. There's nothing wrong with delegating authority, but when it's your PERSONAL PLANE, it's another thing entirely.

And besides, that doesn't get into him cracking jokes about it a week later like it was funny or okay. I can assure you that it is NOT okay, and there were people scared by what happened. I'm serious when I say this: I don't think the guy's evil or mean-spirited, I just think he's either thick or out of touch.

Oh, and danwallacefan, you'll get your pm in due time. -Sun_Tzu-

Foriegn policy blows, I guess actually trying to make people like the U.S. is a bad thing, we should just invade anybody who doesn't like us. And Obama is horrible he hasn't manufactured enough evidence to start an unjust war.

Patriot Act = Congress

Patriot Act was here when Bush was president too.

Ace_WondersX

Yeah, because that's exactly what I was saying.:|Oh, would that unjust war be the one in Afghanistan? The one he just asked for 18,000 more troops for? And the one that the European nations told him to piss off over? That one?

Candidate Obama crapped on the Patriot Act, and now President Obama has not only kept it -- he's STRENGTHENED it. I just find it funny that kool-aid drinkers who were SOOOOO bothered by the Patriot Act under Bush are now completely fine with it under Obama.....

And yeah -- congress came up with the Patriot Act. Whatever, dude.

So it's okay that the president doesn't know what his plane is doing? Most people I know would call that inept, no?

And it doesn't matter whether he was "unaware" of what she would say, that's what the term "character" means. Are you saying that if someone applauded at a KKK rally that that shouldn't be held against someone because they were unaware of what was going to be said? What a weak argument.

Obama's foreign policy blows too. And domestically, how are you liking the new and improved Patriot Act, chief?

Shame-usBlackley

Yeah, it is ok because part of being in a position of power is putting trust in those below you. I find it hard to believe the President of the United States can possibly be aware of every order and authorization he didn't oversee. I'm still waiting for proof that Obama was laughing at the comments.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]

Foriegn policy blows, I guess actually trying to make people like the U.S. is a bad thing, we should just invade anybody who doesn't like us. And Obama is horrible he hasn't manufactured enough evidence to start an unjust war.

Patriot Act = Congress

Patriot Act was here when Bush was president too.

Shame-usBlackley

Yeah, because that's exactly what I was saying.:|Oh, would that unjust war be the one in Afghanistan? The one he just asked for 18,000 more troops for? And the one that the European nations told him to piss off over? That one?

Candidate Obama crapped on the Patriot Act, and now President Obama has not only kept it -- he's STRENGTHENED it. I just find it funny that kool-aid drinkers who were SOOOOO bothered by the Patriot Act under Bush are now completely fine with it under Obama.....

And yeah -- congress came up with the Patriot Act. Whatever, dude.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

So it's okay that the president doesn't know what his plane is doing? Most people I know would call that inept, no?

And it doesn't matter whether he was "unaware" of what she would say, that's what the term "character" means. Are you saying that if someone applauded at a KKK rally that that shouldn't be held against someone because they were unaware of what was going to be said? What a weak argument.

Obama's foreign policy blows too. And domestically, how are you liking the new and improved Patriot Act, chief?

Maniacc1

Yeah, it is ok because part of being in a position of power is putting trust in those below you. I find it hard to believe the President of the United States can possibly be aware of every order and authorization he didn't oversee. I'm still waiting for proof that Obama was laughing at the comments.

OH YEAH!

Since I have not seen ONE person mention the context in which Wanda made the joke, I will:

She pointed out that by Rush saying he wanted Obama to fail, he wanted America to fail. And that this amounted to treason. And that wanting America to fail is wanting families to starve and die.

So she would rather Rush just die instead. Just in case someone here doesn't know.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that she said Rush's stance made him no different than Bin Laden. And of course, he wants America to die, and most of "us" want him to die in return. See where I am going with this?

I think she did go over the top, but, then again, I really don't care one way or another.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]So it's okay that the president doesn't know what his plane is doing? Most people I know would call that inept, no?>Shame-usBlackley

Well, he should've. For God's sake, anytime the plane takes off he should be briefed on it. If for no other reason that it costs 350 large and a military escort to do so. There's nothing wrong with delegating authority, but when it's your PERSONAL PLANE, it's another thing entirely.

And besides, that doesn't get into him cracking jokes about it a week later like it was funny or okay. I can assure you that it is NOT okay, and there were people scared by what happened. I'm serious when I say this: I don't think the guy's evil or mean-spirited, I just think he's either thick or out of touch.

But I agree with you on the Airforce 1 joke. I felt it was in bad taste.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Oh, and danwallacefan, you'll get your pm in due time. danwallacefan

You are asking him to micro manage something so trivial, something so ridiculously frivolous. One of the benefits of being president is that those trivial responsibilities are relieved in order to allow president to focus his attention on far greater responsibilities.

But I agree with you on the Airforce 1 joke. I felt it was in bad taste.

-Sun_Tzu-

Let's just look at it from the monetary perspective: $350 grand in tax money is trivial? Is a guy being accountable for his own plane really micromanaging?

And now let's look at it from another perspective: The CEO of my company somehow manages to keep people from joyriding around in his car while still maintaining his job duties just fine, and I think it'd be easier to joyride around in an SEL than it would a jumbo jet that requires a military escort. Can a presidential aide even order a military escort?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

You are asking him to micro manage something so trivial, something so ridiculously frivolous. One of the benefits of being president is that those trivial responsibilities are relieved in order to allow president to focus his attention on far greater responsibilities.

But I agree with you on the Airforce 1 joke. I felt it was in bad taste.

Shame-usBlackley

Let's just look at it from the monetary perspective: $350 grand in tax money is trivial? Is a guy being accountable for his own plane really micromanaging?

And now let's look at it from another perspective: The CEO of my company somehow manages to keep people from joyriding around in his car while still maintaining his job duties just fine, and I think it'd be easier to joyride around in an SEL than it would a jumbo jet that requires a military escort. Can a presidential aide even order a military escort?

You say "his own plane" like it's me loaning my car to someone. It is the governments plane to be usedtransporting the president around.

And the cost of escorting the plane is only in effect if the president is in it. There was no escort when it was flown that day, just a fighter jet taking pictures.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

You are asking him to micro manage something so trivial, something so ridiculously frivolous. One of the benefits of being president is that those trivial responsibilities are relieved in order to allow president to focus his attention on far greater responsibilities.

But I agree with you on the Airforce 1 joke. I felt it was in bad taste.

Shame-usBlackley

Let's just look at it from the monetary perspective: $350 grand in tax money is trivial? Is a guy being accountable for his own plane really micromanaging?

And now let's look at it from another perspective: The CEO of my company somehow manages to keep people from joyriding around in his car while still maintaining his job duties just fine, and I think it'd be easier to joyride around in an SEL than it would a jumbo jet that requires a military escort. Can a presidential aide even order a military escort?

You say "his own plane" like it's me loaning my car to someone. It is the governments plane to be usedtransporting the president around.

And the cost of escorting the plane is only in effect if the president is in it. There was no escort when it was flown that day, just a fighter jet taking pictures.

TBoogy

The cost was $320k+. Read itfor yourself. And yeah, it was totally Rahm Emanuel flying the fighter jet, thus it wasn't a military escort.

Obama doesn't own Air Force One, the federal goverment does.Ace_WondersX

More weak logic. So by your rationale, ownership (in the classic sense I'm assuming, since possession is the majority stake in conferring ownership in the eyes of the law) does not infer responsibility? So if I go lease a vehicle from Ford, I can do whatever I want with it because Ford's name is on the title instead of mine? Even though I drive it and I'm responsible for its everyday use?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

You are asking him to micro manage something so trivial, something so ridiculously frivolous. One of the benefits of being president is that those trivial responsibilities are relieved in order to allow president to focus his attention on far greater responsibilities.

But I agree with you on the Airforce 1 joke. I felt it was in bad taste.

Shame-usBlackley

Let's just look at it from the monetary perspective: $350 grand in tax money is trivial?

And now let's look at it from another perspective: The CEO of my company somehow manages to keep people from joyriding around in his car while still maintaining his job duties just fine, and I think it'd be easier to joyride around in an SEL than it would a jumbo jet that requires a military escort. Can a presidential aide even order a military escort?

And while Obama has the final say when it comes to how Air Force 1 is used, it is not exactly his personal property. It is the property of the government, and the government encompasses more than just the president. Therefore, your CEO analogy is flawed. A better analogy would involve a company owned vechicle; something that I doubt your CEO micro manages.

I'm sure Limbaugh will be thanking Sykes for providing him with fresh fodder for his show. He'll play the victim card, say things like "can't argue against me, so they resort to insults", and will play short little sound bites to get his listeners riled up.

Oleg_Huzwog

Pretty much.

Using that logic, the president shouldn't delegate any authority at all and micro manage the department of defense, the CIA, the state department, the department of the treasury, the department of justice, the department of homeland security... and all of these are also far more important than Air Force 1 PR, and far more expensive than what costs when Air Force one takes off. If you are going to look at it from an objective monetary perspective, 350k is less than a drop in the bucket of tax money that is spent, and Obama isn't his own budget director regardless.

And while Obama has the final say when it comes to how Air Force 1 is used, it is not exactly his personal property. It is the property of the government, and the government encompasses more than just the president. Therefore, your CEO analogy is flawed. A better analogy would involve a company owned vechicle; something that I doubt your CEO micro manages.

-Sun_Tzu-

The CEO's car IS in the company's name. Yet it's still his car. :P

Air Force One isn't just any plane. And there's only two of them to keep track of, after all. We're not talking about keeping tabs on a fleet or anything. You're right, though -- why worry about 'micro-managing' what Air Force One is doing when it gets in the way of your Leno appearances and press functions?

Really, though, the argument you're waging is disingenuous because it could be pooped out every time ANY president screws up "Hey, whaddaya want, a micromanagement president?!" could be used to attempt to silence those who want he or she held accountable for said mistake(s.)

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]Obama doesn't own Air Force One, the federal goverment does.Shame-usBlackley

More weak logic. So by your rationale, ownership (in the classic sense I'm assuming, since possession is the majority stake in conferring ownership in the eyes of the law) does not infer responsibility? So if I go lease a vehicle from Ford, I can do whatever I want with it because Ford's name is on the title instead of mine? Even though I drive it and I'm responsible for its everyday use?

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]Obama doesn't own Air Force One, the federal goverment does.Ace_WondersX

More weak logic. So by your rationale, ownership (in the classic sense I'm assuming, since possession is the majority stake in conferring ownership in the eyes of the law) does not infer responsibility? So if I go lease a vehicle from Ford, I can do whatever I want with it because Ford's name is on the title instead of mine? Even though I drive it and I'm responsible for its everyday use?

WRONG. Ford (or to be more accurate FORD MOTOR CREDIT) does INDEED own the car. You don't know how a lease works, do you?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Using that logic, the president shouldn't delegate any authority at all and micro manage the department of defense, the CIA, the state department, the department of the treasury, the department of justice, the department of homeland security... and all of these are also far more important than Air Force 1 PR, and far more expensive than what costs when Air Force one takes off. If you are going to look at it from an objective monetary perspective, 350k is less than a drop in the bucket of tax money that is spent, and Obama isn't his own budget director regardless.

And while Obama has the final say when it comes to how Air Force 1 is used, it is not exactly his personal property. It is the property of the government, and the government encompasses more than just the president. Therefore, your CEO analogy is flawed. A better analogy would involve a company owned vechicle; something that I doubt your CEO micro manages.

Shame-usBlackley

The CEO's car IS in the company's name. Yet it's still his car. :P

Air Force One isn't just any plane. And there's only two of them to keep track of, after all. We're not talking about keeping tabs on a fleet or anything. You're right, though -- why worry about 'micro-managing' what Air Force One is doing when it gets in the way of your Leno appearances and press functions?

Really, though, the argument you're waging is disingenuous because it every time ANY president screws up "Hey, whaddaya want, a micromanagement president!" could be used to attempt to silence those who want he or she held accountable for said mistake(s.)

Company cars are under the company's name, not the CEO's personal cars. Air Force One is a government plane, not Obama's personal jet that he owns.Ace_WondersX

WRONG again. Many CEOs have their personal cars in the company's name for tax purposes. Air Force One IS a government plane, but the argument you're trying to wage that it is not wholly under Obama's control is ridiculous -- the plane is made specifically for the president.

When you sign a lease the dealership gives you ownership of the car, they're able to take it back but you still own the car. So they aren't responsible for what you do with the car.Ace_WondersX

WRONG AGAIN. They've given you POSSESSION of the car, but you are not the owner. They will be listed on the title under the section that says "Owner(s)" You are liable for damages incurred while LEASING the vehicle, but you're liable for damages when you rent a car too. Speaking of which:

Do you think when you rent a car from Avis that you own that too?

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]Company cars are under the company's name, not the CEO's personal cars. Air Force One is a government plane, not Obama's personal jet that he owns.Shame-usBlackley

WRONG again. Many CEOs have their personal cars in the company's name for tax purposes. Air Force One IS a government plane, but the argument you're trying to wage that it is not wholly under Obama's control is ridiculous -- the plane is made specifically for the president.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]When you sign a lease the dealership gives you ownership of the car, they're able to take it back but you still own the car. So they aren't responsible for what you do with the car.Shame-usBlackley

WRONG AGAIN. They've given you POSSESSION of the car, but you are not the owner. They will be listed on the title under the section that says "Owner(s)" You are liable for damages incurred while LEASING the vehicle, but you're liable for damages when you rent a car too. Speaking of which:

Do you think when you rent a car from Avis that you own that too?

Tax Evasion is an argument? And Air Force One is not wholly under Obama's control. It's under the government's control and the people that they designate to watch it.Ace_WondersX

No, it's one of the many reasons a CEO might have his or her personal car registered to the company. Tim Geithner defines tax evasion. Writing off a car as a business expense is perfectly legal in most cases.

On your second point: :lol:

Really, though, the argument you're waging is disingenuous because it could be pooped out every time ANY president screws up "Hey, whaddaya want, a micromanagement president?!" could be used to attempt to silence those who want he or she held accountable for said mistake(s.)Shame-usBlackley

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]Tax Evasion is an argument? And Air Force One is not wholly under Obama's control. It's under the government's control and the people that they designate to watch it.Shame-usBlackley

No, it's one of the many reasons a CEO might have his or her personal car registered to the company. Tim Geithner defines tax evasion. Writing off a car as a business expense is perfectly legal in most cases.

On your second point: :lol:

What you didn't know there are people with the job of watching Air Force One?
And I don't know what you're laughing at when you already showed that you think that the president is able to write and strengthen bills.

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]Company cars are under the company's name, not the CEO's personal cars. Air Force One is a government plane, not Obama's personal jet that he owns.Shame-usBlackley

WRONG again. Many CEOs have their personal cars in the company's name for tax purposes. Air Force One IS a government plane, but the argument you're trying to wage that it is not wholly under Obama's control is ridiculous -- the plane is made specifically for the president.

A personal car in the companies name for tax purposes is lillegal. Not saying it doesnt happen, but still. Doesn't apply here.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]Really, though, the argument you're waging is disingenuous because it could be pooped out every time ANY president screws up "Hey, whaddaya want, a micromanagement president?!" could be used to attempt to silence those who want he or she held accountable for said mistake(s.)-Sun_Tzu-

I'm still having trouble with the word 'trivial' being applied to a photo-op that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and re-enacted the preliminary parts of the worst terrorist event ever to happen on American soil on the president's signature plane, but eh.... we can go in circles forever.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Oh, and danwallacefan, you'll get your pm in due time. danwallacefan

dan, I'm still waiting on that ultimate defense of Christianity, and especially your defense of body-mind dualism...

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]Really, though, the argument you're waging is disingenuous because it could be pooped out every time ANY president screws up "Hey, whaddaya want, a micromanagement president?!" could be used to attempt to silence those who want he or she held accountable for said mistake(s.)Shame-usBlackley

I'm still having trouble with the word 'trivial' being applied to a photo-op that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and re-enacted the preliminary parts of the worst terrorist event ever to happen on American soil on the president's signature plane, but eh.... we can go in circles forever.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="Ace_WondersX"]Company cars are under the company's name, not the CEO's personal cars. Air Force One is a government plane, not Obama's personal jet that he owns.TBoogy

WRONG again. Many CEOs have their personal cars in the company's name for tax purposes. Air Force One IS a government plane, but the argument you're trying to wage that it is not wholly under Obama's control is ridiculous -- the plane is made specifically for the president.

A personal car in the companies name for tax purposes is lillegal. Not saying it doesnt happen, but still. Doesn't apply here.

Completely incorrect. You can write the vehicle off as an expense if it is used for business purposes, even if only a tiny fraction of the time. Same with portions of your house. You can write off parts of your house as a home office if you ever use it to work, even if only the tiniest bit. Not illegal in the least. Morally questionable? Sure, whatever. Illegal? Nope.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Not at all. My argument only applies to trivial matters, something that the president is not obligated to deal with. Air Force 1 PR is one of those trivial matters. Obama put faith Louis Caldera, the man who signed off on the incident, that he wouldz act rationally. He didn't, and now he is out of a job.-Sun_Tzu-

I'm still having trouble with the word 'trivial' being applied to a photo-op that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and re-enacted the preliminary parts of the worst terrorist event ever to happen on American soil on the president's signature plane, but eh.... we can go in circles forever.

Obama also was alleged to be "fuming mad" at the incident. Seems it only took a week for him to change his mind and find it rather funny in retrospect. Obama's reaction to the incident is just as bad as the incident itself and says just as much about his character as if he'd ordered or flown the plane himself.

Perhaps Obama should be out of a job too.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

I'm still having trouble with the word 'trivial' being applied to a photo-op that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and re-enacted the preliminary parts of the worst terrorist event ever to happen on American soil on the president's signature plane, but eh.... we can go in circles forever.

Shame-usBlackley

Obama also was alleged to be "fuming mad" at the incident. Seems it only took a week for him to change his mind and find it rather funny in retrospect. Obama's reaction to the incident is just as bad as the incident itself and says just as much about his character as if he'd ordered or flown the plane himself.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Using that logic, the president shouldn't delegate any authority at all and micro manage the department of defense, the CIA, the state department, the department of the treasury, the department of justice, the department of homeland security... and all of these are also far more important than Air Force 1 PR, and far more expensive than what costs when Air Force one takes off. If you are going to look at it from an objective monetary perspective, 350k is less than a drop in the bucket of tax money that is spent, and Obama isn't his own budget director regardless.

And while Obama has the final say when it comes to how Air Force 1 is used, it is not exactly his personal property. It is the property of the government, and the government encompasses more than just the president. Therefore, your CEO analogy is flawed. A better analogy would involve a company owned vechicle; something that I doubt your CEO micro manages.

Shame-usBlackley

Air Force One isn't just any plane. And there's only two of them to keep track of, after all. We're not talking about keeping tabs on a fleet or anything. You're right, though -- why worry about 'micro-managing' what Air Force One is doing when it gets in the way of your Leno appearances and press functions?

Because he's the boss.

Those were the words spoken by Wanda Sykes at the White House Correspondants Dinner during her comedy routine. She also commented that Rush was probably "the 20th hijacker on 9/11, but was so maxed out on oxycodon he probably missed his flight."

Were these words over the top? Or is all fair in love and politics?

Video of Sykes at the dinner.

Maniacc1

Because he's the boss.

chessmaster1989

Yeah, I'd totally rather delegate authority out to others and look like a tool when it backfires than have to be considered a micro-manager and appear responsible. Besides, it would totally get in the way of my running the banks and the car companies.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Because he's the boss.

Shame-usBlackley

Yeah, I'd totally rather delegate authority out to others and look like a nimrod when it backfires than have to be considered a micro-manager. Besides, it would totally get in the way of my running the banks and the car companies.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Because he's the boss.

Shame-usBlackley

Yeah, I'd totally rather delegate authority out to others and look like a tool when it backfires than have to be considered a micro-manager and appear responsible. Besides, it would totally get in the way of my running the banks and the car companies.

Wow, it was a joke...

My argument against micro managing isn't based on superficial reasons. It is based on the fact that people don't like being micro managed; it is in the interest of any executive to keep his employees happy through reasonable means.-Sun_Tzu-

Agreed, but micro-managing your own plane is where we disagree. I mean, if the presidential limo is going down the street with hookers hanging out of the moon roof, that would probably be a similar (although less expensive and definitely less embarrassing) argument. There's a point where the president has to protect his image. Can he keep a moron in his cabinet from saying something stupid? No, Biden is proof of that. Can he keep people from doing dumb things? No, the region-locked DVDs were proof of that. Can he keep his plane from doing low, costly flyovers for something as dumb as a photo-op? Probably.

There's a pretty big gulf between micromanaging and showing that you have a grasp on your own administration.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]My argument against micro managing isn't based on superficial reasons. It is based on the fact that people don't like being micro managed; it is in the interest of any executive to keep his employees happy through reasonable means.Shame-usBlackley

Agreed, but micro-managing your own plane is where we disagree. I mean, if the presidential limo is going down the street with hookers hanging out of the moon roof, that would probably be a similar (although less expensive and definitely less embarrassing) argument. There's a point where the president has to protect his image. Can he keep a moron in his cabinet from saying something stupid? No, Biden is proof of that. Can he keep people from doing dumb things? No, the region-locked DVDs were proof of that. Can he keep his plane from doing low, costly flyovers for something as dumb as a photo-op? Probably.

There's a pretty big gulf between micromanaging and showing that you have a grasp on your own administration.

Wow, it was a joke...

chessmaster1989

The link should come during the joke.

You coulda been talking about Springsteen..... and then there would've been trouble. :P

I actually thought it was pretty funny, especially the Palin one :P