Thread: Obamas' Night Out

I wonder if the people complaining about that NYC date trip complained just as vigorously about Bush's frequent trips to Crawford? Those trips were more expensive and far more frequent.

This complainer did, yes.

I hope you're not a complainer just for the complaining.

Originally Posted by Elliette

Sorry, I should have been more clear in my question - was election participation in general greater before you joined? Greater turnout for more local/national votes? And, come to that, are the numbers for local elections better than for the EU ones now?

This is what I tried to express earlier (because I thought you are under this belief): There are still local governments (local as in country ) and in general the elections for these governments are well attended.

I knew you retained local governance, of course, I just wondered if the turnout was down for all elections since the EU came into effect, or just for the EU-related ones..

I complain wherever I see it is needed.

The participation generally decreased during the last twenty years.
It doesn't have much to do with EU IMO.
Its people being fed up with politics at all.
(Which is crap of course. If you're not satisfied with what you get you must vote for what you want.)

As much as I cannot stand the man's politics, he is the President. It's a tough job, spending most of your day on plans to tax and control the masses as well as thwarting the Constitution. He needs a break occasionally. It would be very tough for me to authorize billions of dollars to Chrysler and GM only to have them go right under within weeks. Bad decisions can take a lot out of you. Every Wednesday there's a party at the White House. I used to party a lot, too......I know how much that can take out of you. Good lord, he's a busy man, even The Grand High Exalted Mystic Ruler needs to get away from it all for a couple of hours.

That money is from a budget anyway. The Secret Service people get paid regardless. The vehicles and equipment are already paid for. At that point, what's a couple of thousand gallons of fuel and a landing fee? It's been budgeted for. If the Secret Service ever runs over budget, which I doubt it ever will, no problem.......the Fed will just print whatever money it needs.

There's a few luxuries in life the President should be afforded. To go see a show? I don't really have a problem with that. He's a person, too.

What about really pressing matters? He's closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. What are we going to do with all of the inmates? This man wants to tax us for TRILLIONS of dollars......not a peep out of anyone. Government run health care? TRILLIONS more. What about the other unfunded obligations like Social Security and Medicare? Again, more trillions. Global carbon tax? A couple of more trillions. No border fence? Billions more. Here we are criticizing him over a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

You've all been duped by the media. A media that got this man elected on the pretense that there would be change. This is yet another clever distraction and you've fallen for it.

Nothing to see here, move along......

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Clearly the excess and it's disparity from what would be affordable to "the common man" for a similar night out is in a different class, it doesn't surprise or shock me in the least.

BUSH is a member of an elite class. I think those that may be shocked by this kind of thing (all the vacations to Crawford, TX) are IMO under the false assumption and even delusion that he, as president is of the people for the people rather than being an administrator to an influential and super rich yet largely silent ruling class. Sound crazy? I've been called worse things before, I'm sure.


Chris L

Originally Posted by Utopian

I wonder if the people complaining about that NYC date trip complained just as vigorously about Bush's frequent trips to Crawford? Those trips were more expensive and far more frequent.

I just changed the name above from my previous post. My point was not based on Obama as an individual but as president. Regardless of the person, sadly, I believe from here on out the same will hold true.

You know what really scares me? I mean serious fear? It appears that the majority of citizens in this country still believe presidential campaign rhetoric and actually believe that "their" candidate (whoever it is) has a genuine and vested interest in serving the people rather than serving and advancing the agendas of those powers and people that really put them in office. Holding on to some ideal or myth from yesteryear. THAT'S why things never change or if they do they change for the worse (more rapidly now then ever) rather than for the better.

I was not a official Ron Paul supporter, but near as I could tell, he's the closest thing to someone with an aim to look out for the people rather than special interests more so than anyone out there at that level. Too bad there aren't more like him. Maybe someday there would be a younger version of him with a Q rating off the charts that would capture the attention of and wake up the populace enough to turn the controllers on their ear?

Chris L

I was a Ron Paul supporter. I changed my registration to Republican just so that I could support him in the Iowa primaries. He seemed to have been the only guy who was being honest and not just playing politics. Of course, that might be why he lost, because too many of the masses in this country actually cling to, and for some bizarre reason believe in, campaign rhetoric.

I was and am Jerry White supporter, so at the other end of the spectrum.

In any event - yes, it is alarming that, one, people bought the "change" rhetoric, and two, are still buying it. Not so much change as an intensification of policies already set in place (ie, Civil liberties? No. Addressing the economic crisis in a way which would benefit working people? No. Yet more war? Yes, hello, Pakistan! and etc...). However, as more jobs are lost and the objective conditions continue to deteriorate, fewer and fewer people will be able to afford to buy that hooey.

That it is all coated with a thick layer of "How glamorous!/How devoted!" only adds insult to injury.

Originally Posted by Elliette

Sorry, I should have been more clear in my question - was election participation in general greater before you joined? Greater turnout for more local/national votes? And, come to that, are the numbers for local elections better than for the EU ones now?

No, not really. Over here, voting is mandatory. We always have a >90% turnout for all elections.
Mandatory voting was introduced to keep the landowners and factory bosses from pressuring their people into staying at home. I am still in favor of it. Showing up once every couple of years to say who gets to run the country is not too much imo.

Btw, you don't have to vote. You just have to turn up. In the voting booth you can choose not to vote.