Report: Secret Service strained to protect Obama

ccbatson · October-23-09, 12:08 AM

What is this source? the telegraph? They know he is sending 45K over while McKristol is waiting for the 40K he has asked for?

**oladub** · October-23-09, 12:24 AM

'United States to send 'up to 45,000 more troops to Afghanistan''
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ghanistan.html

I haven't seen this story on CNN or heard this from President Obama so maybe the Telegraph is wrong. If true, the Peace Prize must be for something else.

ccbatson · October-23-09, 12:26 AM

"to" send....and "expected to send up to 45K", just speculation.

**reddog289** · October-23-09, 12:28 AM

Going back to the original post. I belive there would be riots if Obama had to go through what Gore went through in 2000. Let alone the unthinkable would happen.
Last year when Hillary did not get the nod my female cousins were livid. They were screaming sexism.Obama is a target for certain groups and has been even before the election,All I can say is I hope everything picks up and calms down, But I don't see it happening any time soon. And the last thing we need is a weak secret service.This country is too broke to deal with a civil war.

ccbatson · October-23-09, 12:31 AM

Gore in 2000? So long as we get the socialist out, a few crying liberals won't bother us nearly as much as having a bankrupt and oppressive socialised society.

**elganned** · October-23-09, 07:50 AM

An ends-justifies-the-means argument, Cc? The Objectivist Champion of individual liberties seizes the moral high ground...a few crying conservatives won't bother us when the economy rebounds and all your dire predictions come to naught.

Oladub, I'm sorely disappointed in Obama's handling of the wars to date; I had hoped that he would take immediate steps to put an end to these senseless imperialist ventures. Al Quada--our true target--is not a problem with a military solution; that is equivalent to using a broadsword for brain surgery.

**exdetroiter** · October-23-09, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by reddog289

Going back to the original post. I belive there would be riots if Obama had to go through what Gore went through in 2000. Let alone the unthinkable would happen.
Last year when Hillary did not get the nod my female cousins were livid. They were screaming sexism.Obama is a target for certain groups and has been even before the election,All I can say is I hope everything picks up and calms down, But I don't see it happening any time soon. And the last thing we need is a weak secret service.This country is too broke to deal with a civil war.

If anything happened to Obama, it wouldn't just be the U.S in an uproar. Think of all the other nations that adourn him. This could possible be the end for all.

Lorax · October-23-09, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Yes, the Bush era was spend, spend well beyond reason-got that. And the Obama era "continues" to spend, spend where they should not, if for no other reason than to stop the spend-fest the conservatives started... But no -- instead spending is higher! Rationale: it is "our turn" spending you'll like with a bit of redistribution thrown in to get back at those rich folks... or whom the definition [[ala annual income) just keeps getting lower and lower.... Hmmm......

Well, this is where the disconnect is.

Spending in the case of what Obama has done has benefitted us from NOT ending up in a Great Depression.

Do I agree with bailing out Wall Street? No.

The stimulus monies needed to be heavily weighted in favor of manufacturing and union shops.

Banks should have been allowed to die, or be broken up, and nationalized in the process.

While the roll-out of spending has been rocky, the overall result has been favorable to doing nothing, where we'd be in a lot worse shape.

**elganned** · October-23-09, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

to get back at those rich folks... [f]or whom the definition [[ala annual income) just keeps getting lower and lower.... Hmmm......

Have you ever asked yourself why the definition of "rich" keeps dropping lower? If it's defined as the percentage of people whose income lies in the top 10% [[as I would define it), it's because more and more people below them are being pushed into poverty, not because the government arbitrarily lowers the bar so they can tax more people.

Take for example 20 people, making from $20 annually to $210 annually in even increments of $10: bottom person makes $20, next person makes $30, up to the top guy who makes $210. So in a standard bell curve, the guys making $200 and $210 would be the top 10%, or "rich", and the guys at the bottom making $20 and $30 would be "poor", and everyone in between would be "middle class".

Now let's say we take $5 each from nos. 1-19 and give it to guy 20. Guy 20 now makes $305, while guy 19 makes $195. But the ratios haven't changed; guy 19 is still in the top 10% even though he makes $5 less than he did, so he is still "rich" by our definition.

The progressive concentration of wealth and income accruing to a small number of people at the top that has happened over the last 20 years has pushed everybody else's income down, but hasn't changed the ratios.

That's why the definition of "rich" keeps dropping lower, and you can thank Uncle Ronnie and "trickle down" for it.

**rb336** · October-23-09, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by elganned

That's why the definition of "rich" keeps dropping lower, and you can thank Uncle Ronnie and "trickle down" for it.

So that is how wealth will "trickle down" -- via newspeak!

**LeannaM** · October-23-09, 12:05 PM

Both the far left and the far right are crazy. Crazy enough to assassinate someone? I hope not. But, from my what I've seen, liberals and conservatives are both crazy to some extent. Politicians are just plain corrupt.

ccbatson · October-23-09, 11:38 PM

You haven't seen anything yet libs...what will define rich when hyperinflation sets in, and a loaf of bread costs 50 dollars?

Lorax · October-24-09, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

You haven't seen anything yet libs...what will define rich when hyperinflation sets in, and a loaf of bread costs 50 dollars?

Thanks for warning how us "libs" will rue the day when hyperinflation takes over.

I know it won't effect you much if you have to spend 50 bucks on a loaf of bread, what with the immense, enormous, and gargantuan wealth you've accumulated.

It should be wonderful for you to live in such a society where your children are prone to kidnapping, your property is under attack by those who are starving and diseased.

Hope you've got your gun permit up to date, and don't mind not going out at night.

How does it feel to be the Omega Man?

ccbatson · October-24-09, 09:36 PM

Lorax...you just described the grim future under YOUR socialist leader...have you suddenly switched sides?

**rb336** · October-26-09, 07:41 AM

not one argument in your entire running of the board that is not ad hominem. a low even for you, bats

ccbatson · October-26-09, 08:10 PM

Ad hominem leveled against who?

Lorax · October-26-09, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by ccbatson

Lorax...you just described the grim future under YOUR socialist leader...have you suddenly switched sides?

No, I described you living your lush life in a gated, armed community as the Omega Man.

Watch the film, you'll get the drift, or learn Greek.

ccbatson · October-26-09, 08:26 PM

I havde seen that movie...science fiction right?

Lorax · October-26-09, 08:59 PM

For now.

But it describes the aftermath of your brand of government, should it ever have it's ugly way with us again.

**Papasito** · October-26-09, 09:16 PM

You guys are funny.
You say 'round up all the Republicans and put them in jail'

....and actually don't have any problem with making the statement!

Round zem up! They are enemies of ze state! Put zem in ze kamps!

Do you have any idea how you sound?

If Republicans made a statement about "rounding up Democrats and putting them in jail" when they were in power, imagine YOUR reaction

Lorax · October-26-09, 09:20 PM

Who's saying this?

**Jimaz** · October-26-09, 10:46 PM

Persecution complex. Yawn.

ccbatson · October-27-09, 07:03 PM

Have any science fiction movies/books ever come true?

Lorax · October-27-09, 11:03 PM

Try George Orwell's 1984. It's here folks.

**d.mcc** · October-27-09, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by MCP-001

They could always go out on less "date nights"

Michelle can quit taking the SS out on shopping excursions to the corner farmer's market to get one ingredient for dinner.

Just a thought.

Oh you mean, it's a bad thing for the first lady to be seen in public like the lowly commoners buying groceries from a local market, and supporting the local economy...