President Obama!

Babagounj

Strength through joy
NY Times Stealth-Edits Article to Remove Embarrassing Obama Admission

If you read The New York Times‘ story on President Barack Obama‘s private meeting with news columnists Friday morning, you may have caught one quote that made the President look particularly bad:

In his meeting with the columnists, Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments.

The President of the United States failed to understand that Americans were anxious after two major terrorist attacks in Western cities because he doesn’t watch TV?
It’s an admission that opponents are sure to use to make the president seem out-of-touch at best, and unconcerned about a serious threat at worst.

But just as the quote was beginning to make the rounds, it disappeared entirely from the the Times piece, without a correction or any indication that the piece had been updated.
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
barry will be spending the next 16 days working on his fore in policy .
image.gif
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
If someone is so bad at their job that everything they do is wrong and causes problems, why would you then complain when this same person is on vacation instead of being on the job where they cause nothing but problems?
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
If someone is so bad at their job that everything they do is wrong and causes problems, why would you then complain when this same person is on vacation instead of being on the job where they cause nothing but problems?
because the vacation costs the taxpayer (me) multi millions of dollars ($3.5 at last estimate)
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
The more you post, the more you demonstrate to me the lack of an ability to think in a much larger construct.

Oh I understood your spin , I just chose to ignore it. that just may be the larger construct that you missed.

Bush used to catch hell for taking vacations on a dusty old ranch in Crawford texas at taxpayer expense. Meanwhile Obama goes to Martha's vineyard and Hawaii. Michele takes vacations to Africa where she lists her daughters as staffers. The expense of taxpayer dollars by either candidate is a valid concern to raise.

yes you can minimize the issue as you did so with your spin. Which then makes me wonder why you did so? were you trying to defend the president on this issue.
do you not think the expense of tax payer dollars a legitimate concern? Should the president at the least symbolically show concern for taxpayer dollars by being a little more frugal in how he takes his vacations? I am a strong believer in leadership by example. I do as a fiscal conservative think the president should lead by example.
to me that is a much higher construct which may have escaped you?
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Oh I understood your spin , I just chose to ignore it. that just may be the larger construct that you missed.

Bush used to catch hell for taking vacations on a dusty old ranch in Crawford texas at taxpayer expense. Meanwhile Obama goes to Martha's vineyard and Hawaii. Michele takes vacations to Africa where she lists her daughters as staffers. The expense of taxpayer dollars by either candidate is a valid concern to raise.

yes you can minimize the issue as you did so with your spin. Which then makes me wonder why you did so? were you trying to defend the president on this issue.
do you not think the expense of tax payer dollars a legitimate concern? Should the president at the least symbolically show concern for taxpayer dollars by being a little more frugal in how he takes his vacations? I am a strong believer in leadership by example. I do as a fiscal conservative think the president should lead by example.
to me that is a much higher construct which may have escaped you?

The difference between you and I is that you seem to think we do need someone to lead us around by our nose rings.

I question the need of nose rings to begin with. I think the best solution to the office of the President is to abolish it completely.

Now you may have a better idea of what I think of Obama or for that matter any other person who might or would hold that office. Changing the person in the office is just as effective as changing the furniture because regardless of either one, the outcome will always be the same as it relates to common folk.

To complain about the expense of $3.5 million may well be a legit complaint. But seems to me if the Son-of-a-Bitch is out of town unable to spend billions, using economics and best use of resources based on available options, I say let the Son-a-of-Bitch along with the other Sons-of-Bitches stay on vacation. Maybe at some point people will then go the next step and save the $3.5 million too.
 

Babagounj

Strength through joy
It gives the Dems everything they could ever desire , so if some one makes noises about shutting down the gov't again the Dems are going to look extremely foolish .
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Not that this means anything but some argue that Obama is not the vacation whore others make him out to be. The irony that both sides should be caught up in this drivel to begin with. I miss the old paleo-conservatives, paleo-liberals too, who stuck more to intellectual arguments about ideas that actually meant something and regardless at the end, the people who observed such discourses actually learned something.

President Obama has taken fewer vacation days than any President in a generation
 
Top