Okay I`m sorry but I am SICK by what obama does. He doesn`t even want to be a good leader he just wants to be a celebrity. I mean he cancelled the Independence Day fireworks/celebration for the soldiers because of lack of funds, but just took a major vacation! Does anyone else feel this way?
Do you know how much funds the fireworks show and the vacation required, respectively?
no i do not, but the fact that he and his family keep taking vacations and then saying that the rest of the united states has to make sacrificies, is seriously stupid
Do you have a source on why, where, how, and with whom he actually is/has been travelling?
i`d have to take a minute and search my history but why? if all this is just so you can prove me wrong then i`m not gunna waste my time
So essentially what you're saying is you don't want to actually have a discussion if you might be proven wrong? Why start a thread about it, then? Just to preach to the choir?
no in fact if you possibly could prove me wrong in this i would be immensely happy because that would mean that obama isn`t actually destroying our country.
all that i meant is that you`re not really giving any input other than to ask if I actually have sources to back up what i say.
i also just wanted to know if you actually cared about what i had to say because if you didn`t then , like i said it is just a waste of time
The reason I'm asking for sources/extra info is because your posts seem to just be about hearsay. There's not very much information in them.
I saw several photos on Facebook and other social media referring to Obama cancelling the fireworks while enjoying a vacation. However, Obama doesn't make the decision to cancel individual bases celebrations; the cancellations are a result of sequestration (a result of Congress AND Obama's inability to compromise and make budget cuts when needed).
From the majority of articles I've read, it does appear that the First Family is taking quite an expensive vacation (something I personally believe is a bit of a slap in the face to the American people) but you have to remember that the sequestration effects are not just Obama's fault, but Congress shares the blame as well. And just a word of advice; when you see news plastered all over Facebook and whatnot, it's easy to take it at face value. However, quite a bit of it is either a) an exaggeration or b) an outright lie, so I do quite a bit of fact checking. Snopes.com is great for this; they fact check the majority of rumors and cite their sources so you can trace back the stories and make a decision for yourself. :)
yeah im with stunt dude. I dont like to judge people based on rumors. I'm not saying you're wrong, but where's it coming from? what if the "vactions" are meetings with nationals leaders and he just brings his family along because he doesnt want to be away from them for long periods of time. I mean, I'm just saying, show me a credible source, and we can talk
Umm, I read a report on this. I don't know whether it's true or not, but I guess you can count out for yourself. i've, by the way, no interest in the ongoing discussion :P
Curious that nowhere on the page of that article does it cite where it got its information about the trip (which, by the way, sounds incredibly fishy). It gives references for its figures about Ronal Reagan and George Bush, and gives a sort-of reference for the $100/week/kid figure, although that one's as vague as "My figures came from the NAACP's website," hardly a proper citation at all.
But nowhere does it actually say where it's getting the rest of its information from -- the reader is expected to simply believe whatever the article tells them even though, to be quite honest, that site hasn't show itself to be any more reliable than the OP. It still seems to be getting its information purely from the grapevine.
In short, no, that article was poorly written and does not provide any source for its information. It's heard this down the grapevine, swallowed it hook line and sinker, and expects its readers to do the same. It's simply not credible.
I actually read something similar on foxnews as well:
ww w.foxnews.co m/politics/2013/06/18/first-family-trip-to-africa-projected-to-cost-up-to-100m-sparking-criticism/
Again, that article fails to cite any source for where the information actually came from. It does no better than the last one.
Ok lets say that this is all true. NO FREAKING DUR it costs upwards of a 100M. The president and his family, no matter if it were Obama or George Washington has to be kept safe. That alkone is a no brainer. Every precaution must be in place. 100M is the Air Force One, Marine One, the limos, the support vehicles, the gas to power them, the food to stock them, the salaries of the men and women who pilot/drive them. The insurance. The tax that goes back to the government. The cost of havong standby teams ready to evacuate the president should something go wrong.
"No, something would never go wrong at an amusement park or a safari." Yea, my as.s. What century is it? 21rst? Thats what I thought.
In the end, take all of that protection away, the trip still costs for the general public to go to Africa, round trip, maybe 5,000 if not more USD. Thats just getting there. Same with Disneyland/world even if it is the president, still costs money.
I dont like obama in any way shape or form.
but i think they are right, saying something about the guy that may not be true, or mabe dissing him when we dont really know?
i dont like that idea
Hi JulietTiernan, here's the deal.
I can't stand the current president of the United States. That's the truth. He's screwing up our healthcare plans, he pretty much lies in our faces, and he took oiur economy, that was already sprawled flat on the ground- and buried it.
But don't claim you dont like him because he cancled some fireworks. Really.
"He took our economy, whih was already sprawled flat on the ground and buried it." Correct, He was given the sh.ittiest economy next to the Great Depression, by our lovely former president, George Bush. At least he buried it and dig the whole any freaking deeper.
I keep saying this, all the time, no matter which president it is, you can't put all the blame on them. You can't. Congress holds the majority of the blame. If you open your history books, you will realise shortly after the American Revolution and before the Civil War, we had many amendamnets and acts passed that allows Congress,"the people", to limit what the President can actually do with his power, instead of becoming a dictator Monarch. Unfortunately those powers still exist today. As long as your party can keep more than a third in the House and Senate, then nothing will ever get passed.
Eh, he promised to get us out of Iraq, and he did. He is trying to get us out of Afghanistan, but Congress is convinced otherwise. His plan for the economy doesn't come into full effect until next year, so you can't solely blame him for that. Two years into his term, everyone was pissed at him for the economy, when he hadn't done anything. Nothing he could've done, Bush's Act was still layed over until the end of 2010.
I admit, he isn't the best president, but I'm glad it is him, and not John McCain or Romney.
Also, open your history books to Ronald regan's terms. His first was absolute cr.ap. Everyone was mad at him. His second term, he came back and put 4 good years in. Some very outstanding years. I believe the same will happen with President Obama.
ehhhhh, President Obama, can't get all the blame for his failures. Not when you have Congress to deal with.