LOOK! Up in the air! It's a bird, it's a plane, NO, it's the royal canine BO!

Libterds can't find a thing wrong with uncontrolled spending, especially other people's money. Originally Posted by satexasguy

I'd post the spending record of the last administration vs this one, but you are to biased to read it, much less believe it ... but keep spouting off about shit you know nothing about.

I'd post the spending record of the last administration vs this one, but you are to biased to read it, much less believe it ... but keep spouting off about shit you know nothing about. Originally Posted by CJ7

I'm not as biased as you think. I rely on the overall picture more than you do with your blinders. It is true Obama has spent less. The difference is that Obama has spent more relative to income than Bush did or any other president since the 50's. This will have a far more damaging effect than the over spending Bush did.

I'm not as biased as you think. I rely on the overall picture more than you do with your blinders. It is true Obama has spent less. The difference is that Obama has spent more relative to income than Bush did or any other president since the 50's. This will have a far more damaging effect than the over spending Bush did. Originally Posted by satexasguy

Jesus Christ, when the economy takes a downward spiral, every administration would spend more relative in income. That is like Retard 101.

What you and your dipshit Tea Party Wackado's do not understand is that it is when times are good that is when government spending should have been trimmed! Do you understand that concept. Good times = cut in government spending. Bad times = More government spending.

I'd post the spending record of the last administration vs this one, but you are to biased to read it, much less believe it ... but keep spouting off about shit you know nothing about. Originally Posted by CJ7

Looks like that "Republican Obstructionism" is paying dividends, because the Republicans certainly didn't cave and give into Odumbo's every whimsical, pie-in-the-sky demand.

No Timmie, no one said that the Osprey was ONLY for the dog. You said that and no one else. What I did say was that Bo did not make the trip with the first family. When you travel (which is on your dime) do you have your pet brought along later? You don't. No one does unless they are rich. Well Obama is paying for his dog with our money. Barnie traveled with Bush and that means no additional cost. Is this really that hard to see.

Since you brought up the support crew (warning Clinton slam ahead) The Clintons went to Wyoming on vacation one year because polling said that domestic vacation was needed (maybe Barack could poll the country) and they needed some lawn furniture. A C-130 was bringing the furniture and it crashed with the loss of the entire crew. No one from the White House attended the funerals. I remember this because the woman co-pilot was a Kansas City native. Fuck the heartless Clintons! No, this was not some big trap XNYKR. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You are utterly disingenuous.

Like Timpage said above, you are CLEARLY trying to imply that the Osprey was used just to transport the dog. Just like the Breitbart article was trying to imply.

But a bunch of people and equipment are getting off the Osprey, so clearly BO caught a ride on a plane that was making the trip anyway. So there was no cost to the taxpayers.

You are pathological in your hatred of Obama and it undermines your arguments on those very rare occasions when you post a legitimate criticism of Obama.

I'm not as biased as you think. I rely on the overall picture more than you do with your blinders. It is true Obama has spent less. The difference is that Obama has spent more relative to income than Bush did or any other president since the 50's. This will have a far more damaging effect than the over spending Bush did. Originally Posted by satexasguy

relative to income after the Bush recession ...

Jesus Christ, when the economy takes a downward spiral, every administration would spend more relative in income. That is like Retard 101.

What you and your dipshit Tea Party Wackado's do not understand is that it is when times are good that is when government spending should have been trimmed! Do you understand that concept. Good times = cut in government spending. Bad times = More government spending.

Originally Posted by WTF

I guess you missed the part about he has spent more related to income than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT since the 50's. Keep looking at Odumbo through your koolaid glasses. Maybe some day he will invite you over to the White House to shake his balls.

Say what you want but...... Obie's dog gets better air support than our guys in Benghazi.

Except for the dog handler. That cost extra. You lose Timmie and your little hemrrhoid CJ too.

I wonder how long Bo has before he becomes the guest at a BBQ. Barry loves his dog. Maybe they should have taken a tip from Romney and just put BO in a carrier on top.

I'm sure that our marines in Afghanistan could use another Osprey.

And you'd prefer if POTUS didn't love his dog?

Or his wife?

Or his country?

You're a traitorous, anti-America. piece of shit, Swine!

PS -- SLUNT SIGHTING!

Actually I posted last night after I did the research that Obama has, at this point in time, spent MORE money than George Bush by almost a quarter of a trillion dollars. I could also point out that the House spends the money but that only applied to the Bush years when we had a budget. There has been no budget for almost five years so it has been the executive branch who has figured out expenditures. So go ahead and squawk but Obama is the winner in raw numbers and he did not have to weather 9/11, recover from a popped bubble, or fight two wars at the same time. Bush also had the TARP passed under him and the bailout. Obama had the stimulus and Iraq had been won by the time that Obama came in.

Actually I posted last night after I did the research that Obama has, at this point in time, spent MORE money than George Bush by almost a quarter of a trillion dollars. I could also point out that the House spends the money but that only applied to the Bush years when we had a budget. There has been no budget for almost five years so it has been the executive branch who has figured out expenditures. So go ahead and squawk but Obama is the winner in raw numbers and he did not have to weather 9/11, recover from a popped bubble, or fight two wars at the same time. Bush also had the TARP passed under him and the bailout. Obama had the stimulus and Iraq had been won by the time that Obama came in. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

research up a link for everyone

If the plane was already going, then just tossing the dog in doesn't seem to be such a big deal. Even the most callous elected official would see that using a expensive aircraft for the sole purpose of transporting a dog would be stupid.

Pity the poor secret service agent that takes care of "Bo".
"Hey daddy, what did you do today at work"?........"I was on dog shit detail".

Here you go CJ http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=810747&page=7 post 101

Originally Posted by therock18 and amended by Big Louise and corrected by JDB
Lets look at DumbBama's accomplishment

Middle East is worse compared to when he took over
Worst spender in history and created worst deficit ever Nope that would be Bush by a wide margin. You can look it up Complete attempt to rewrite history. In 2001 (the first year that submitted a budget) the debt was $4.6172 trillion. In 2009 (the last year of the Bush budgets) the debt was $10.6269 trillion. Subtract 4.6172 from 10.6269 and you get $6.0097 trillion of Bush debt and that includes the TARP, the bailout from late 2008, early 2009, both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the fallout from 9/11. The current national debt is $16.8976 trillion. Subtract Bush (and the others) from Obama and you get $6.2707 of Obama debt. Obama debt (with only one war, no TARP, and only the stimulus package to deal with) is a quarter of a trillion dollars higher than Bush's.
Green Energy push has resulted in pay for play schemes and don't work
Refuses to sign off Keystone
Does not want fracking
Refuses to drill offshore, in fact reduced offshore drilling
Refuses to let us become energy independent so we are held hostage by the muslim countries The US is for all practical purposes energy independent We are using less imported energy than we did in 2009 but there is a lie hidden here. We are using less energy in general because of the economic down turn. Our energy usage is equal to the 1993 level. So we are using less energy because of bad times and not conservation or independence. In fact in 2008 the US consumed 19.498 million barrels of oil a day and in 2012 the US used 18.554 million barrels of oil daily. We are not more independent, we are just using less.
Try to rewrite history with his speeches

Here you go CJ http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=810747&page=7 post 101

Originally Posted by therock18 and amended by Big Louise and corrected by JDB
Lets look at DumbBama's accomplishment

Middle East is worse compared to when he took over
Worst spender in history and created worst deficit ever Nope that would be Bush by a wide margin. You can look it up Complete attempt to rewrite history. In 2001 (the first year that submitted a budget) the debt was $4.6172 trillion. In 2009 (the last year of the Bush budgets) the debt was $10.6269 trillion. Subtract 4.6172 from 10.6269 and you get $6.0097 trillion of Bush debt and that includes the TARP, the bailout from late 2008, early 2009, both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the fallout from 9/11. The current national debt is $16.8976 trillion. Subtract Bush (and the others) from Obama and you get $6.2707 of Obama debt. Obama debt (with only one war, no TARP, and only the stimulus package to deal with) is a quarter of a trillion dollars higher than Bush's.
Green Energy push has resulted in pay for play schemes and don't work
Refuses to sign off Keystone
Does not want fracking
Refuses to drill offshore, in fact reduced offshore drilling
Refuses to let us become energy independent so we are held hostage by the muslim countries The US is for all practical purposes energy independent We are using less imported energy than we did in 2009 but there is a lie hidden here. We are using less energy in general because of the economic down turn. Our energy usage is equal to the 1993 level. So we are using less energy because of bad times and not conservation or independence. In fact in 2008 the US consumed 19.498 million barrels of oil a day and in 2012 the US used 18.554 million barrels of oil daily. We are not more independent, we are just using less.
Try to rewrite history with his speeches Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

the rockhead eh?