Obama's World
 

In a action speaks louder than words moment, the President has seen fit to send his 13-year old daughter along with a dozen of her friends and two dozen secret service agents on spring break to MEXICO!

My question is how many parents would send their 13-year old daughter to a country with a travel warning even with secret service in tow?

Is the President trying to stimulate the economy of Mexico?

Was the whole State of Florida booked?

WHO IS PAYING FOR THIS CRAP?

This Pres has completely lost touch with any small sliver of sensibility he had prior to coming into office and this fact is on full display with this horrible decision both as a parent and economically for the rest of the country.


http://www.montrealgazette.com/trave...773/story.html

Who lets their 13 year old daughter go on spring break without them? A lousy parent.

I am willing to venture a guess that this is the only parent allowing such a trip. How did this escape Letterman last night?

Yeah, no one else has any money to pay their mortgage, let alone send their kid to Mexico.........:zz:

It shows utter disrespect for fiscal responsibility because I am sure the president and his wife are not personally paying for at a minimum the cost of the 25 secret service agents need to be there.

As far as the parenting aspect well it pretty much speaks for itself.

no, all the parents of her friends that are going are allowing it as well.

not sure how all the funds would be allocated, but i'm figuring secret service agents get paid regardless of whether they're in mexico babysitting a bunch of spoiled brats or elsewhere. is it a ridiculous move? sure. am i going to get all worked up about it? no.

:tro:

Yeah I'm working on turning algae into fuel. Don't have time for this.

You mean this is the first time in the history of the United States where the Secret Service is enlisted to guard the kids of the president? Wow what balls he has. :rolleyes:

Yea, that Amy Carter was a world traveler.

Those Bush girls were always taking 23 Secret Service agents with them. In fact in that famous episode when they ditched their guards it wasn't just 3 as reported, it was 23 and wasn't in Austin TX but Paris France. The Secret Service just wanted to save face. :rolleyes:

What is being overlooked is the White House tried to have the story pulled. The press is only supposed to publicize the Obama kids' activities when they are being used as political props. Now, later this week when Malia travels to Arkansas to aid in tornado recovery, the press can report that.

Well then those parents ought to answer for their decisions as well, unfit plain and simple.

i was just reading where this story has been pulled from a number of sites. that, to me, is more troubling than the story itself.

Agree

My god. Teenagers should never be allowed to take chaperoned school tours to foreign countries during spring break. How appalling.

Obama Derangement Syndrome: it's incurable.

BTW: private trips, and things like family food in the White House, are paid for privately by the president. Not by taxpayers

Why would the White House have the location out of country of a president's family pulled from publicity if it were leaked? Safety of the children from the loons of this world? Naw ... couldn't be that. Must be a secret coverup.

:tro:

yes...you're deranged...and I blame Obama:p

Thanks for so clearly defining the stereotype :tro:

...and all along it's been reported the OTHER way!;)

Obama-Biden 2012, baby. Plus sweep of the Senate and House by Independents and Dems. Pull this country kicking and screaming, out of the hands of the anti-everything loons, and into the 21st century with the other big countries ;):tro:

Anybody here worried about the safety of those kids in the earthquake?

Their parents aren't worried.

:tro::tro::tro:

oh Timmy this one was so so good!

Because having a whole thread devoted to a ridiculous fit of outrage over a kid going on a spring school trip is so "not" deranged or weird.

:D

Interesting article on life in the White House as a First Kid. Except for some of the public "bravely" using children to attack the parents they hate, seems pretty okay.

http://www.whitehousehistory.org/whh...firstkids.html

Which "big countries" do you speak of? The ones in Europe that are smaller than a lot of states here? Or China, India and Russia?

Out of the countries you list, which are the most advanced within the paradigms of 21st century?

Reading: it's hard not to parse ridiculously :(

Nobody will ever come close to the liberal media's attack on Sarah Palin's family. That was disgusting.


Its funny... the things the left made such a big deal of when it comes to Bush.. like traveling and gas prices.. Now that the right makes a big deal of Obama's travel and the current gas prices, the left wants to label them as "Obama Derangement Syndrome".. when it's just using a page out of the liberal handbook!

both parties are fucl<ing hypocritical nutcases

So India then? You cannot continue to compare this country and its issues with the other "big countries" of the world as the problems facing it are so very different. Our illegal population that is under the care of the federal government is larger than the population of some European nations, which if you haven't noticed are collapsing under their own very light weight.

I was gonna say... Europe is doing so well economically... we should definately strive to be like them. :zz:

Yes, rumor is that the Democrats are going to introduce a bill accusing the Republicans of causing the earthquake in an attempt to assault the female child. After all, Republican's support Violence Against Women.

more importantly, in congress and obama's world:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...e_speech_.html

HOME / Jurisprudence : The law, lawyers, and the court.
You Can’t Occupy This
The government says the anti-protest bill was just a small tweak of the existing law. Don’t believe it.
By Dahlia Lithwick and Raymond Vasvari

Posted Monday, March 19, 2012, at 6:25 PM ET

The law purports to update an old law, Section 1752 of Title 18 of the United States Code, that restricted areas around the president, vice president, or any others under the protection of the Secret Service. The original law was enacted in 1971 and amended in 2006. At first blush, the big change here is that while the old law made it a federal offense to "willfully and knowingly" enter a restricted space, now prosecutors need only show that you did it "knowingly"—that you knew the area was restricted, even if you didn’t know it was illegal to enter the space. This has been characterized in some quarters as a small technical change that hardly warrants an arched eyebrow, much less a protest.

But it’s important to understand what has changed since the original law was enacted in 1971, because it shows how much a tiny tweak to the intent requirement in a statute can impact the free speech of everyone.

For one thing, the law makes it easier for the government to criminalize protest. Period. It is a federal offense, punishable by up to 10 years in prison to protest anywhere the Secret Service might be guarding someone. For another, it’s almost impossible to predict what constitutes “disorderly or disruptive conduct” or what sorts of conduct authorities deem to “impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

The types of events and individuals warranting Secret Service protection have grown exponentially since the law was enacted in 1971. Today, any occasion that is officially defined as a National Special Security Event calls for Secret Service protection. NSSE’s can include basketball championships, concerts, and the Winter Olympics, which have nothing whatsoever to do with government business, official functions, or improving public grounds. Every Super Bowl since 9/11 has been declared an NSSE.

That attack was disgusting, yes. But John Kerry being Swiftboated, what they did to Clinton during his first campaign, etc. What Romney is doing to Santorum is pretty disgusting (Romney is just an out and out liar, and about Obama, too) and the only thing that comes out of Gingrich's mouth is racist dog whistles.

But there is no "liberal media" - measurably, based upon content - that's just a constant victimhood meme of the far right.

Who is talking about Obama's travel and "current gas prices"? Prices are still markedly lower than they were during Bush, before the recession crash. 75% of oil is under speculation, which is unprecedented, plus it's spring - prices always rise. We are using less oil than we have have, and exporting more for the first time :zz:

Ah. First you use one definition of "big", then you switch to another here. Then you segue to attacking illegal aliens, then the Euopean financial crisis.

Very well done. But has nothing to do with what I posted about :D

So, it's "no" for you. Duly noted ;)

Some more "Republican" news from today ... this is not "all" Republicans, it is from the "effing idiotic moron" wing of the party:

Are we on the hook for medical bills now? :wf

Thankfully they're much better than the reporter in Egypt you deemed OK! :D

FTFY.

From being murdered or sexually assaulted?

that she's OK?

Same explanation I've given you the multiple other times you've deliberately lied trying to misrepresent my opinion about Lara's horrible attack.

Oh! You go read that Politico article 'Zig referenced about voters in the other thread. It applies directly to you and your demonstrable thought processes.

I'm sorry I misread your retraction.

I take your constant rants on free BC coverage and bashing the US while at the same time ignoring the real atrocities happening all over the world including here disgusting.

Look, as I've said before, if including BC coverage in a health care plan is cheaper to the insurance company, no law dictating such is required.