PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Secret Service Asks for More Money


recxjake
07-24-2008, 05:01 PM
1

Donger
07-24-2008, 05:10 PM
Secret Service Asks for More Money

Thursday, Jul. 24, 2008 By AP/EILEEN SULLIVAN Article (WASHINGTON) The Secret Service has asked for an extra $9.5 million to cover unexpected costs of protecting the presidential candidates during what has turned into an historic year for the agency's campaign security job.

Among other things, the extra money would be used for the added costs for the candidates' international travel and a late-in-the-game decision by Barack Obama to accept the Democratic nomination at an open-air, 76,000-seat sports stadium in Denver.

Obama is on a six-day trip to Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and Britain, following a three-day trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Republican candidate John McCain has traveled to Canada, Colombia and Mexico.

What was/is the reason for Barack Hussein's decision to move the acceptance to Mile High?

Donger
07-24-2008, 05:27 PM
Ah, I just found the reason. The last candidate to give his acceptance speech other than where the convention was being held?

John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 05:29 PM
Anybody know how much the secret service costs on an annual basis?

Anybody?

Donger
07-24-2008, 05:30 PM
Anybody know how much the secret service costs on an annual basis?

Anybody?

Their budget is ~$1 billion.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 05:33 PM
Their budget is ~$1 billion.
A YEAR.

Now multiply that by four.

And realize that asking for an extra $9 million every four years for a major party convention isn't that bad.

Then promptly untwist your panties.

Donger
07-24-2008, 05:35 PM
A YEAR.

Now multiply that by four.

And realize that asking for an extra $9 million every four years for a major party convention isn't that bad.

Then promptly untwist your panties.

1) My underwear is not twisted.

2) I'm glad that you're fine with Barack Hussein spending ~$9.5 million of the taxpayers money in order to pump up his ego.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 05:36 PM
1) My underwear is not twisted.

2) I'm glad that you're fine with Barack Hussein spending ~$9.5 million of the taxpayers money in order to pump up his ego.
Your #2 just proved your #1 wrong.

Donger
07-24-2008, 05:40 PM
Your #2 just proved your #1 wrong.

Not at all. Barack Hussein chose to move the speech from Pepsi Center (which holds 21,000) to Mile High. That decision cost ~$9.5 million of "our" money.

If you think that cost is justified, so be it.

***SPRAYER
07-24-2008, 05:43 PM
Ah, I just found the reason. The last candidate to give his acceptance speech other than where the convention was being held?

John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

John F. Kerry = Barack Milhaus Obama

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 05:47 PM
Not at all. Barack Hussein chose to move the speech from Pepsi Center (which holds 21,000) to Mile High. That decision cost ~$9.5 million of "our" money.

If you think that cost is justified, so be it.
I don't think SEVEN THOUSANDTHS of a cent per citizen every four years is a big deal.

If you think the cost is a big deal, so be it.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 05:47 PM
John F. Kerry = Barack Milhaus Obama
And proof now that our resident SHTSPRAYER listens to Mark "THE GREAT ONE" Levin.

Not exactly surprising.

Donger
07-24-2008, 05:48 PM
I don't think SEVEN THOUSANDTHS of a cent per citizen every four years is a big deal.

If you think the cost is a big deal, so be it.

Here's a stat for you:

"The Secret Service budgeted $106.65 million for the 2008 campaign cycle"

Donger
07-24-2008, 05:49 PM
Ah, Barack Hussein's campaign acknowledges why they went to Mile High:

DENVER, July 24 (UPI) -- A top campaign staffer for Barack Obama says tickets to his acceptance speech in Denver will go to activists who will then be energized for further work.

Obama is scheduled to accept the Democratic presidential nomination in the stadium normally used by the Denver Broncos. Most Democratic Convention events will be at the Pepsi Center.

"We're going to ask those 80,000 people in that stadium to march out of there and go with very specific instructions and goals to register millions of new voters," Steve Hildebrand, Obama's deputy campaign manager, told The Denver Post in an interview Wednesday.

Is every taxpayer okay with financing Barack Hussein's desire for more registered voters? Doesn't he have a lot of cash?

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 05:50 PM
Here's a stat for you:

"The Secret Service budgeted $106.65 million for the 2008 campaign cycle"
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand?

Donger
07-24-2008, 05:51 PM
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand?

Well, Barack Hussein's decision to move to Mile High is going to cost ~$9.5 million. That's quite an increase in the budget.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 05:56 PM
Well, Barack Hussein's decision to move to Mile High is going to cost ~$9.5 million. That's quite an increase in the budget.
Multiply that annual budget by four years, because this is an increase you only see in election years.

Then ask yourself if you're REALLY caring about the right things, because the he Dow Jones industrial average lost 283 points, there was a college shooting today in Phoenix, and a top secret torture memo (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/24/cia.torture/index.html) was released today.

Start caring about the right shit, Donger, and pull your head out of the goddamn sand.

Donger
07-24-2008, 05:58 PM
Multiply that annual budget by four years, because this is an increase you only see in election years.

Then ask yourself if you're REALLY caring about the right things, because the he Dow Jones industrial average lost 283 points, there was a college shooting today in Phoenix, and a top secret torture memo (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/24/cia.torture/index.html) was released today.

Start caring about the right shit, Donger, and pull your head out of the goddamn sand.

What makes you think I don't care about those things?

Anyway, I'm glad you're okay with paying for Barack Hussein's ego boost and voter registration drive.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 05:59 PM
What makes you think I don't care about those things?

Anyway, I'm glad you're okay with paying for Barack Hussein's ego boost and voter registration drive.
You should be too, genious. It's ****ing democracy.

Donger
07-24-2008, 06:01 PM
You should be too, genious. It's ****ing democracy.

What does Barack Hussein moving his acceptance speech to Mile High and making us pay for it have to do with "democracy"?

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 06:04 PM
What does Barack Hussein moving his acceptance speech to Mile High and making us pay for it have to do with "democracy"?
Because we'd have to pay for it if McCain did the same thing.

It's in order to keep major candidates safe so that you and I can make our judgments on election day based on who we think would be the best for our country, not who we think will survive his first term.

Donger
07-24-2008, 06:06 PM
Because we'd have to pay for it if McCain did the same thing.

It's in order to keep major candidates safe so that you and I can make our judgments on election day based on who we think would be the best for our country, not who we think will survive his first term.

If McCain did the same thing, I would have the same issue with it.

The problem is that Barack Hussein did not have to change venues. He chose to. I don't like having to pay for his ego. Again, if you do, fine.

|Zach|
07-24-2008, 06:07 PM
If McCain did the same thing, I would have the same issue with it.



False.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 06:09 PM
I'm not going to toy with your retarded hypotheticals that you'll never have to prove either way.

The problem is that Barack Hussein did not have to change venues. He chose to. I don't like having to pay for his ego. Again, if you do, fine.
Of course, this is all banking on the idea that having a bigger venue CAN ONLY MEAN that Obama wants to feed his ego.

Donger
07-24-2008, 06:12 PM
False.

How would you know that?

|Zach|
07-24-2008, 06:13 PM
How would you know that?

You don't talk about McCain. You drool over every Obama move. Which is understandable, nobody wants to listen to McCain.

Donger
07-24-2008, 06:14 PM
I'm not going to toy with your retarded hypotheticals that you'll never have to prove either way.

Ummm, it was your retarded hypothetical. You brought up McCain.

Of course, this is all banking on the idea that having a bigger venue CAN ONLY MEAN that Obama wants to feed his ego.

Based on what his campaign has stated, the idea is to get more followers to register more voters.

Guru
07-24-2008, 06:14 PM
The Messiah is obviously worth every expense.

|Zach|
07-24-2008, 06:15 PM
The Messiah is obviously worth every expense.

Responding to this post for the record.

Donger
07-24-2008, 06:15 PM
You don't talk about McCain. You drool over every Obama move. Which is understandable, nobody wants to listen to McCain.

I don't support McCain. I oppose Barack Hussein. I admit that freely.

So, what makes you think that my assertion was false?

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 06:16 PM
Ummm, it was your retarded hypothetical. You brought up McCain.

Based on what his campaign has stated, the idea is to get more followers to register more voters.
Bingo. A bigger venue can help him register more voters. Ego or not, it's a move designed to help him win.

If McCain wanted to try the same thing, he could. That's NOT a hypothetical, moron. That's the LAW.

|Zach|
07-24-2008, 06:16 PM
I don't support McCain. I oppose Barack Hussein. I admit that freely.

So, what makes you think that my assertion was false?

Hold on, lemme put on my Donger hat.

"What makes you think my assertion of you wouldn't be false. You have evidence to contrary?"

Donger
07-24-2008, 06:20 PM
Bingo. A bigger venue can help him register more voters. Ego or not, it's a move designed to help him win.

If McCain wanted to try the same thing, he could. That's NOT a hypothetical, moron. That's the LAW.

Why are you getting personal? Moron?

Anyway, what law is it?

And, it IS a hypothetical. McCain has not done so.

Donger
07-24-2008, 06:22 PM
Hold on, lemme put on my Donger hat.

"What makes you think my assertion of you wouldn't be false. You have evidence to contrary?"

It's called logic.

1) I don't support wasting money, especially mine.

2) I don't support McCain.

3) Therefore, I would dislike McCain doing what Barack Hussein is doing by moving his venue.

Pretty simple really.

|Zach|
07-24-2008, 06:23 PM
It's called logic.

1) I don't support wasting money, especially mine.

2) I don't support McCain.

3) Therefore, I would dislike McCain doing what Barack Hussein is doing by moving his venue.

Pretty simple really.

Do you have evidence of each of these points?

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 06:23 PM
Why are you getting personal? Moron?

Anyway, what law is it?

And, it IS a hypothetical. McCain has not done so.
This post is a joke.

HolmeZz
07-24-2008, 06:26 PM
(Stolen from some other CP poster)

Is everything you post taken from somewhere else?

Donger
07-24-2008, 06:28 PM
Do you have evidence of each of these points?

Only my word.

Donger
07-24-2008, 06:28 PM
This post is a joke.

Why would you say that?

markk
07-24-2008, 06:29 PM
I wonder about this. A perfectly adequate venue was available, approximately the same as had been used for every other nomination in recent history.

The campaign admittedly is only spending all this extra taxpayer money for its own benefit, to energize its minions to work harder. So, since this was a de facto taking of $9 million from the government into the Obama campaign, should the McCain campaign get a similar contribution?

|Zach|
07-24-2008, 06:31 PM
Only my word.

So, that is a no?

Donger
07-24-2008, 06:33 PM
So, that is a no?

Yes, if you chose to not take me at my word.

|Zach|
07-24-2008, 06:34 PM
Yes, if you chose to not take me at my word.

Sorry, that is all for one day.

I could only stand to act like you for a few posts.

Playing stupid all the time isn't fun in the least.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 06:38 PM
Why would you say that?
1. Because I don't care if I get personal with you.

2. Why are you asking me to cite laws? Are you disputing that McCain is permitted by law to have as big a convention as he wants?

3. Hypotheticals involve presuming situations that are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. You have nothing to back up your statement that you'd bang on McCain if he had the same type of convention, but I have the law on my side when I say that McCain could have a convention as big as Obama's. Therefore, your statement about McCain is a hypothetical, and my statement about McCain is a fact.

4. You have no coherent arguments. Just anti-Obama kneejerks.

Donger
07-24-2008, 06:39 PM
Sorry, that is all for one day.

I could only stand to act like you for a few posts.

Playing stupid all the time isn't fun in the least.

Oh, you were attempting to be clever?

|Zach|
07-24-2008, 06:41 PM
Oh, you were attempting to be clever?

No, I was attempting to post like you. Which pretty much puts me on a different end of the spectrum from clever.

Donger
07-24-2008, 06:45 PM
1. Because I don't care if I get personal with you.

Okay. Whatever floats your boat.

2. Why are you asking me to cite laws? Are you disputing that McCain is permitted by law to have as big a convention as he wants?

You brought up law. I didn't. I merely asked you about it.

3. Hypotheticals involve presuming situations that are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. You have nothing to back up your statement that you'd bang on McCain if he had the same type of convention, but I have the law on my side when I say that McCain could have a convention as big as Obama's. Therefore, your statement about McCain is a hypothetical, and my statement about McCain is a fact.


As I said to Zach, only my word. And, again, you raised that hypothetical, not me.

4. You have no coherent arguments. Just anti-Obama kneejerks.

I think my arguments are quite straightforward. Perhaps you don't like them because they happen to be against Barack Hussein? Or can you not view things from other peoples' perspectives?

beer bacon
07-24-2008, 06:48 PM
You know who else wanted to increase civic engagement? That's right.

|Zach|
07-24-2008, 06:49 PM
You know who else wanted to increase civic engagement? That's right.

http://www.cartermuseum.org/files/imagecache/artwork_detail/files/P1991-32-7_s.jpg

Donger
07-24-2008, 06:50 PM
No, I was attempting to post like you. Which pretty much puts me on a different end of the spectrum from clever.

I see. You think I'm not very clever.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 06:52 PM
As I said to Zach, only my word. And, again, you raised that hypothetical, not me.
Again, it's only a hypothetical if it's a pretend situation that you can't resolve with any evidence. Therefore, what I brought was BY DEFINITION not a hypothetical.

Your discussion of your outrage over McCain's convention was a hypothetical.

Get.

It.

Straight.

Donger
07-24-2008, 07:01 PM
Again, it's only a hypothetical if it's a pretend situation that you can't resolve with any evidence. Therefore, what I brought was BY DEFINITION not a hypothetical.

Your discussion of your outrage over McCain's convention was a hypothetical.

Get.

It.

Straight.

Let's try this again:

1) You wrote: "Because we'd have to pay for it if McCain did the same thing."

2) McCain has not, and has not proposed, doing the same thing.

3) Therefore, you proposed a hypothetical, to which I was responded.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 07:03 PM
Let's try this again:

1) You wrote: "Because we'd have to pay for it if McCain did the same thing."

2) McCain has not, and has not proposed, doing the same thing.

3) Therefore, you proposed a hypothetical, to which I was responded.
It's only a hypothetical if it can't be resolved with evidence.

The evidence I have is there is no law barring McCain from holding the exact same type of convention.

That resolves it. It's not a hypothetical.

Donger
07-24-2008, 07:05 PM
It's only a hypothetical if it can't be resolved with evidence.

The evidence I have is there is no law barring McCain from holding the exact same type of convention.

That resolves it. It's not a hypothetical.

It's a hypothetical because it hasn't happened. Could McCain change venue as Barack Hussein has? Yes. Has he? No.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 07:12 PM
It's a hypothetical because it hasn't happened.
That's not the definition of a hypothetical.

Donger
07-24-2008, 07:16 PM
That's not the definition of a hypothetical.

It's a tricky word, to be sure. But, I think most would agree that is a hypothetical is based on an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument. Would you agree?

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 07:17 PM
It's a tricky word, to be sure. But, I think most would agree that is a hypothetical is based on an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument. Would you agree?
Only in the world of online political debate, where you're never allowed to back down, even in situations such as these when I've thoroughly undressed you across several different threads, could a word like "hypothetical" ever be considered tricky.

markk
07-24-2008, 07:18 PM
It's a tricky word, to be sure. But, I think most would agree that is a hypothetical is based on an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument. Would you agree?

you might even say that the word is somehow related to "hypothesis"

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 07:19 PM
you might even say that the word is somehow related to "hypothesis"
In logic, a hypothetical can only exist when there is no evidence to resolve a pretend issue.

Donger
07-24-2008, 07:25 PM
Only in the world of online political debate, where you're never allowed to back down, even in situations such as these when I've thoroughly undressed you across several different threads, could a word like "hypothetical" ever be considered tricky.

Perhaps it would serve you better if you stopped trying to "beat" me and focused on the basics?

Donger
07-24-2008, 07:27 PM
In logic, a hypothetical can only exist when there is no evidence to resolve a pretend issue.

1) McCain changing venue is a pretend issue, since he has not or has not proposed doing so.

2) There is no evidence to resolve said issue, because it does not exist.

Thanks.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 07:32 PM
Perhaps it would serve you better if you stopped trying to "beat" me and focused on the basics?
I'm DEFINING WORDS for you.

Doesn't get much more basic than that.

1) McCain changing venue is a pretend issue, since he has not or has not proposed doing so.

2) There is no evidence to resolve said issue, because it does not exist.

Thanks.
Swing and a miss.

2) There is evidence available, since there is no law preventing McCain from having the exact same convention as Obama.

Therefore, IF McCain wanted to have the same kind of convention, THEN he could.

Donger
07-24-2008, 07:36 PM
I'm DEFINING WORDS for you.

Doesn't get much more basic than that.


Swing and a miss.

2) There is evidence available, since there is no law preventing McCain from having the exact same convention as Obama.

Therefore, IF McCain wanted to have the same kind of convention, THEN he could.

Yes, McCain COULD. However, he has NOT.

Therefore, it is a hypothetical.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 07:38 PM
Yes, McCain COULD. However, he has NOT.

Therefore, it is a hypothetical.
It's not a hypothetical because there's no other possible end result if McCain wanted to.

To be a hypothetical in logic, there has to be a degree of uncertainty.

There is no uncertainty. If McCain wanted to, he could. That is not a hypothetical, that is a fact.

Donger
07-24-2008, 07:41 PM
It's not a hypothetical because there's no other possible end result if McCain wanted to.

To be a hypothetical in logic, there has to be a degree of uncertainty.

There is no uncertainty. If McCain wanted to, he could. That is not a hypothetical, that is a fact.

If that is your definition of a hypothetical, you realize that hypotheticals cannot exist, yes?

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 07:45 PM
If that is your definition of a hypothetical, you realize that hypotheticals cannot exist, yes?
Yes, they can.

Hypotheticals are pretend situations where there is no evidence that resolves them.

For instance, when Zach asked you if you feel the same rage if McCain had a similar convention, that is a hypothetical question. The outcome is uncertain. You could feel rage, or you could be totally okay with it. There is no evidence to totally prove one or the other.

Working again with my McCain situation, there is no uncertainty. If he wanted to have an Obama-like convention, there is no other result other than he could legally have it. This is not a hypothetical, anymore than me saying "IF I dropped a rock to the ground, THEN it would fall to the floor."

Donger
07-24-2008, 07:50 PM
Yes, they can.

Hypotheticals are pretend situations where there is no evidence that resolves them.

For instance, when Zach asked you if you feel the same rage if McCain had a similar convention, that is a hypothetical question. The outcome is uncertain. You could feel rage, or you could be totally okay with it. There is no evidence to totally prove one or the other.

Working again with my McCain situation, there is no uncertainty. If he wanted to have an Obama-like convention, there is no other result other than he could legally have it. This is not a hypothetical, anymore than me saying "IF I dropped a rock to the ground, THEN it would fall to the floor."

I disagree. You wrote: "Because we'd have to pay for it if McCain did the same thing."

There is indeed uncertainty. McCain has NOT done the same thing. He has not changed venue. Therefore, it is a pretend situation. No evidence is necessary to "resolve" it because it hasn't happened.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 07:54 PM
I disagree. You wrote: "Because we'd have to pay for it if McCain did the same thing."

There is indeed uncertainty. McCain has NOT done the same thing. He has not changed venue. Therefore, it is a pretend situation. No evidence is necessary to "resolve" it because it hasn't happened.
Swing and a miss. LMAO

We WOULD have to pay for it if McCain did choose. There's no uncertainty there. If McCain chose to have an Obama-like convention, the law allows that we would have to pay for security spikes. There is no other reasonable result of that decision.

That lack of uncertainty, therefore, disqualifies it as a hypothetical.

Donger
07-24-2008, 07:58 PM
Swing and a miss. LMAO

We WOULD have to pay for it if McCain did choose. There's no uncertainty there. If McCain chose to have an Obama-like convention, the law allows that we would have to pay for security spikes. There is no other reasonable result of that decision.

That lack of uncertainty, therefore, disqualifies it as a hypothetical.

We would, yes. But since he hasn't chosen to do so, it is an assumption not based on any evidence.

In other words, I hypothetical.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 08:00 PM
We would, yes. But since he hasn't chosen to do so, it is an assumption not based on any evidence.

In other words, I hypothetical.
Whatever you say, gorgeous.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 08:00 PM
Let me ask this: if I dropped this rock in my hand, it would fall to that floor.

You'd call that a hypothetical, right?

Donger
07-24-2008, 08:01 PM
Whatever you say, gorgeous.

I fail to see how my attractiveness is relevant.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 08:01 PM
Let me ask this: if I dropped this rock in my hand, it would fall to that floor.

You'd call that a hypothetical, right?
(Just want you to see this.)

Donger
07-24-2008, 08:03 PM
Let me ask this: if I dropped this rock in my hand, it would fall to that floor.

You'd call that a hypothetical, right?

Do you have a rock?

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 08:04 PM
Do you have a rock?
I'm inside. I have a paperweight.

If I let go, it would fall to that floor.

Is that a hypothetical?

Donger
07-24-2008, 08:06 PM
I'm inside. I have a paperweight.

If I let go, it would fall to that floor.

Is that a hypothetical?

Depending on your location, yes it typically would.

However, if you were in orbit, it would not.

If something got in the way of the floor and the paperweight, it would not.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 08:08 PM
Depending on your location, yes it typically would.

However, if you were in orbit, it would not.

If something got in the way of the floor and the paperweight, it would not.
JFC, dude. Stop yanking your penis and answer the question. I'm not asking if it hits the floor, I'm asking if it's a hypothetical.

I'm standing in an empty room, on ****ing earth. Nothing between my hand and the floor.

So I say "If I dropped the paperweight, it would fall to the floor."

Is that a hypothetical?

FAX
07-24-2008, 08:08 PM
Hmmmm. 7/1000s of a cent here ... 7/1000s of a cent there ... pretty soon you've got a dime and we're already paying too much for DirectTV and stuff. Politicians are fleecing our nation like a one-eyed dog on a lemon martini bender.

I say, if Obama wants more money, let him sell favors under the table like everybody else.

FAX

FAX
07-24-2008, 08:11 PM
I think I know this one.

FAX

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 08:11 PM
I think I know this one.
You better know this one.

Any rational adult with a working knowledge of logic better know this one.

Donger
07-24-2008, 08:12 PM
JFC, dude. Stop yanking your penis and answer the question. I'm not asking if it hits the floor, I'm asking if it's a hypothetical.

I'm standing in an empty room, on ****ing earth. Nothing between my hand and the floor.

So I say "If I dropped the paperweight, it would fall to the floor."

Is that a hypothetical?

I don't know. Are you are standing in an empty room, on ****ing earth with nothing between your hand and the floor, ready to go?

Unless you are standing in an empty room, on ****ing earth with nothing between your hand and the floor, yes, it is a hypothetical question.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 08:14 PM
I don't know. Are you are standing in an empty room, on ****ing earth with nothing between your hand and the floor, ready to go?

Unless you are standing in an empty room, on ****ing earth with nothing between your hand and the floor, yes, it is a hypothetical question.
Well, you answered it exactly as I thought you would.

But that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

Oh well.

Donger
07-24-2008, 08:16 PM
Well, you answered it exactly as I thought you would.

But that doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

Oh well.

How am I wrong?

The fact remains that McCain hasn't requested a change in venue. Something you brought up.

IF he hasn't requested, THEN I fail to see how it is relevant to the discussion of Barack Hussein's change in plan.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 08:17 PM
How am I wrong?

The fact remains that McCain hasn't requested a change in venue. Something you brought up.

IF he hasn't requested, THEN I fail to see how it is relevant to the discussion of Barack Hussein's change in plan.
Now you're discussing relevance. Relevance has nothing to do with hypotheticals.

You're getting colder and colder, Donger.

Donger
07-24-2008, 08:19 PM
Now you're discussing relevance. Relevance has nothing to do with hypotheticals.

You're getting colder and colder, Donger.

Especially one that you brought up.

Taco John
07-24-2008, 08:20 PM
Ah, Barack Hussein's campaign acknowledges why they went to Mile High:

DENVER, July 24 (UPI) -- A top campaign staffer for Barack Obama says tickets to his acceptance speech in Denver will go to activists who will then be energized for further work.

Obama is scheduled to accept the Democratic presidential nomination in the stadium normally used by the Denver Broncos. Most Democratic Convention events will be at the Pepsi Center.

"We're going to ask those 80,000 people in that stadium to march out of there and go with very specific instructions and goals to register millions of new voters," Steve Hildebrand, Obama's deputy campaign manager, told The Denver Post in an interview Wednesday.

Is every taxpayer okay with financing Barack Hussein's desire for more registered voters? Doesn't he have a lot of cash?


I don't think Obama should make campaign decisions based on the secret services budget. It's the secret services job to react to what Obama does, not the other way around.

What I do find odd is that *this* is the issue you've gotten your panties in a twist over. You haven't been much of a budget hawk around here.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 08:21 PM
Especially one that you brought up.
Doesn't matter. Relevance is, ironically, irrelevant when it comes to determining whether something is a hypothetical.

Work it out, Simon.

Donger
07-24-2008, 08:22 PM
I don't think Obama should make campaign decisions based on the secret services budget. It's the secret services job to react to what Obama does, not the other way around.

What I do find odd is that *this* is the issue you've gotten your panties in a twist over. You haven't been much of a budget hawk around here.

Barack Hussein didn't need to do this. He chose to.

As to not being a budget hawk, I think you have me confused with someone else. I hate spending money.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 08:22 PM
I don't think Obama should make campaign decisions based on the secret services budget. It's the secret services job to react to what Obama does, not the other way around.

What I do find odd is that *this* is the issue you've gotten your panties in a twist over. You haven't been much of a budget hawk around here.
I wonder what he thinks of Obama opting out of public financing.

He's saving taxpayers $80+ million, right?

Donger
07-24-2008, 08:23 PM
Doesn't matter. Relevance is, ironically, irrelevant when it comes to determining whether something is a hypothetical.

Work it out, Simon.

Well, when and if McCain choses to spend taxpayer money to satiate his ego, I'll be at the front of the line condemning it.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 08:24 PM
Well, when and if McCain choses to spend taxpayer money to satiate his ego, I'll be at the front of the line condemning it.
Now THAT'S a hypothetical.

Moron.

Donger
07-24-2008, 08:27 PM
Now THAT'S a hypothetical.

Moron.

Yes, it is. I'm glad that you finally get it.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 08:28 PM
I wonder what he thinks of Obama opting out of public financing.

He's saving taxpayers $80+ million, right?
Answer this question, Donger.

Do you praise Obama for saving Americans from having to spend $80 million to fund his campaign?

Donger
07-24-2008, 08:29 PM
Answer this question, Donger.

Do you praise Obama for saving Americans from having to spend $80 million to fund his campaign?

No.

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 08:30 PM
No.
ROFL

And there it was.

Donger
07-24-2008, 08:32 PM
ROFL

And there it was.

What's amusing?

Direckshun
07-24-2008, 08:34 PM
What's amusing?
I can't help but find you amusing.

Donger
07-24-2008, 08:35 PM
I can't help but find you amusing.

Okay.