«

»

Let them eat cake!

If you doubt that our elite masters think we are serfs better served by the mushroom treatment (kept in the dark and fed shit about what they are up to) and that they care little about the pain their policies are causing us, you need to but look at how they are at work hiding their lavish parties:

There was a party in the East Room of the White House Saturday night, an affair attended by a reported 500 people, a lavish celebration with celebrities galore, appearances by some of the world’s most popular performers, lots of dancing and powerful government officials, including, of course, the most powerful official of all, the President of the United States. And the White House wants to make sure you know as little as possible about it.

The event was First Lady Michelle Obama’s 50th birthday party. According to reports in People, the Chicago Tribune, TMZ, US Magazine, and elsewhere, among of the attendees were, in no particular order: Beyonce, Stevie Wonder, Paul McCartney, James Taylor, Smokey Robinson, Gladys Knight, Janelle Monae, Mary J. Blige, Angela Bassett, Courtney Vance, Herbie Hancock, Samuel L. Jackson, Grant Hill, Alonzo Mourning, Ledisi, Emmett Smith, Star Jones, Al Roker, Steve Harvey, Magic Johnson, Billie Jean King, Michael Jordan, Angela Bassett, Jennifer Hudson, Gayle King, Ahmad Rashad, Kal Penn, and Ashley Judd. Among the current and former government officials attending were Joe Biden, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Susan Rice, Eric Holder, and Kathleen Sebelius.

It’s not easy to enforce discipline on successful, wealthy, and famous people used to having their own way. But the White House apparently did not want to see photos of the first lady’s glittery gala circulating around the Internet. So it imposed a strict rule: No cellphones. “Guests were told not to bring cellphones with them, and there was a cellphone check-in area for those who did,” reported the Chicago Tribune. “Signs at the party told guests: No cellphones, no social media.” People magazine added: “Guests had been greeted by a ‘cell phone check’ table where they deposited their camera phones on arrival and it was understood that this was not an occasion for Tweeting party photos or Facebooking details.” The publications cited sources who insisted on anonymity for fear of White House reprisal.

“So great was the secrecy surrounding the party,” the Tribune reported, “that guests were handed an invitation — on their way out, the sources said.”

So far, the crackdown appears to have been a success. Although a few attendees have tweeted that they had a great time, or that they danced until their feet could take no more, the Web has not been filled with photos of the first lady’s extravagant celebration. Perhaps some will appear; maybe the White House will even release an official photo. But it’s unlikely the public will see much.

Can you imagine the media reaction if a Republican did something like this? And Moochelle sure is trying hard to play her role of Marie Antoinette to the hilt. The next time you hear these class warriors preaching about inequality, social justice, or whatever other bullshit they usually drag out to raise the hackles on the envious & jealous, remember that they are part of the .000001%.

44 comments

No ping yet

  1. Aussiesmurf says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 12

      
  2. Mook says:

    Barack Obama’s net worth is approximately $11.8 million dollars.

    Obama had very little nine years ago before he entered politics. Now he’s worth $11.8 million. How does someone do that that legally on a senators salary for 2 1/2 years and the presidents salary for 5 years?

    Why are you comparing the First Lady to Marie Antoinette? Because she had a 50th birthday party? Do you feel that the spending was excessive? Are there comparable parties for other presidents’ families (where much less was spent) to which you wish to draw my attention?

    Since Michelle wanted to take separate planes (remember when Pres Obama said that was his “gift” to her at taxpayer expense), that means a second flight back at footed by taxpayer expense and the cost of Michelle O’s security detail. In my lifetime, I’ve never seen a First lady take as many lavish vacations as Michelle Obama. Not even close. For her 60th, Laura Bush was on the campaign trail with her husband. In fact, most of Laura Bush’s (and other First ladies as I recall) vacations were actually missions, not for 100% personal pleasure

    The Obamas are phoney poseurs living like the .0001%, largely on the taxpayer’s dime, while asking others to sacrifice.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2

      
  3. AlexInCT says:

    (5) Why are wealthy people barred from speaking about inequality and social justice?

    They are absolutely not barred. In fact, I encourage them all to do a lot more than just talk – the proverbial put your money where your mouth is – and to give away all their money if they feel that the solution to inequality is that some have too much and thus, others have been robbed. My problem is with poseurs that pretend they care about social justice but always have a different agenda. As Mook already pointed out, it is a rare politician – especially amongst democrats, where the only one that has been in government for so long and has little money to show for it is Biden (and we all know that with his kind of smarts he is lucky not to be living in a dumpster) – that’s not made it, and made it big. Democrats come in broke, and all are millionaires, if not billionaires like Al Bore, because of the shit they have done, practically always in the name of social justice.

    If you feel the world is unjust change YOUR ways. Do not try to coerce and force others, through the power of an abusive government run by crooks of all thing, to bear the brunt of your “desire” to fix the world. You are neither doing good or being good: you are a fucking ass. You leftists aren’t much better than the old religions: you try to force your morality on people, and it always amount to enriching the priesthood while fucking over everyone else.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

      
  4. Xetrov says:

    (1) What do you need to know about a private party?

    There are no private parties in the People’s White House.

    Why would you try to obfuscate the point of Alex’s post which is to point out the hypocrisy in Washington? Do you disagree that Obama tries to portray himself as just one of the people out of one side of his face, while behaving as if he were some sort of king/rockstar out of the other? Not saying he’s the only politician in Washington to do it, but he’s certainly the biggest example at the moment.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

      
  5. Aussiesmurf says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11

      
  6. AlexInCT says:

    Alex – It is absurd to say that to avoid hypocrisy a left-wing politican must give away all of their assets and income

    It’s only absurd to people that think they have a right to other people’s property and the fruit of their labor, for whatever invented reason – and believe you me, regardless of whatever nonsense you libs say the reason is invented and convoluted, to hide the fact that it amounts to nothing more than moralized theft – just because they are able to prey on the greed and envy of people that feel they deserve shit just because they were born. The thing is the only money you have a right to give away is your own. Philanthropy with other people’s money, the part & parcel of the left’s system, is neither philanthropy nor moral.

    Let’s say for the sake of argument that a left-wing politician earns $500,000.00 per year, and advocates a top tax rate of 50%. That means that, they earn (around) $350,000.00 per year after tax.

    No politician “earns” that kind of money. They only live like they make 10 times as much as you suggest by ripping off tax payers. All their money comes from selling favors or influencing the lawmaking, to favor themselves, directly or indirectly, or to favor special interests that then pay them back. Yes, that applies to both parties, but the democrats, the ones pretending to champion social justice, are masters at that game of enriching themselves through the use of their office and the coercive power of government. Republicans tend to make their money in the private sector, for which they are hated. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

    They can certainly spend that money how they choose. Spending that on a birthday party (or for whatever other purpose) doesn’t make them a hypocrite.

    The problem with your argument is that you want to pretend they spent their own money. They didn’t: the US tax payer footed that bill, and the party was held in the WH, which doesn’t belong to them either. At least they had the decency, I hope, because I do not have the details, not to rent out rooms in the WH to top bidders, like some other democrats used to.

    Shouldn’t ‘rich leftists’ therefore be praised for advocating tax regimes at personal cost to themselves?

    This was absolutely laughable and shows a level of ignorance or deception on your part that is just staggering. These people never pass laws that hurt them personally. There is a reason they focus so hard on income tax, and that is the fact that they have very little of that. Their wealth is acquired otherwise.

    For example Warren Buffet, a stinking rich lefty, and the dream child of every class warrior crusader, loves higher income taxes, and tried to help these crooks sell it with that whole spiel about his secretary paying more than he does in taxes. But he was being as deceptive as can be, and that’s because his income is a pittance compared to his wealth. His wealth has come from investments and speculation – practically always backed up by government fiat that greatly favors his ability to make money – and man has he made money helping politician pass laws that fuck the rest of us over. For example his support for the death tax, which would supposedly take ½ of his wealth upon his death, is based on the fact that one of his biggest businesses is selling insurance to ultra rich people to avoid the impact of that tax. With that law he sells a lot more of that insurance, makes a ton more money, and gets to buy one himself, at reduced risk. And do you remember his support for Obama when he refused to push for that Keystone/Excel pipeline? Well, he made big money off that as well. But you want us to think he is noble for this shit?

    By ripping off other people’s income through high taxation Buffet and the left prevent others from getting rich and becoming competition. And that’s not by coincidence: the left has always felt it should be the arbiter of who gets to win and who doesn’t. That’s what social justice is in a nutshell: a shell game which lends credibility and legitimacy to a bunch of crooks that want to play god. BTW, the only difference between Buffet and the leftist “social justice” politicians is that he gets to fuck them, with the benefit of a reach around, while they only fuck the rest of us over. And we don’t get the reach around. We get told to lick the dick clean and like it.

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

      
  7. Mook says:

    Mook – No, I don’t remember that. Please provide citation. What is a “mission”, and what do you mean by that comment?

    Of course you don’t, because you’re dishonest to the core.

    Other than trips to the Crawford ranch and annual hiking trips with her girlfriends at a US national park, Laura Bush’s “vacations” were working vacations with a mission:

    July 2005 – with daughters on an African safari. Also, part of this “vacation” was spent with young female AIDS victims in Zambia listening to stories of abuse and taking mosquito nets to southern Africa so children could be protected from malaria. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php

    October 2007 – Mrs. Bush traveled around the middle east raising awareness of Breast Cancer. http://www.healthcentral.com/breast-cancer/c/

    March 2008 – Mexico. More breast cancer awareness. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationw

    March 2008 – Haiti. To promote increased funding for AIDS patients and support education. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-03-14

    None of these “working vacations” was really a vacation, except quite possibly part of the time of the safari, similar to Michelle O’s luxury vacation to Brazil where her husband made a couple of speeches while she vacationed.

    Do I see a difference between Mrs. Obama’s lavish vacations in Hawaii, Spain and Vail vs Mrs. Bush’s vacations? Yes I do, and so would you if you weren’t such a dishonest apologist hack.

    Your President has grown up in a middle-class (if not poor) environment. Through his own labour (writing, working in a law firm and wining elections) he has prosper

    More lying BS. He grew up in an upper middle class to rich area in Hawaii funded by his rich grandparents. His childhood home currently appraised at near $1 million. Obama attended private prep school where he partied with the Choom gang. Even in Indonesia, he lived in an exclusive neighborhood. He never had a real job in his life. He allegedly wrote a book (many believe it was ghost written) which his corrupt supporters used as a vehicle to funnel money to him. Parts of the book he’s had to admit were lies. His largest financial supporter in the IL state Senate, Tony Rezko, made a “sweetheart” land deal with Obama and is now serving time in federal prison on corruption charges. Nope, that poor-boy lifting himself up story is a big fat lie.

    His private prep school mandated all of their students to take the test applying for National Merit scholarship. Obama didn’t make the cut. We don’t know his grades at Columbia either, but it’s certain that he didn’t graduate with honors. Highly doubtful he “earned” his way into Harvard. Obama is the mirror opposite of those who pull themselves up by their bootstraps

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

      
  8. Xetrov says:

    Xetrov – The use of the term “People’s White House” is disingenuous.

    Disingenuous – Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

    How?

    Your President has grown up in a middle-class (if not poor) environment.

    Punahou, the school he attended is a private school. Current tuition rates for that school are almost $20,000 per year. http://www.punahou.edu/admission/tuition/index.aspx. Tell me any middle-class, let alone poor family that could afford to send a child there (he was not sent there on a scholarship, so don’t bother). He was primarily raised by his grandparents who were fairly well off (grandmother was a bank executive, grandfather owned a successful chain of furniture stores).

    Through his own labour (writing, working in a law firm and wining elections) he has prospered. He should be a poster-boy for the right-wing ‘drag yourself up by your bootstraps’ crowd.

    “His own labor.” Heh, that’s funny. I guess you’ve never heard of a little thing in this country called Affirmative Action. Read his autobiography. In his own words, he was a mediocre student, and a drug using “bum” in High School and at Occidental. Yet he still managed to transfer to an Ivy league college. As far as winning elections – If campaigning for office = capability of running the office, Obama would be the second best President ever, right behind Bill Clinton. You apparently don’t understand the concept of “drag yourself up by your bootstraps” at all.

    He has used his money

    You just keep the jokes coming.

    Clarify the hypocrisy, please.

    Obama -

    “If everybody took an attitude of shared sacrifice, we could solve our deficit and debt problem next week,”

    I guess his idea of “shared sacrifice” is a massive unemployment/underemployment problem, while he and his wife party with rockstars, and try to keep it hush-hush. Asking everyone else to sacrifice, while he goes golfing almost weekly, and spends millions of tax-payer dollars on vacations for he and his wife. But you don’t see hypocrisy there.

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

      
  9. AlexInCT says:

    Parts of the book he’s had to admit were lies

    This practice of making shit up is part and parcel of the political class, but man do the democrats love to do it. And the higher up they want to get and the more ambitious they are, the more of it they do. The top candidate for the democratic party in 2016 is well know to be beyond a shady liar, for example. Then we have the Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis, whom PMSNBC loves because of her one track political agenda, getting caught lying about her feminist creds. Now we know she made it by having some guy pay for her expensive school loans, divorcing him practically the day after they were paid off, to run off with some dude she was cheating with, and even left her children with the guy (she had to pay alimony and child support!). But yeah, this is what feminism is these days.

    If the media applied 10% of the effort they did on Palin to any democrat, I believe not a single one of them would survive and stay in office. So yeah, having the media in your pocket is one doozy of a trump card when you are a class warrior progressive hoping to take the rubes for a long ride off a short pier. Which is why Obama can get away with doing what they just did, on the tax payer’s dime and in our house, without a peep from the LSM.

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

      
  10. Section8 says:

    Well congrats Alex, you finally got a leftist here to have a discussion on the Obama Administration and privacy concerns.

    If the media applied 10% of the effort they did on Palin to any democrat, I believe not a single one of them would survive and stay in office.

    Remember when they had a hissy fit and then a field day ripping on her for getting 100K in clothes from the GOP so she could dress better during the campaign? That was mocked, but of course this will simply be ignored and excused away and that my friends is why the left is clearly the better group.

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

      
  11. Miguelito says:

    Let’s say for the sake of argument that a left-wing politician earns $500,000.00 per year, and advocates a top tax rate of 50%. That means that, they earn (around) $350,000.00 per year after tax.

    Dude, I want to use your math when I do my taxes.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

      
  12. CM says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

      
  13. AlexInCT says:

    IMHO there is a difference between being a hypocrite and setting a bad standard/example.
    Having an opinion about how the world/society/an economy should be structured doesn’t inherently mean that if one personally takes an action that isn’t entirely consistent with the same principle then they are a ‘hypocrite’.

    The problem isn’t with the fact that they don’t live up to what they believe and preach, CM: it’s with the fact that they severely punish, stigmatize, and demonize any others that won’t live up to the standards they preach, while giving themselves and their friends a pass. While I disagree with you that these people aren’t hypocrites, I think a more apt name for their behavior is ‘robber baron’. They profit from as system they created that allows them and those they allow into the inner circle to get away with legalized theft, all the while keeping the riff-raff under their thumb, but in the mean time absolving themselves from the pain they inflict on others.

    My favorite robber baron is Michael Moore. This genius managed to convince the sheep to give him a ton of their money by ranting against the very same rigged system that allowed him to make millions. Buffet is the same. He advocates for the social justice types knowing full well that the plan is to sock it to the people trying to get rich, by targeting income, and to do so while rigging the game so the system allows people like him to make even more money.

    For example a belief that taxes should be higher for your wage bracket doesn’t mean that if you don’t actively pay more in tax then you are a hypocrite.

    You are correct. What makes you a hypocrite is when you, like Buffet, don’t make your money from what I will refer to as traditional income – as I clearly showed – and crusade to tax that more, while then working with the very crooks in charge of making the rules that are advocating for higher taxes on traditional income, to allow the system that produces your wealth to be tweaked in your favor. That’s what’s not just hypocritical but criminal about the system. And yes, I firmly believe that not a single of the class warriors is in it to help others: they are all in it, not just to help themselves and those they like, but especially to punish those they don’t. Again, the proper name would be robber barons.

    Having a large celebration for your 50th birthday doesn’t necessarily

    I think you didn’t finish that off, but as we all pointed out already, the problem isn’t with the celebration, but with the fact that tax payers paid for it and that they kept it secret because they knew people fining out they were acting like the French nobility before the revolution wouldn’t play well. For a political clique that ran on being totally transparent and above board, this den of thieves sure has proven to be neither.

    Otherwise we get into the silliness of ‘Al Gore should live in a cave, otherwise he’s a hypocrite’.

    Actually there is zero silliness in pointing out that Gore has made hundreds of millions, demanding others lower their standard of living – to lower their carbon footprint that in comparison to his own amounts to comparing the food consumption of a flea vs. an elephant – while he not only didn’t curtail any of his own excesses, but exacerbated them. The silliness comes from people that want to pretend being a douchebag that makes tons of money telling others to go live in caves, to lower their carbon footprint, while they have the footprint of a small army, isn’t something ludicrous and worthy of scorn.

    You must be hurting from these kind of controtions to defend the indefensible, amn.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

      
  14. Iconoclast says:

    Having a large celebration for your 50th birthday doesn’t necessarily [make you a hypocrite]…

    It does if you are on record as saying:

    If everybody took an attitude of shared sacrifice, we could solve our deficit and debt problem next week

    …and then have an utterly lavish yet secretive party at taxpayer expense while millions remain unemployed or underemployed and while millions lose their health coverage under your “signature” legislation. Millions are being forced to make sacrifices — what sacrifices are the Obamas making? Playing golf only once a week instead of twice? Spending only a week in Hawaii instead of two months?

    Do you actually wonder why people accuse you of sucking….well, you know….??

    Otherwise we get into the silliness of ‘Al Gore should live in a cave, otherwise he’s a hypocrite’.

    Yes, your misrepresentation is silly, an exact parallel to the “small government libertarians should move to Somalia” nonsense. No, I am not saying that you personally used that example, so STFU about it already. Regarding Gore, his excessive carbon footprint is on record, regardless of attempts by various apologists to mitigate it.

    I see Alex has beaten me to it. Oh well…

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

      
  15. CM says:

    …and then have an utterly lavish yet secretive party at taxpayer expense

    I wasn’t aware that the taxpayer was paying the party bill. That is crazy, they should definitely be paying that themselves. The information I can find online only seems to refer to her staying a few extra days in Hawaii and the taxpayers having to foot the bill for the security during that time. But I assume I’m just not finding it?

    while millions remain unemployed or underemployed and while millions lose their health coverage under your “signature” legislation.

    My signature legislation? I’ve never even said I was supportive of the Obamacare system, let alone claiming to own it. It’s a little early in the discussion for you to be losing the plot completely.

    Millions are being forced to make sacrifices — what sacrifices are the Obamas making? Playing golf only once a week instead of twice? Spending only a week in Hawaii instead of two months?

    The ‘shared sacrifice’ he discussed in 2011 was in relation to how to deal with the “deficit and debt problem”. The idea is that everybody, not just one group, must be ready to give up something to help push the U.S. economic recovery.
    I can certainly see and agree with the argument that people in that position can choose to set a good example. However it’s not hypocritical to have a large and expensive 50th birthday party and ALSO hold the view that it would make more a stronger economy if the fruits of the nations collective labour was spread more equitably. What WOULD be hypocritical was if he put forward or supported legislation which did the opposite of the “shared sacrifice” argument.
    How does not having a large 50th birthday party assist with the “deficit and debt problem”, if the money spent isn’t otherwise going to go into actually assisting the problems?

    Do you actually wonder why people accuse you of sucking….well, you know….??

    Here we go. Again, pretty early to be going to this lazy well.

    Yes, your misrepresentation is silly, an exact parallel to the “small government libertarians should move to Somalia” nonsense.

    It’s not misrepresentation. That’s EXACTLY what people such as Alex and Seattle Outcast have said. It’s a real-life excellent example.
    Seattle Outcast: “Why do you think the green movement keeps trying to get people to go back to living in caves?”.
    https://right-thinking.com/2013/09/07/benefits-of-brown-energy-are-yet-to-come/

    Regarding Gore, his excessive carbon footprint is on record, regardless of attempts by various apologists to mitigate it.

    Always love your “no correspendence shall be entered into on this, it’s FACT” tactic. Brilliant.
    Not sure how showing how you so easy buy into partisan cherry-picking and misrepresentation helps you.
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

    Another “all libs are tards” echo-chamber thread at Right-Thinking then.
    What a surprise. Not.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6

      
  16. CM says:

    The problem isn’t with the fact that they don’t live up to what they believe and preach, CM

    I can certainly with you there. I’m not sure that a 50th birthday party is a good example though (which is essentially what Aussie Smurf was trying to say before his comment was hidden). I would think the vast majority of people would splash out on their 50th birthday party if they could. I certainly will in 10.5 years time. I’m looking to spend a fair amount on my 40th this year.

    I absolutely agree that if someone advocates for something like higher taxes for their income group, but then avoid paying that extra amount somehow, then they are a despicable hypocrite. But HOW they spend their money doesn’t make them a hypocrite because they advocate for a change in how revenue and profits are distributed through a company (or the economy more generally via changes to the tax system).

    Can you provide a link which says that the party was paid via tax money?
    I see the White House is claiming that it was paid for by the Obamas.

    A White House official tells Mediaite that “The President threw the First Lady a dance party last Saturday for her 50th birthday. It was a private gathering of family and friends and was paid for by the President.”

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/abcs-jon-karl-asks-who-paid-how-much-for-michelle-obamas-birthday-party/

    Actually there is zero silliness in pointing out that Gore has made hundreds of millions, demanding others lower their standard of living – to lower their carbon footprint that in comparison to his own amounts to comparing the food consumption of a flea vs. an elephant – while he not only didn’t curtail any of his own excesses, but exacerbated them.

    I said it was as silly as suggesting that Al Gore should go live in a cave, otherwise he’s a hypocrite.
    In terms of his home/office (7 years ago) he apparently did the opposite (see the Snopes piece). However he used (uses?) plenty of private jets rather than flying commercially (whenever that alternative exists), so I definitely think that’s worthy of criticism.
    I’d argue that he hasn’t asked people to “lower their standard of living”, particularly as he’s pointed out that it’s a global problem and requires global solutions. I have never seen or heard him advocate that people lower their standard of living (although I don’t go searching his speeches or quotes so I could certainly be wrong about that….however it would be inconsistent with what I have seen and heard).
    Also, I’ve reduced our energy consumption at home while our “standard of living” has risen.
    That Gore has made wise investments and gotten rich from them is neither here nor there.

    The silliness comes from people that want to pretend being a douchebag that makes tons of money telling others to go live in caves, to lower their carbon footprint, while they have the footprint of a small army, isn’t something ludicrous and worthy of scorn.

    There’s the cave thing – Gore is apparently telling us to live in caves, while he doesn’t. Neither of which is true, however according to Iconoclast I’m misrepresenting. How does that work?

    Unfortunately people who think he’s a douchebag seem to put aside all personal standards and accept anything they see and hear to justify their dislike of the guy. Including misrepresentation.

    You must be hurting from these kind of controtions to defend the indefensible, amn.

    Again, I think there IS a difference. Unfortunately when it comes to anything to do with the left any standards or ability to consider anything objectively or beyond black-and-white just seem to fly out the window with you (e.g. “It’s the sun!”).

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  17. AlexInCT says:

    I can certainly with you there. I’m not sure that a 50th birthday party is a good example though (which is essentially what Aussie Smurf was trying to say before his comment was hidden). I would think the vast majority of people would splash out on their 50th birthday party if they could. I certainly will in 10.5 years time. I’m looking to spend a fair amount on my 40th this year.

    I turn 50 in a couple of months and I will celebrate it by drinking myself silly then doing my daily 5K the next morning to remind me I am no longer 25.

    And, the 50th birthday party is just one of the many in the chain of things they have tried to keep hidden from us because they knew what they were doing was bad. My point was that the Obamas had massive security around it, not because they actually might have feared some crazy fuck would sneak in and take a swing at the first Wookee, but because they knew that if other people found out how they were living on the tax payer’s dime, in an economy that has been hammered by their regulatory policies and focus of growing the nanny state over creating economic opportunity, there would be hell to pay.

    Look, the press spent countless days harping about every god damned Boosh vacation, when these mostly amounted to the dude going down to his ranch to clear brush. Obama has beaten even OJ, whom in the quest to find his ex-wive’s killer toured every golf course in the nation, twice. Their vacations are all grand things. And we the tax payer, whom are all being told to tighten our belts to help solve the spending problem they have created, get to pay for these excursions. It is galling.

    I absolutely agree that if someone advocates for something like higher taxes for their income group, but then avoid paying that extra amount somehow, then they are a despicable hypocrite. But HOW they spend their money doesn’t make them a hypocrite because they advocate for a change in how revenue and profits are distributed through a company (or the economy more generally via changes to the tax system).

    Not sure why you bring this up CM. Frankly I do not care how anyone spends their money unless they then ask me and/or others to subsidize the way they live. If they want to blow their cash on hookers, midget donkey porn, and drugs, or give it all to a charity for puppies, they are welcome to do so. I don’t care. It is their money. My concern is when it is tax payer funded or when they hide their wealth from the onerous tax policies they advocate and then demand I pony up more.

    Can you provide a link which says that the party was paid via tax money?

    I wish I could, but because the media was blacked out, that doesn’t exist. And before you go there, I assure you that had they paid for it themselves that they would have told us that by now. These guys are masters at hiding what hurts them and shouting their own praises from every damned mountain.

    I see the White House is claiming that it was paid for by the Obamas.

    Just they claim Benghazi happened because of some dude’s video, or that the IRS went after people on their own? Or maybe it is like they claimed we would pay less, get better service and care, keep our medical practitioners, hospitals, and plans?

    Based on these people’s track record I assure you that had they paid it would have been reported in the news. That this was not reported sets off a red flag. I wouldn’t be surprised that they can’t provide proof, but until a couple of months from now, when they will pretend that they paid, but what really happened is that some donors swooped in to cover the costs. The Clintons did this a few times too.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  18. CM says:

    All that is claimed at your link is that there was a ban on cellphones, and they were careful about invitations, as they wanted to ensure the party was private. Nothing about additional security hired to keep people out or anything else. Where do you get that there were other measures in place?
    So, overall, sounds like they had a large glitzy 50th birthday party celebration, paid for it, and were keen to set up a situation where they could let their hair down without worrying about photos flying around the internet.

    I personally never had an issue with the Bush vacations. But clearing brush isn’t everyone’s idea of a good time though, which is what vacation is supposed to be all about. So long as they are paying for what they are required to pay for, what exactly is the problem? How much does golf cost over there?

    Presumably Iconoclast got past the ‘black out’ and has some source which confirms that the party was paid for by the tax payer.

    It’s been shown that the IRS were following orders? Or is that another ‘black out’ thing?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  19. richtaylor365 says:

    And, the 50th birthday party is just one of the many in the chain of things they have tried to keep hidden from us because they knew what they were doing was bad

    Considering that the press treated the event like a pre Oscar celebration, another opportunity to reign adoration and fawn all over their chosen one, no attempts to the hide the event that I saw, they all reveled in it.

    And as far as who picked up the tab, Rush said it was on the Obama’s dime;

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/01/17/tightwad_obamas_don_t_want_to_pay_for_dinner_at_moochelle_s_50th_birthday_party

    It’s a big gala, 50th birthday party. This is not like somebody’s 32nd birthday. It’s her 50th birthday at the White House. “Eat before you come!” I’ll tell you why. It’s because the Obamas are tightwads. They are. They can’t use taxpayer money. They can’t use taxpayer money for this. That’s why they’re doing this. During the break, CNN… These media people are such — I don’t know — suck-ups.

    The article makes fun of the fact that the Obama’s asked their guests to chow down before the party to avoid having to feed them on their dime, maybe this is what they meant be “shared sacrifice”.

    But even with them paying for it, the presidential detail of the SS had to work it (no way around that), my guess was that their bill, with all the overtime and man power necessary, went into the high 6 figures. Yes, chump change in comparison to a $17 trillion debt, but still paid for by the taxpayer. That same money could have been used to fuel non-discretionary spending for, oh, about 3 seconds.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  20. Iconoclast says:

    Apparently, I am in error about the taxpayers paying for it. According to Rush Limbaugh, the Obamas weren’t allowed to use taxpayer money. Well, good. There are times where I don’t mind being wrong. But still, they wanted their guests to arrive full, after having eaten dinner elsewhere? That seems pretty damned tacky (TO ME (that was for CM, who’s confused by my use of the word “seems”, it seems (TO ME))).

    My signature legislation? I’ve never even said I was supportive of the Obamacare system, let alone claiming to own it. It’s a little early in the discussion for you to be losing the plot completely.

    “Losing the plot?” “Completely??” It should have been obvious that I was using the hypothetical, rhetorical form of “you” and “your”, in that I was obviously referring to Obama. I wasn’t using the literal “you”, but I suspect you knew that, but felt compelled to play this game where I have to meticulously connect the dots for you…

    However it’s not hypocritical to have a large and expensive 50th birthday party and ALSO hold the view that it would make more a stronger economy if the fruits of the nations collective labour was spread more equitably.

    I suspect it would be if Romney were President right now…or if Obama were a Republican…

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

    Your snopes link defines the claim as a “mixture”, which is to say that there is some truth to it.

    Here we go.

    Yeah, I get a similar feeling every time you post. Maybe sucking is too harsh, but you certainly seem (TO ME) to be kissing his ass, trying to convince us Obama isn’t a hypocrite. Calling on people to make sacrifices at any level while hosting secretive, lavish galas with the cultural elite certainly seems (TO ME) to be an example of hypocrisy, your recalcitrant refusal to agree notwithstanding. It seems (TO ME) that Obama has been doing little more than scolding us from the moment he stepped into the Oval office, yet spends a lot of time (and money) golfing and vacationing and having parties. It wouldn’t be so bad if his policies (and the economy) didn’t suck, and if he showed a little bit of honest leadership from time to time, instead of just showing it right before election time (cough-Sandy-cough).

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  21. AlexInCT says:

    Apparently, I am in error about the taxpayers paying for it. According to Rush Limbaugh, the Obamas weren’t allowed to use taxpayer money. Well, good. There are times where I don’t mind being wrong.

    Same here. Glad to hear we didn’t pay for it. Hopefully they didn’t have to commandeer any Air Force or NAVY planes to fly the guests and entertainment around either.

    The first Wookee deserves a good party after all.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  22. CM says:

    The article makes fun of the fact that the Obama’s asked their guests to chow down before the party to avoid having to feed them on their dime, maybe this is what they meant be “shared sacrifice”.

    Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Same old then…..

    I usually eat meals before I go to birthday parties. Most of them don’t involve meals, just nibbles and cake.
    In this case:

    Word’s out that the lucky VIPs invited to fete Mrs. Obama at a “Snacks & Sips & Dancing & Dessert” party have been advised to dust off their dancing shoes and, more strictly, “to eat before you come.”

    Yes, god forbid people get told what the party is about (dancing, not eating). Sheesh. God forbid someone actually gets the party they want, rather than what they ‘should’ have because of tradition.
    Personally I’d have much rather attended this event than a normal long dinner where you’re stuck at a table with people you don’t like, and then by the time it’s time to have a boogie you’re too full / drunk or it’s too late. Does that make me ‘tacky’? IMHO what Rush has written there is ‘tacky’. It’s gutter-level lowest-common-denominator stuff.

    But even with them paying for it, the presidential detail of the SS had to work it (no way around that), my guess was that their bill, with all the overtime and man power necessary, went into the high 6 figures. Yes, chump change in comparison to a $17 trillion debt, but still paid for by the taxpayer. That same money could have been used to fuel non-discretionary spending for, oh, about 3 seconds.

    I guess it follows that more people = more security needed. Obviously the basic security would have been there anyway, party or no party.

    Apparently, I am in error about the taxpayers paying for it. According to Rush Limbaugh, the Obamas weren’t allowed to use taxpayer money. Well, good. There are times where I don’t mind being wrong. But still, they wanted their guests to arrive full, after having eaten dinner elsewhere? That seems pretty damned tacky (TO ME (that was for CM, who’s confused by my use of the word “seems”, it seems (TO ME))).

    Of course. Whatever they do it will be wrong somehow. That’s the nature of blatant partisan politics. If they’d laid out a massive spread then it would be likened to some grotesque Roman food-orgy, a slap in the face to all those that Obama has deliberately kept in poverty while he instructed the IRS to shut down the Tea Party and worked with the terrorists to kill the ambassador.

    It should have been obvious that I was using the hypothetical, rhetorical form of “you” and “your”, in that I was obviously referring to Obama.

    You’re right, it should have been obviously. I was being very thick there. My apologies. Your plot-adherence remains beyond reproach.

    I suspect it would be if Romney were President right now…or if Obama were a Republican…

    Some might make that argument sure, but they’d be equally as wrong.

    Your snopes link defines the claim as a “mixture”, which is to say that there is some truth to it.

    But in context and with the relevant facts revealed it’s about as close to meaningless as you can get.
    You snidely suggested that only “apologists” would attempt to “mitigate it”, which is what “there is some truth to it” does. You Gore apologist you.

    Yeah, I get a similar feeling every time you post. Maybe sucking is too harsh, but you certainly seem (TO ME) to be kissing his ass, trying to convince us Obama isn’t a hypocrite.

    That’s only because you guys are so rabidly anti-Obama (and anything on the left in general). Perspective. Some of you guys on the right (perhaps not you specifically) seem to have felt the need to distance yourselves from being Bush cock-suckers, presumably because it looked/looks that way from the perspective of others.
    I’m not trying to convince you that he’s not a hypocrite per se – I was pointing out that there is a difference between being a hypocrite and setting a bad example (allowing that perception to be created by your actions).

    Calling on people to make sacrifices at any level while hosting secretive, lavish galas with the cultural elite certainly seems (TO ME) to be an example of hypocrisy, your recalcitrant refusal to agree notwithstanding.

    Adding that last part always suggests that you’re not interested in discussing this anymore. Why bother then? Is this just meant to be a platform to deliver your opinion? It would be consistent with the echo-chamber nature of the place.

    Perhaps they have made other sacrifices so that they can justify (to themselves) expense such as this – surely we’re only able to determine that if we know all the relevant facts, which we don’t (this whole story/discussion is pretty much entirely absent of facts).
    I think whether it’s hypocritical depends very much on what he was talking about when he said “shared sacrifice”. It doesn’t take much research to figure out that he means the rich should be ok with sharing the sacrifice by paying more tax or paying their workers a greater percentage of the huge profits they make. He doesn’t mean that individuals should spend less (no US President would dare meander of the path of wanting people to spend spend spend). To me, it’s a big stretch to make the case that there is hypocrisy going on with this non-dinner party. Even ‘setting a good example’ would really only apply if the “shared sacrifice” request was about the rich spending less on good times. The rich can still have good times (such as parties) and play a greater part in a ‘shared sacrifice’ – it’s not as though it’s one or the other.

    It seems (TO ME) that Obama has been doing little more than scolding us from the moment he stepped into the Oval office, yet spends a lot of time (and money) golfing and vacationing and having parties. It wouldn’t be so bad if his policies (and the economy) didn’t suck, and if he showed a little bit of honest leadership from time to time, instead of just showing it right before election time (cough-Sandy-cough).

    I can’t disagree with you on that in general terms, although I really don’t know how much time he spends on those things (or how time it ‘seems’ that he spends on them). People complained that Bush was always on vacation but he very obviously wasn’t (and even when he was, he was still making decisions and having talks, and it was idiotic for anyone to suggest otherwise).
    We’ve agreed on the importance of perception before and I can agree again here.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  23. CM says:

    The first Wookee deserves a good party after all.

    Yeah because that’s not tacky at all. Just like using ‘Moochele’. Real classy. It does say a lot.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      
  24. Iconoclast says:

    If they’d laid out a massive spread then it would be likened to some grotesque Roman food-orgy, a slap in the face to all those that Obama has deliberately kept in poverty while he instructed the IRS to shut down the Tea Party and worked with the terrorists to kill the ambassador.

    Theatrical over-statement aside, you are correct. Having any kind of lavish party, with rock stars and celebrities, while the nation suffers under his policies, is indeed a slap in the face. It would be if it were an isolated incident, but it’s an ongoing pattern. I remember hearing about White House parties featuring the likes of Paul McCartney when I was collecting unemployment back in that dismal year of 2009, when the Obama Nightmare just started to ramp up.

    You snidely suggested that only “apologists” would attempt to “mitigate it”…

    …or perhaps I was already aware of the snopes article, which only disputes the “20 times the average” aspect of the claim. Gore’s footprint is still big, he still flies around in private jets, and he did sell out to al Jazeera.

    That’s only because you guys are so rabidly anti-Obama…

    Well, I’m “rabidly anti-Obama” for a reason — I have to live under his policies while watching him cavort and romp with his asinine grin plastered across his face.

    Adding that last part always suggests that you’re not interested in discussing this anymore.

    Or that I simply anticipate what the response will be…

    It doesn’t take much research to figure out that he means the rich should be ok with sharing the sacrifice by paying more tax or paying their workers a greater percentage of the huge profits they make.

    Well, such spin is nice, but what he said was, “If everybody took an attitude of shared sacrifice, we could solve our deficit and debt problem next week.” Whether the statement is true or false, my takeaway is his use of the word “everybody”, and I would presume it would include him. And all of the 99-percenters, including Romney’s 47%. Apparently, there are those who disagree.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      
  25. Aussiesmurf says:

    Let’s say for the sake of argument that a left-wing politician earns $500,000.00 per year, and advocates a TOP TAX RATE of 50%. That means that, they earn (around) $350,000.00 per year after tax.

    Dude, I want to use your math when I do my taxes.

    TOP TAX RATE DOES NOT EQUAL AN OVERALL PERCENTAGE. Are you one of the people that thinks that when you move into a higher tax bracket you receive less total tax income?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  26. AlexInCT says:

    TOP TAX RATE DOES NOT EQUAL AN OVERALL PERCENTAGE. Are you one of the people that thinks that when you move into a higher tax bracket you receive less total tax income?

    Yes, and not. First the no part. I don’t receive shit: I earn it by working for it. And as someone that had this happen to them, yes, when you move brackets, if you don’t make a big jump, you are likely to be left with less of your money when the government takes it’s cut.

    But I think you are desperately trying to avoid the point that was made which is that 50% of $500K isn’t $150K but $250K, which means you are left with $250K, not $350 (unless you are someone like Tim Geithner).

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      
  27. richtaylor365 says:

    Holy Smokes, CM, you really are an Obama apologist !! All those times others here have used that vulgar fellatio narrative, and your feigned outrage, I really tried in the past to give you the benefit of the doubt, boy, do I look foolish. How many 50th birthday parties have you been to? For the record, I’ve been to 3 or 4, and they ALL served food. Crimney, do you have any idea what a big deal that milestone is? For you to defend this lowbrow cheapskate behavior with nonsense like .”But, but, if he threw a big bash with lots of eats, you guys would still ridicule him {pout,pout}”. All those multi millionaire Hollywood muckity mucks, coming all that way from California, and he can’t throw ‘em a couple a dogs or a burger?

    Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Same old then…..

    I haven’t a clue what that means. I would have expected the mother of all parties. You remember that video years back of that clown Dennis Kozlowski throwing one of his lavish birthday with the Greek columns and the dancing girls, I would have expected something along those lines. Obama has rich friends, if he is too parsimonious to spend the money himself, he can auction off a few nights in the Lincoln bedroom.

    Personally I’d have much rather attended this event than a normal long dinner where you’re stuck at a table with people you don’t like

    What’s not to like? they all have so much in common;

    “Michelle looks absolutely fabulous tonight, doesn’t she”
    “Yes, and she is so smart”
    “Well, runs in the family, obviously”
    “Barack is so lucky to have her to counsel him”
    “She could be president herself”
    “From your lips to God’s ears, if there is one”
    “Another Dynasty, first the Clintons, now the Obamas, we really do live in glorious times, pass the foie gras”

    You would fit right in.

    I guess it follows that more people = more security needed

    Yes, it does follow, the security detail of Obama’s at home alone is nothing like a big shindig like what they pulled off.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      
  28. CM says:

    Theatrical over-statement aside, you are correct.

    I’m learnin’ from the best. But yeah, as I say, damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

    Having any kind of lavish party, with rock stars and celebrities, while the nation suffers under his policies, is indeed a slap in the face.

    I have no doubt it’s possible to view it that way. You can justify anything if you really really want to. I mean, “suffering”….really? What defines “lavish” (they saved all that money on food, which must have been considerable). What is that disgusts you so, apart from your complete ideological disagreement with the people at the party?

    …or perhaps I was already aware of the snopes article, which only disputes the “20 times the average” aspect of the claim.

    No, it does much more than that.

    Gore’s footprint is still big, he still flies around in private jets, and he did sell out to al Jazeera.

    I have no doubt that it’s a far larger footprint that the average human, or American even. And yet this warped philosophy would no doubt have no issue with others who have an even larger footprint, who do nothing at all to assist the longterm sustainability of the planet. Because they’ve never uttered anything, there is no standard to hold them to (with or without cherrypicking). That is warped IMHO, but that’s rapid ideology for you – there is only black and white.

    Well, I’m “rabidly anti-Obama” for a reason — I have to live under his policies while watching him cavort and romp with his asinine grin plastered across his face.

    I certainly agree with some of the criticism, especially when it comes to communications, creating perceptions, spying, drones, just to start with. But the rapid anti-Obama types who interpret EVERYTHING deliberately to try and make Obama look bad (much of which relies on speculation as fact) are no different or better than those on the left who did the same thing with Bush.
    I’d find the grin annoying if I lived over there too. I find Gore quite annoying too for what it’s worth.

    Or that I simply anticipate what the response will be…

    LOL, yeah but it never actually includes any arguments that negate the response, so it just comes across as sticking your fingers in your ears and going “nah nah nah nah nah”.

    Well, such spin is nice, but what he said was, “If everybody took an attitude of shared sacrifice, we could solve our deficit and debt problem next week.” Whether the statement is true or false, my takeaway is his use of the word “everybody”, and I would presume it would include him. And all of the 99-percenters, including Romney’s 47%. Apparently, there are those who disagree.

    I think you’ve got it 100% correct, so I’m not sure where the supposed spin comes in. He’s saying that those who have the ability to pay more in tax and give more to workers and so forth, should do so. Again, that’s not the same as “don’t spend your money on parties (or boats, or fifth houses, or whatever)”. Living a simple life would set a good example, but it wouldn’t do much to solve any deficit or debt problems. Actually it would make it worse unless that money you’re not spending heads off and ends up in the places that do help.

    Holy Smokes, CM, you really are an Obama apologist !! All those times others here have used that vulgar fellatio narrative, and your feigned outrage, I really tried in the past to give you the benefit of the doubt, boy, do I look foolish. How many 50th birthday parties have you been to? For the record, I’ve been to 3 or 4, and they ALL served food. Crimney, do you have any idea what a big deal that milestone is? For you to defend this lowbrow cheapskate behavior with nonsense like .”But, but, if he threw a big bash with lots of eats, you guys would still ridicule him {pout,pout}”. All those multi millionaire Hollywood muckity mucks, coming all that way from California, and he can’t throw ‘em a couple a dogs or a burger?

    I gotta ask – is this for real?
    They did serve food, just not a sit-down meal.
    I’ve been two plenty of 50ths, 60ths, 70ths, 80ths and some 90ths. They were all a mix of venues and a mix of what was served in the way of food or drink.
    They DID have food, it just wasn’t a sit-down meal. It was specifically a ‘late-night dance-party’. Who are you to tell people what type of party they must have?

    Before Christmas, invitees got save-the-date notices telling them to come for “Snacks & Sips & Dancing & Dessert.” They were urged to wear comfortable shoes, practice their dance moves and eat before the party, scheduled to begin at 9 p.m. Washington time.

    The buffet table offered finger food, including mini-sliders featuring beef brisket, the sources said, and an open bar had hard liquor, champagne, beer and wine, the sources said.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-01-19/news/chi-michelle-obama-50th-birthday-party-20140119_1_fun-party-sources-michelle-obama

    I haven’t a clue what that means. I would have expected the mother of all parties.

    Well it apparently went for 6 hours, until 3am. Sounds like it’ll be much more memorable than the same old usual thing which no doubt blur into each other.

    You remember that video years back of that clown Dennis Kozlowski throwing one of his lavish birthday with the Greek columns and the dancing girls, I would have expected something along those lines.

    There it is – damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. Are you still going to proceed with the feigned confusion?

    Obama has rich friends, if he is too parsimonious to spend the money himself, he can auction off a few nights in the Lincoln bedroom.

    Maybe SHE just actually got what SHE wanted. Unless you agree with Rep. Steve Pearce’s bible-endorsed stance that wives should submit to their husbands?

    What’s not to like?

    The “lowbrow cheapskate behavior” of someone having the type of celebration they want, apparently.

    You would fit right in.

    WTF? How? I don’t even remotely mix in those equivalent circles here. I’ve never had anything like that sort of conversation about any politicians, here or elsewhere. You’ve got this badly wrong I’m afraid Rich. But that’s because your perspective appears to be warped on this one. This seems to be an anti-Hollywood anti-liberal anti-Obama potential-jackpot occasion, but now it’s determined that the Obama’s paid for it the steam is lost and now it’s just “I hate rich liberals” with little or no disguise. Maybe it’s just ‘light relief’ (in relatively terms) and the opportunity to have a break from Benghazi…..

    Yes, it does follow, the security detail of Obama’s at home alone is nothing like a big shindig like what they pulled off.

    Is a “big shindig” quite different from “the mother of all parties”? Is a full multi-course sit down meal the only difference?
    And that’s really all that’s left (for those who bothered to check, obviously those who didn’t will no doubt still be under the impression that it was all tax-payers money, which is a way better narrative than “they would have had to pay for additional security”). Surely the additional security cost would have been generated mostly by the extra hours. I guess the anticpated “mothers of all parties” (where people sit around tables and eat many courses, i.e. a dinner rather than a party) should have ended at 10.30pm to save on security costs?
    If that wasn’t a parody post Rich, then it comes across that you’ve drunken the ODS cool-aid (do they serve food with it, I guess they must?). I’m far from being an Obama apologist. I’m just pointing out the nuttiness (and asked where the evidence was that the tax-payer funded it). Like you guys did when Bush was being picked on for silly shit like this.
    This really is tacky, lowest-common denominator, gutter-level stuff. The perception thing applies here too – when you involve yourself in this and align yourself with silliness like this it can detract from comments when the real scandals hit. IMHO anyway.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  29. ilovecress says:

    Seriously – having found out that this wasn’t paid for by the taxpayer, there is now a ;long thread discussing the quality of the catering?

    The presidents wife had a 50th birthday party. Rabid complaining about this stuff makes you look like loons and stregthens Obama.

    For more information on this phenomenon, see Moore, Michael

    Hot! Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7

      
  30. richtaylor365 says:

    I would bet that in the history of WH parties, this was the first time that invitees got an invitation with ,”Eat before you come”, people have been telling me he is a president of firsts, there you go.

    The etiquette experts contacted by the Washington Post think that this is cheap, it’s rude, and…

    Well, they don’t think it’s rude, but it’s really curious. “‘I don’t think it’s rude, but I do think it’s a little … different than what people are used to. How’s that for putting it delicately?’ joked Lizzie Post, great-great-granddaughter of Emily Post and co-author of Great Get-Togethers: Casual Gatherings and Elegant Parties at Home.” They’re being nice. This is rude.

    Obviously there was food there, the WH probably has food at all events, but why make a major production to eat first? It is beyond curious.

    There it is – damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.

    There what is? Why are you having such a hard time with this? I say I would have expected a lavish affair and you say damned if he does, and you accuse me of being drunk. See, I don’t begrudge rich folks from spending money on the things they want, good for them. This one party made money for the airlines (or private jet companies if you want to go there), it made money for the caterers (if in fact it was a catered event and did not rely on the WH staff to spend all day cooking), it made money for the local florists, the band, and for all the local hotels who housed the guests after the party was over, all these folks and their employees made money, that is a good thing.

    I don’t even remotely mix in those equivalent circles here. I’ve never had anything like that sort of conversation about any politicians, here or elsewhere. You’ve got this badly wrong I’m afraid Rich.

    {sigh} that conversational banter was tongue in cheek, but come on, be honest, tell me you aren’t secretly on the Hillary bandwagon hoping for a Clinton dynasty.

    This seems to be an anti-Hollywood anti-liberal anti-Obama potential-jackpot occasion, but now it’s determined that the Obama’s paid for it the steam is lost and now it’s just “I hate rich liberals” with little or no disguise.

    First off, I don’t hate anybody, and don’t forget, I was the one that posted the link verifying that this soiree was not on the taxpayers dime, I never thought it was. They can invite anyone they want, birds of a feather, but I don’t think it is such a stretch to think you guys would have a lot to talk about.

    Is a “big shindig” quite different from “the mother of all parties”? Is a full multi-course sit down meal the only difference?

    No, they can be the same, but I never mentioned anything about a “full multi-course sit down meal” anywhere, have I? That is all by your design. I just thought it odd that the leader of the free world can’t supply his guests at a once and a lifetime affair dinner, in any form at all, sit down or otherwise.

    Surely the additional security cost would have been generated mostly by the extra hours.

    Surely you are just being contrary. How many SS personnel do you think occupies the WH when the Obama’s stay in to see the latest Harvey Weinstein piece of crap? Now, how many SS personal do you think is required for a formal WH party, with high level dignitaries of state, major super star athletes and the who’s who of Hollywood? I think my earlier figure of high six figures is probably ball park.

    The perception thing applies here too – when you involve yourself in this and align yourself with silliness like this it can detract from comments when the real scandals hit. IMHO anyway.

    I think most folks can differentiate between WH silliness ( “Eat before you come, that is blue ribbon silliness) and major scandals. No one here has labelled this a major scandal, or is that how are you perceiving this?

    My theory is that the only reason you are sticking up and defending this obviously tacky behavior is because Rush posted on it.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

      
  31. Iconoclast says:

    But yeah, as I say, damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

    Simply because the nation suffers under Obamas policies, so yeah, I’m highly critical. Like I said before, if Obama’s policies and the economy didn’t utterly suck, I’d be a lot more forgiving. But since they do suck, and since Obama has a habit of blaming everybody but himself, yeah, he’s tacky for not feeding his invitees. So sue me.

    You can justify anything if you really really want to.

    Yes, you can.

    I mean, “suffering”….really?

    High unemployment, people giving up looking for work, people losing healthcare coverage, I guess none of that qualifies. How convenient.

    What defines “lavish” (they saved all that money on food, which must have been considerable).

    Yeah, they did presumably save a lot of money on food. Their own money. Too bad they aren’t as stingy with taxpayer money.

    What is that disgusts you so, apart from your complete ideological disagreement with the people at the party?

    You still have no clue???

    I have no doubt that it’s a far larger footprint that the average human, or American even. And yet this warped philosophy would no doubt have no issue with others who have an even larger footprint, who do nothing at all to assist the longterm sustainability of the planet.

    It would definitely have issue if these “others” were preaching at me how I should live my life. If they aren’t preaching at me, scolding me, brow-beating me, then no, I really couldn’t care less how they live their lives. This is something you seem utterly unable to grasp. And no, there is nothing “warped” about it.

    Furthermore, I am not convinced that this is a “crisis” that must be “dealt with immediately”, as the alarmists would have us believe. I am not convinced that the “longterm sustainability of the planet” is in jeopardy. I think it’s just another example of certain groups crying wolf.

    …yeah but it never actually includes any arguments that negate the response…

    No real reason why it should. If the anticipated response is actually made, it would then be engaged. How it comes across to you doesn’t really concern me. Interpret that as you will.

    I’m not sure where the supposed spin comes in.

    It comes in right about here…

    He’s saying that those who have the ability to pay more in tax and give more to workers and so forth, should do so. Again, that’s not the same as “don’t spend your money on parties (or boats, or fifth houses, or whatever)”.

    I’m not clear on how paying your workers more reduces the national debt, but then I admit I’m no economist. Sure, Obama has made it clear that the “rich” should pay more taxes, but that does nothing if spending likewise increases. But proposed spending cuts are always interpreted as “cutting off your grandma’s social security checks” or whatever.

    Furthermore, if you are paying your workers more (more than what the market dictates, presumably), and if you are paying more in taxes, then obviously, you have less to spend on boats and parties and houses and whatever. Yet the person exhorting us to make these sacrifices spends more time golfing that Bush ever did…

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

      
  32. Iconoclast says:

    But yeah, as I say, damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

    “If they do or don’t” what, exactly?

    When I was under the impression that this was a taxpayer-funded party, I was “damning” them for spending taxpayer money on a secretive party. When I learned that they didn’t spend taxpayer money, I “damned” them for not spending a bit more of their own money to feed their guests. So no, “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” simply doesn’t apply, for I am “damning” them for two completely different, although somewhat related, things. Spending taxpayer money versus not spending their own money may be regarded as being two sides of the same coin, but for your observation to apply, I would have to “damn” them for spending taxpayer money on the one hand, and then “damn” them for not spending taxpayer money on the other. But I didn’t. In the latter case, I “damned” them for not spending their own money. Not them same thing.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

      
  33. Iconoclast says:
    …or perhaps I was already aware of the snopes article, which only disputes the “20 times the average” aspect of the claim.

    No, it does much more than that.

    From the snopes article (bold emphasis added):

    The specific numbers involved were disputable (the TCPR claimed Gore’s home uses electricity at a rate more than “20 times the national average,” while the Associated Press reported that its own review of bills indicated that the Gores’ Nashville household used more than 12 times the average for a typical household in that area), but the basic gist of the claim — that the Gores’ Nashville residence consumed a larger proportion of energy than the average American home — was true.

    So, your “much more than that” is mitigated by the fact that snopes admits that the gist of the claim is true, and again, mainly disputes the “20 times” figure. All the other stuff about making the house more efficient, and Gore himself whining about unfair comparisons, is just background and support for the main dispute.

    Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

      
  34. AlexInCT says:

    The perception thing applies here too – when you involve yourself in this and align yourself with silliness like this it can detract from comments when the real scandals hit. IMHO anyway.

    Was this said in earnest and seriousness, or is this the silliness being referred to? Because the “real scandals” have already hit. Like a freaking M-16 on full auto they have been more than a large capacity magazine would hold. The media has ignored them, or helped sweep them under the cover, and even made up shit to help cover for them when things got ugly and too close for comfort. The LSM’s focus remains on silly shit like this party, because they expect it to not have any real world implications. The real abuses of power and the down right banana republic criminal ways of this administration on the other hand get a pass. We get told we need to wait for incontrovertible proof. A standard only applied to people with a (D) next to their name. Only problem is that the media has no desire to find the proof. In fact, they run away from it.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      
  35. CM says:

    “Not them same thing”

    You just found another reason to damn him instead. Whatever he does, he’s damned. Just as Bush was to those suffering from BDS.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  36. Seattle Outcast says:

    Why exactly is our fucktard idiot from NZ trying to drag me into a discussion I’ve barely even paid any attention to?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  37. CM says:

    I was just referencing your nonsense. No need to get involved. It’s not exactly arguable.

    Lorde FTW

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  38. Seattle Outcast says:

    Even though it was out of context, it the most intelligent any of you posts have been for a couple of years.

    Perhaps you should just go away.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  39. Iconoclast says:

    You just found another reason to damn him instead.

    This is an admission that “damned if he does, damed if he doesn’t” does not apply, given that you admit I found “another reason”.

    Whatever he does, he’s damned.

    Well, saying he’s tacky isn’t exactly “damning” him, and besides, your claim simply isn’t true. An example that immediately comes to mind is his decision to go ahead and take out Osama bin Laden.

    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

      
  40. Section8 says:

    Perhaps you should just go away.

    Just do what I do and skip his posts, no response, no nothing. Yeah it requires quite a bit of scrolling due to the 25 paragraph responses to every damn thing, but let him fritter away his evenings writing shit that no one will read. To me that’s better than going away. At the end of the day he’s not our countryman, or friend, or neighbor and at best has a marginal view of this country so why in the world would anyone care to read what he thinks is best for our great nation. Don’t get me wrong I obviously used to read his garbage but why? Just stupid that’s why.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  41. AlexInCT says:

    Section8 those are words of wisdom. To quote “Strangers with candy”‘s advice for this;

    Wilford Brimley: [on tape] Hi. This is Wilford Brimley. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully with this book, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ‘em, don’t do it. Puts ‘em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

    Try to avoiding arguing with retards unless you have cake to give them…

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  42. CM says:

    Right, so confirming what I said earlier then:

    Another “all libs are tards” echo-chamber thread at Right-Thinking then.
    What a surprise. Not.

    Good luck with that spiral.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  43. AlexInCT says:

    Another “all libs are tards” echo-chamber thread at Right-Thinking then.

    Actually this was about the hubris of & abuses of power by the Obama’s, CM. Then you came and started making excuses for them and defending the indefensible. That’s what made it what you just said….

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  44. CM says:

    Defending the indefensible such as what? Asking if it REALLY WAS tax-payer money used, which results in you all realising it wasn’t? Yeah good one Alex. Where is the Abuse of Power of not providing a sit down dinner at a party specifically designed not to include one?
    I’m not defending Obama, I’m attacking stupidity. But when you have ODS I’m sure it’s impossible to see the difference.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.