Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
47 minutes ago.
by Ohwiseone
BeRight
#1

Barack Obama Legacy

BBB

 
 

Member Comments

Kunectdots

NO! I calling a liar a "LIAR".

Posted 222 days ago.

Kendall78

"In all likelihood,..."

You have no idea that rational people would believe.

"apprehensive about the release of such low sensitivity documents as birth certificates"

And of course his birth records were released. But the question remains whether the President (regardless of political body) should give in to the demands of fringe lunatcis.

"and college transcripts."

Yeah, Bush should have released everything shouldn't he?

"Maybe, KENDALL, you should be asking what ObamaCare..."

The topic was about what they are going to do with the helicopters. Are you trying to change the subject by bringing up Obamacare?

Posted 222 days ago.

Kunectdots

In all likelihood, for some reason other than saving money (since logic dictates there's NO WAY it can possibly 'save' anywhere near 4 billion dollars per year.

Remember! The plan is coming from the "Most Open and Transparent" administration in American history that tends to be apprehensive about the release of such low sensitivity documents as birth certificates and college transcripts. OH YEAH! I CAN'T "keep my doctor". I CAN'T "keep my insurance plan". I HAVEN'T "save(d) $2,500 on my insurance premiums". What's that they say about fooling me twice?

Maybe, KENDALL, you should be asking what ObamaCare was REALLY supposed to bring about, instead of asking me about ulterior motives for taking the Apaches away from the states based upon ANOTHER LIE of saving a particular amount of money each year.

Posted 222 days ago.

Kendall78

You state, "Obama Confiscates National Guard Helicopters From All 50 States"

It seems that you do not believe it is for the sake of saving money. So my question to you is why do you think they are taking the Apaches away?

Posted 222 days ago.

Kendall78

Let's say there is no savings....none at all. So what? Is there something wrong with the National Guard flying Black Hawks instead of Apaches?

As for program cuts, I think the President put cuts to NASA among others. How is the United States weaker? The US still spends more money on our military than any other nation. You would have to take the budgets of China, Great Britain, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, South Korea, Germany, Japan and India to come close to what we spend.

Posted 222 days ago.

Kunectdots

Besides, KENDALL, if you confiscate the 192 Apaches from the National Guard and give them BACK to the US Army, are we to assume that they will then be operated cost-free to the American taxpayers? NOPE! That cost will eat into Obama's IMAGINED $4B/year in savings.

Posted 222 days ago.

Kunectdots

Kendall - OK! I'll leave the analogies out of it. NOW, I'll give you the opportunity to list the programs where Mr. Tax & Spend Obama has shown much interest in saving money (unless it simultaneously weakens America in some manner).

Let' look at the estimated $4,000,000,000 per annum that the confiscation will save. 192 Apaches costing $4B per year comes to $20.8 million dollars per Apache to operate for one year. Estimated cost to operate an Apache - $3,851 (h ttp://w ww.militarynuts.c om/index.php?showtopic=1460). Hours needed per year to burn up $20.8M per year @ $3.85K per hour = 5,808 hours. TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS IN ONE YEAR = 8,760.

SOLUTION = THE NATIONAL GUARD IS FLYING ALL 192 OF THEIR APACHES 16 A DAY EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR, OR (someone is lying about the "savings"). With this administration, which would you believe? (cont)

Posted 222 days ago.

Kendall78

Thankfully no one in their right mind is worried about a slippery slope like that.

One odd notion people have about the National Guard is that they answer to the Governor and not the President. The Governor is nothing more than a speed bump. If the President or the Pentagon wants the National Guard to do something, give up something or go somewhere..they will.

But at the end of the day, nothing bad is happening to the National Guard and the President isn't abusing his position with them.

Posted 222 days ago.

Kunectdots

I wonder if the governors of the states losing the more advanced Apache choppers would settle for Obama pulling the Guard's M-16s and replacing them with .22s? After all, they would be cheaper also.

Posted 222 days ago.

Bigfoot

Its hilarious the amount of stuff and type of stuff that gets the conspiracy minded bubbling.

What puts the cherry on top though is that nothing can show them the errors in the narratives they weave.

Me thinks they enjoy the drama of "knowing" what others don't "know" way too much.

People have this really good ability to convince themselves of anything and then insulates themselves from any outside information that may contradict what they are thinking.

Posted 222 days ago.

NasCarNut

Kendall, when you state the Facts like that it kind of takes the fun out watching the Fox watchers run around yelling the sky is falling.

Posted 222 days ago.

Kendall78

But does that mean the National Guard won't have anything to fly in?

Nope, they are to be given UH-60 Black Hawks. (ww w.washingtontimes.c om/news/2014/apr/9/national-guard-loses-war-army-over-apache-transfer/)

Posted 223 days ago.

Kendall78

But what are they doing with those helicopters? Is Obama keeping them for his own private military bent on taking over the nation and making him King?

No, they are giving them to the regular Army becauase shockingly they can take care of them better and cheaper than the Guard units can.

Posted 223 days ago.

Kunectdots

"Martial Law: Obama Confiscates National Guard Helicopters From All 50 States"

h ttp://wealthydebates.c om/martial-law-obama-confiscates-national-guard-helicopters-50-states/

Posted 223 days ago.

BeRight

At the University of Michigan, Obama suggested that raising the minimum wage was a "no-brainer" except that "Republicans don't want to raise it at all." When the audience booed, the president advised, "Don't boo, organize." He continued: "You've got some Republicans saying we shouldn't raise the minimum wage because -- they said this -- because, well, it just helps young people." Straw man down. No Republican made that argument. They argued the opposite: that raising the minimum wage hurts young people because it makes employers less likely to offer a first job to the unskilled. He knows that.

Posted 225 days ago.

NasCarNut

*crickets*

Posted 225 days ago.

Kendall78

Kind of quiet lately...does this mean everyone is happy with Obama's administration?

Posted 229 days ago.

luvthesouth

good afternoon NasCarNut, you are indeed correct about the numbers. that was my mistake. anyway, i had just finished reading the Annual Operations Report from a nearby municipality where it was reported that the cost per 1000 gallons of treated water was $.85 per 1000 gallons and the charge to the lowest usage tier group was $2.85 per 1000 gallons used. based on your numbers, it would appear as if you are paying $6.10 per 1000 gallons. that would seem to be quite high in comparison. however, i would think that cost may include other charges. only you will know for sure. i do not have a waterbill as i am on a private well. that is why i inquired.

Posted 240 days ago.

NasCarNut

c o m e, wtf...how about****;

Posted 241 days ago.

NasCarNut

Just checked the article (dated march 22) and the line where it said 12,000 gals is gone...but I quoted when I made my comment, so someone has since deleted that part from the article..****e on MT's, do a correction don't just delete...

Posted 241 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or