• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Obama skips Polish funeral, heads to golf course

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
1
0
Another snub of Europe by Obama. Obama's foreign policy is perhaps the greatest realignment of US interests in quite a while.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
1
81
I didn't like people criticizing Bush for taking a lot of "vacations" and I don't like people criticizing Obama either. The President is never really on vacation. If there was a crisis, he'd know about it whether in the White House or stuck five shots over in a bunker on the 9th.

Being the President is stressful and if a President needs to play golf, clear brush from him land, or go jogging to stay mentally fit or just to blow off steam, I have no problem with it. It's not like Obama would finish the round if there was some crisis.
There's a difference. Bush didn't appease anyone. He was looking out for the interests of the US. Obama on the other hand appeases our enemies(Iran) while he disregards our friends. That's just not right. He can act like shit to both and I won't mind, but that's not what he's doing. He's rewarding bad behavior and punishing good.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
There's a difference. Bush didn't appease anyone. He was looking out for the interests of the US. Obama on the other hand appeases our enemies(Iran) while he disregards our friends. That's just not right. He can act like shit to both and I won't mind, but that's not what he's doing. He's rewarding bad behavior and punishing good.
Huh? Bush did Iran the greatest favor ever by taking out Saddam and wrecking what was left of the Iraq military. The biggest winner of the Iraq war was Iran.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
10,468
4,486
136
Where are you originating from? Miami? Anything in the north of the country would go over the pole. You dont actually go right over the pole but use the curvature of the earth to yoru advantage. Which is why Atlantic flights were halted for awhile from this erruption. Flights come down the otherside over iceland or a bit to the east where the plum is drifting.
Flight AA46 From ORD to LHR, not a polar flight
 

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
33,854
957
126
There's a difference. Bush didn't appease anyone. He was looking out for the interests of the US. Obama on the other hand appeases our enemies(Iran) while he disregards our friends. That's just not right. He can act like shit to both and I won't mind, but that's not what he's doing. He's rewarding bad behavior and punishing good.
That's a valid opinion, but irrelevant to my point.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
To put in perspective how preposterous some of the criticism in this thread is, even the Prime Minister of Germany, Andrea Merkel ended up cancelling attending the funeral due to the ash, and Germany is right next to Poland.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
To put in perspective how preposterous some of the criticism in this thread is, even the Prime Minister of Germany, Andrea Merkel ended up cancelling attending the funeral due to the ash, and Germany is right next to Poland.
Yeah but the German's bombed Pearl Harbor as well.. we don't expect them to exercise good judgement...

















(Tap Tap - That meter on?)
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
29
86
There's a difference. Bush didn't appease anyone. He was looking out for the interests of the US. Obama on the other hand appeases our enemies(Iran) while he disregards our friends. That's just not right. He can act like shit to both and I won't mind, but that's not what he's doing. He's rewarding bad behavior and punishing good.
That's a valid opinion, but irrelevant to my point.
I disagree. Bush was never "looking out for the interests of the U.S." He and his adminstration of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers spent the entirety of his adminstration lying to the nation to go to war in Iraq, which, as of April 19, 2010, has cost the lives of 4,392 American troops and left tens of thousands more American troops wounded, scarred and disabled for life and squandered trillions of dollars of current and future debt. They should be charged with one count of murder for each American troop who died as a direct consequence of thier war of Lies. :(

But they didn't stop, there. They committed illegal acts of domestic spying on American citizens, shredding the rights guaranteed to every American citizen under our once honored, once valued U.S. Constitution.

They committed torture and other horrific war crimes and crimes against humanity and disgraced our nation to ourselves and the world community.

And in their spare time, they abandoned all oversight and control over the shoddy ciminal practices of their wealthy Wall Street robber baron supporters, leading to the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression.

They were, in short, the worst, most disgraceful administration in American history. There is no way anyone can call that "looking out for the interests of the U.S." :thumbsdown:
 
Last edited:

Chaotic42

Lifer
Jun 15, 2001
33,854
957
126
I disagree. Bush was never "looking out for the interests of the U.S." He and his adminstration of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers spent the entirety of his adminstration lying to the nation to go to war in Iraq, which, as of April 19, 2010, has cost the lives of 4,392 American troops and left tens of thousands more American troops wounded, scarred and disabled for life and squandered trillions of dollars of current and future debt. They shredded the rights guaranteed to every American citizen under our once honored, once valued U.S. Constitution. They committed torture and other horrific war crimes and crimes against humanity and disgraced our nation to ourselves and the world community. And in their spare time, they abandoned all oversight and control over the shoddy ciminal practices of their wealthy Wall Street robber baron supporters, leading to the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression.

They were, in short, the worst, most disgraceful administration in American history. There is no way anyone can call that "looking out for the interests of the U.S." :thumbsdown:
I was trying to find a civil way to tell him that what he wrote had fuck all to do with what I wrote.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
29
86
I was trying to find a civil way to tell him that what he wrote had fuck all to do with what I wrote.
Of course, and you're right about that. My point was that he was full of shit when he said, "Bush didn't appease anyone. He was looking out for the interests of the US."
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
This has got to be one of the most moronic posts I've seen here.

What if he had gone and the plane had crashed. What would you have said then? Likely you'd have lambasted Obama as a fool who couldn't balance risks.

AF1 does have "unlimited" range, but that's also very expensive, something you faux-budget-hawks would have bashed on. That "unlimited" range comes at the cost of mid-flight refueling, an expensive proposition.

Not even to mention that AF1 rarely flies in very adverse conditions. He was likelyadvised by the AF to not go.
 

Aegeon

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,809
125
106
AF1 does have "unlimited" range, but that's also very expensive, something you faux-budget-hawks would have bashed on. That "unlimited" range comes at the cost of mid-flight refueling, an expensive proposition.
Actually it goes beyond this, where Air Force One has NEVER used its aerial refueling capability with the President on board the plane.

While the pilots do get training for this, the potential risk of something going wrong with the operation is high enough that its reserved for a real emergency situation.

It should be emphasized that part of the risk is a sudden shift in ash patterns could have ground Air Force One in Poland.

For those who think a train ride would be a viable alternative, I suggest you read about the security complications from the President taking a relatively short train ride right before he was sworn in as President, and consider what it would be for a vastly greater distance such as Poland to Madrid and across a bunch of different countries. (A train can be especially problematic from a security perspective because its basically tied to a predictable specific path allowing someone to set an ambush or place say a remotely controlled bomb put there well in advance.)
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Actually it goes beyond this, where Air Force One has NEVER used its aerial refueling capability with the President on board the plane.

While the pilots do get training for this, the potential risk of something going wrong with the operation is high enough that its reserved for a real emergency situation.

It should be emphasized that part of the risk is a sudden shift in ash patterns could have ground Air Force One in Poland.

For those who think a train ride would be a viable alternative, I suggest you read about the security complications from the President taking a relatively short train ride right before he was sworn in as President, and consider what it would be for a vastly greater distance such as Poland to Madrid and across a bunch of different countries. (A train can be especially problematic from a security perspective because its basically tied to a predictable specific path allowing someone to set an ambush or place say a remotely controlled bomb put there well in advance.)
Wow, I didn't know that, thanks for the info.

The train idea is dumb (if anybody brought it up), as your points are very valid.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
29
86
Well, people b!tched about Bush taking too many days off. It's only fair that Obama is held to the same standard.
The previous comments were pissing and moaning that Obama was playing golf on the day of the Polish President's funeral, but ummm... OK.

Mar 11, 2008

COLUMN: Record Breaker! Bush Takes Most Vacation Days For Sitting President

President Bush recently spent his 879th day at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, since the Supreme Court, in all its great wisdom, elevated him to the presidency. This according to NPR's "Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me," which noted that Bush broke former President Reagan's record for taking vacations from the White House.
.
.
(continues)
Or as someone said...

President Obama’s Vacation Days

January 11, 2010

Q: Has President Obama taken more vacation time than his predecessors?

A: According to one count, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush spent more time on "vacation" during their first year than President Obama did. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton spent less time on "vacation."

FULL ANSWER

President Obama has spent all or part of 26 days "on vacation" during his first year as president, according to CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller.
.
.
(continues)
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
181
106
Cliffs: OP & friends; we hates Obama, damn him for playing golf, damn him if he don't. Damn him if he flew to Poland, damn him even if he swam. Damn him in the White House, damn him for being Head of State, but damn him even more for getting born in the fiftieth state.
 
Last edited:

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,531
2
81
I have to confess I didn't read every post in this thread, but jesus F PatrANUS, this is a new low, even for you

best post I did read:

Cliffs: OP & friends; we hates Obama, damn him for playing golf, damn him if he don't. Damn him if he flew to Poland, damn him even if he swam. Damn him in the White House, damn him for being Head of State, but damn him even more for getting born in the fiftieth state.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,674
482
126
Another snub of Europe by Obama. Obama's foreign policy is perhaps the greatest realignment of US interests in quite a while.
Are you suggesting that Obama's foreign policy toward Europe is less cordial than George W. Bush's was?
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
1
0
Are you suggesting that Obama's foreign policy toward Europe is less cordial than George W. Bush's was?
No. Bush's was more a realignment within Europe of interests, often quite roughly. Obama's is more elegant, but it's a fundamental realignment away from Europe.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY