Originally posted by whodey
What non-right wing tabloid would come out with the story?

Here is a site that trys to rebutt the article.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-presidency-costs-taxpayers-a-lot-but-thats-not-obamas-fault/

The article trys to rebutt the article in two ways. The first way is to say that they are not sure how the numbers got added together. Then the s ...[text shortened]... ike the Royals in the UK. They come with a greater discount and don't have near the power.

joe beyser is claiming the figure is $1.4 billion per week. Is he right? How does he arrive at this figure?

Originally posted by FMF
joe beyser is claiming the figure is $1.4 billion per week. Is he right? How does he arrive at this figure?

The article I provided that tried to rebutt the figure did not even try to come up with a figure. They even seemed to imply that the number is not knowable.

As with everything else in Washington, when it comes to spending the truth is 3 shades of gray, so it beats the hell out of me how he came up with the figure.

Originally posted by whodey
The article I provided that tried to rebutt the figure did not even try to come up with a figure. They even seemed to imply that the number is not knowable.

As with everything else in Washington, when it comes to spending the truth is 3 shades of gray, so it beats the hell out of me how he came up with the figure.

So is $1.4 billion per week the figure you're sticking with?

Originally posted by FMF
So is $1.4 billion per week the figure you're sticking with?

I was acutally hoping for some numbers from the other side to dispute these types of numbers. I have no idea.

Originally posted by whodey
I was acutally hoping for some numbers from the other side to dispute these types of numbers. I have no idea.

You "have no idea"? You mentioned the figure of $1.4 billion in your thread title. Are you now trying to distance yourself from it?

Originally posted by whodey
What non-right wing tabloid would come out with the story?

I don't know, actual news articles perhaps?

Originally posted by whodey
....

Whodey wants a king and queen like the Royals in the UK. They come with a greater discount and don't have near the power.

Maybe you and Whodey should talk this over together and try to reach some agreement before going public.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
What non-right wing tabloid is claiming this number?

The left wing tabloids were pretty much on time critiquing Bush's vacationing.

Originally posted by normbenign
The left wing tabloids were pretty much on time critiquing Bush's vacationing.

True. And they were also making unfair attacks against John McCain's service claiming he was a reckless hotshot who crashed a bunch of planes.

But I...

A: Never have used any of them to cite as a source.

B: Did my due diligence and fact checking, even debating against left wing attacks I disagreed with.

Next?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
True. And they were also making unfair attacks against John McCain's service claiming he was a reckless hotshot who crashed a bunch of planes.

But I...

A: Never have used any of them site as a source.

B: Did my due diligence and fact checking, even debating against left wing attacks I disagreed with.

Next?

The key point is that you are only going to get the negatives from opposition writers. You can prefer not to hear it, but with the nation is the state of debt and deficit it is in, people ought to be critical of all non essential government spending.

Originally posted by normbenign
The key point is that you are only going to get the negatives from opposition writers. You can prefer not to hear it, but with the nation is the state of debt and deficit it is in, people ought to be critical of all non essential government spending.

This is a debate forum. When someone posts some unproven, outlandish claim from a non-credible source there is nothing to debate.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
This is a debate forum. When someone posts some unproven, outlandish claim from a non-credible source there is nothing to debate.

Opinions are opinions. Like a**holes, everyone has them. Most of what we debate are opinions.

Originally posted by normbenign
Opinions are opinions. Like a**holes, everyone has them. Most of what we debate are opinions.

There's also a difference between opinions and factual claims.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
This is a debate forum. When someone posts some unproven, outlandish claim from a non-credible source there is nothing to debate.

Sure there is. Show us numbers to refute the ones in the article.

My guess is you can't do it.

Originally posted by whodey
Sure there is. Show us numbers to refute the ones in the article.

My guess is you can't do it.

Can you substantiate the numbers in the article or the number in your thread title? I quoted the number you "quoted" back at you and yet you did not seem to recognize it or didn't seem to know whether it was per week or per month.

What was it you said? Oh yes: "...it beats the hell out of me how he came up with the figure". And when I pressed you on whether you could explain the claim you'd made, you said "I have no idea".

You have some cheek demanding people "Show us numbers" when you yourself have come off as not having a clue about the issue - other than the fact that you have succeeded in copy pasting a link to a wingnut blog.