blake murphy > wrote in
:


> I have only been able to find references to three named individuals
> who have been identified as GTMO detainees "known" to have returned to
> Afghanistan from Guantánamo and who "might" have returned to the
> battlefield. Two of those names came from government officials (on
> several different occasions) and the third seems to have come from an
> individual claiming to have been at Guantánamo. The three names a
> Haji Shahzada; Abdullah Mehsud; and Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar.


What about .....

"A U.S. counterterror official confirmed Friday that Said Ali al-Shihri,
who was jailed in Guantanamo for six years after his capture in
Pakistan, has resurfaced as a leader of a Yemeni branch of al-Qaida."

and.........

"That announcement, which carried the video post of al-Shihri, also
included a second video of a second militant who identified himself as
Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi and claimed he had also been a Guantanamo
captive, later released."

http://www.startribune.com/nation/38212874.html


You haven't checked real hard, have you?


Are you a GITMO detainee sympathiser?



>
> About 520 Guantanamo detainees have been ***released from custody or
> transferred to prisons*** elsewhere in the world.


ie, that 520 either released, or still in prison, just elsewhere.


>
> <http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705277399,00.html>


"A Pentagon tally of the detainees ***released*** show that 122 were
transferred from Guantanamo in 2007, more than any other year so far."


So now we have a figure of 122 being released back into the wild.

Which means that 398 were "released" into prisons elsewhere.


So with 61 suspected of returning to the fight, that makes it 2 out of
4, or *half* of detainees released that are going back to terrorist
activities.


>
> ...so even if you take the pentagon figures as gospel, no way is it
> 'four out of five.'
>


BFD.

Even if one goes back, it's one too many.


--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia


Soldati, io esco da Roma. Chi vuole continuare la guerra contro lo
straniero venga con me. Non posso offrigli ne¤ onori ne¤ stipendi; gli
offro fame, sete, marce forzate, battaglie e morte. Chi ama la Patria mi
segua.

—Garibaldi, Giuseppe

Kathleen > wrote in news:n2lgl.90640
:

> blake murphy wrote:
>

>>>>
>>>>They probably still believe all that stuff you Yanks told us about
>>>>those people being "The worst of the worst." ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>I heard the other day that 4 out of 5 inmates that have already been
>>>released have gone back to terrorist groups.
>>
>>
>> bullshit.
> <snip>
>
> Damn it. Blake. How dare you go dragging facts into the discussion!
>
>


Time to fix that bullet hole in your foot, loudmouth, and then stick it
firmly back in your mouth.



http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...277399,00.html

"A Pentagon tally of the detainees released show that 122 were
transferred from Guantanamo in 2007, more than any other year so far."

So with 61 'suspected' returnees to the terrorists, that makes the odds
2 out of 4, not 4 out of 5.

BFD!!

If even *one* goes back to being in a terroist organisation, it's *one*
too many. But I'm sure you and the terrorist lover murphy will disagree
with that one.


http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stori...namo-al-qaida-
012309/

"According to the Pentagon, at least 18 former Guantanamo detainees have
"returned to the fight" and 43 others are suspected of resuming
terrorist activities. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell declined to
provide the identity of the former detainees or say what their terrorist
activities were."


http://www.startribune.com/nation/38212874.html

"That announcement, which carried the video post of al-Shihri, also
included a second video of a second militant who identified himself as
Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi and claimed he had also been a Guantanamo
captive, later released."



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia


Soldati, io esco da Roma. Chi vuole continuare la guerra contro lo
straniero venga con me. Non posso offrigli ne¤ onori ne¤ stipendi; gli
offro fame, sete, marce forzate, battaglie e morte. Chi ama la Patria mi
segua.

—Garibaldi, Giuseppe

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:41:45 +0000, Peter-Lucas wrote:

> (Phred) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Terry Pulliam
>> Burd > wrote:
>>>On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:50:50 -0600, Lou Decruss >
>>>fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:
>>>
>>>>I thought gitmo was closing and all the residents were moving to DC?
>>>
>>>Ironically, after the EU spent years screaming about the "detainees'"
>>>habeas corpus rights, etc., while ensconced at Gitmo, they are now
>>>screaming that the US must ensure the detainees' whereabouts once cut
>>>loose from detention.
>>
>> They probably still believe all that stuff you Yanks told us about
>> those people being "The worst of the worst." ;-)
>>
>>
>
> I heard the other day that 4 out of 5 inmates that have already been
> released have gone back to terrorist groups.

Oh really?! Well, case closed then...

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:46:29 +0000, foxy turnip wrote:

> "Peter-Lucas" > wrote in message
> .25...
>> (Phred) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, Terry Pulliam
>>> Burd > wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:50:50 -0600, Lou Decruss
> fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:
>>>>
>>>>>I thought gitmo was closing and all the residents were moving to DC?
>>>>
>>>>Ironically, after the EU spent years screaming about the "detainees'"
>>>>habeas corpus rights, etc., while ensconced at Gitmo, they are now
>>>>screaming that the US must ensure the detainees' whereabouts once cut
>>>>loose from detention.
>>>
>>> They probably still believe all that stuff you Yanks told us about
>>> those people being "The worst of the worst." ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I heard the other day that 4 out of 5 inmates that have already been
>> released have gone back to terrorist groups.
>>
>>
> You heard it so it *Must* be true.
> Or do you just hope it is true?

It amounts to the same thing with lucas - he *wants* them to do that so
he can better justify hating some more brown people.





--
"Some days we don't let the line move at all. We call those weekdays"
Patty and Selma Bouvier, 1996

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:40:20 +0000, Peter-Lucas wrote:

> Kathleen > wrote in news:n2lgl.90640
> :
>
>> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>>
>
>>>>>They probably still believe all that stuff you Yanks told us about
>>>>>those people being "The worst of the worst." ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I heard the other day that 4 out of 5 inmates that have already been
>>>>released have gone back to terrorist groups.
>>>
>>>
>>> bullshit.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Damn it. Blake. How dare you go dragging facts into the discussion!
>>
>>
>>
>
> Time to fix that bullet hole in your foot, loudmouth, and then stick it
> firmly back in your mouth.
>
>
>
> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...277399,00.html
>
> "A Pentagon tally of the detainees released show that

Well there you go - it's completely unreliable information.
What else do you expect the Pentagon to say, lucas?!?

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:39:34 +0000, Peter-Lucas wrote:

> blake murphy > wrote in
> :
>
>
>> I have only been able to find references to three named individuals who
>> have been identified as GTMO detainees "known" to have returned to
>> Afghanistan from Guantánamo and who "might" have returned to the
>> battlefield. Two of those names came from government officials (on
>> several different occasions) and the third seems to have come from an
>> individual claiming to have been at Guantánamo. The three names a
>> Haji Shahzada; Abdullah Mehsud; and Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar.
>
>
> What about .....
>
> "A U.S. counterterror official confirmed

LOL, you're really are hopeless.

>Friday that Said Ali al-Shihri,
> who was jailed in Guantanamo for six years after his capture in
> Pakistan, has resurfaced as a leader of a Yemeni branch of al-Qaida."
>
> and.........
>
> "That announcement, which carried the video post of al-Shihri, also
> included a second video of a second militant who identified himself as
> Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi and claimed he had also been a Guantanamo
> captive, later released."
>
> http://www.startribune.com/nation/38212874.html
>
>
> You haven't checked real hard, have you?
>
>
> Are you a GITMO detainee sympathiser?
>
>
>
>
>> About 520 Guantanamo detainees have been ***released from custody or
>> transferred to prisons*** elsewhere in the world.
>
>
> ie, that 520 either released, or still in prison, just elsewhere.
>
>
>
>> <http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705277399,00.html>
>
>
> "A Pentagon tally of the detainees ***released*** show that 122 were
> transferred from Guantanamo in 2007, more than any other year so far."
>
>
> So now we have a figure of 122 being released back into the wild.
>
> Which means that 398 were "released" into prisons elsewhere.
>
>
> So with 61 suspected of returning to the fight, that makes it 2 out of
> 4, or *half* of detainees released that are going back to terrorist
> activities.
>
>
>
>> ...so even if you take the pentagon figures as gospel, no way is it
>> 'four out of five.'
>>
>>
>
> BFD.
>
> Even if one goes back, it's one too many.

Keep digging that hole lucas ... <G>

James Silverton wrote:

> blake wrote on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:32:09 GMT:
>
> > Why bother to do fact checking when it is so much easier to just write
> >down whatever you are told?
>
> Apparently there are serious doubts about the story of children being
> killed in a UN school in Gaza: http://tinyurl.com/cmru8y (From the
> Toronto Globe and Mail) Tho' Israel did not help itself by the way it
> denied the story.


If Hamas did not embed their military facilities within schools, hospitals,
homes for the aged, etc. and thus endangering innocents then this would not
be an "issue". They deliberately do this, knowing that certain quarters of
the world press will be "sympathetic" towards their cause when of course
Israel comes in to clean up and there are the resultant casualties.

Hamas is also pretty slick at holding up, diverting, and thieving
humanitarian aid at the Gaza checkpoints and then crying "foul" at Israel...

When the IDF incursion started and Gazan civilian casualties were occurring
a BBC programme was interviewing a pro - "Palestinian" Arab caught in the
debris of a destroyed block of flats along with a member of the IDF. The
interviewer asked the Israeli about the civilian casualties and the Israeli
said, "It's unfortunate, but this is war...". The interviewer then said,
"Yes, but how does this make you feel as a human being...!!!???", to which
the Israeli replied: "Did you ask Hamas that question...???".


--
Best
Greg

"James Silverton" > wrote in
:

> blake wrote on Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:32:09 GMT:
>
>> Why bother to do fact checking when it is so much easier to just
write
>>down whatever you are told?
>
> Apparently there are serious doubts about the story of children being
> killed in a UN school in Gaza: http://tinyurl.com/cmru8y (From the
> Toronto Globe and Mail) Tho' Israel did not help itself by the way it
> denied the story.
>
>
>


You might find this interesting........

http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk


Positive proof that the gutless wonders Hamas hide amongst civilians and
schools.


--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia


Soldati, io esco da Roma. Chi vuole continuare la guerra contro lo
straniero venga con me. Non posso offrigli ne¤ onori ne¤ stipendi; gli
offro fame, sete, marce forzate, battaglie e morte. Chi ama la Patria mi
segua.

—Garibaldi, Giuseppe

Michael wrote:

> Laura could most likely live the lifestyle she wants with, or without, the
> asshole. My estimation of her would jump much higher if she would divorce
> him. Maybe she loves him though. I don't see how but anything is
> possible.

I believe that there is a genuine bond of love between GWB and Laura Bush.
Their courtship and romance are fairly well-documented.

None of us are acquainted with GWB on a personal level (which is fine by
me), and it might be that he is much more likable as a good ol' boy than as
a member of the government. I suspect that is the case, and for Laura's sake
I hope it is.

Bob

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:27:36 -0600, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote:


>Do you think she actually likes him? Wonder if they are like Bill &
>Hill? There's one sour relationship- at least the Obamas seem to
>genuinely like & respect each other...
>-----------------------
>
>GM replies:
>
>Laura and the Shrub seem to genuinely like each other...

I've seen several interviews of them together. One of which he talked
about when Laura gave him the ultimatum on his drinking. He
paraphrased what she said and (as usual) totally bungled it and had to
correct it. Judging by the eye contact between the two I'd have to
say they like and respect each other quite a bit.
>
>The Clintoons were *made* for each other - in HELL...!!!

Who could imagine a couple that both people desired to be the
president? The competition has to be fierce.
>
>The Obamas appear to like each other...

Absolutely. And they're both wild about their little girls.

>I would like to be in the company of either the Obamas or the Bushes...and I
>wouldn't **** on the Impeached Scumbag or Former First Bitch if they were on
>fire.

Clinton would be the only president in my lifetime I would have no
interest in meeting.

Lou

In article >, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:27:30 -0800, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:50:50 -0600, Lou Decruss
> fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:
>>
>>>I thought gitmo was closing and all the residents were moving to DC?
>>
>>Ironically, after the EU spent years screaming about the "detainees'"
>>habeas corpus rights, etc., while ensconced at Gitmo, they are now
>>screaming that the US must ensure the detainees' whereabouts once cut
>>loose from detention.
>
>They'd be nice gardeners at the Whitehouse. Or janitors at the school
>the Obama girls attend. That way the Secret Service can keep and eye
>on them.

Reminds me of the time many decades ago when I spent a school holiday
with a mate at his place in PNG. His old man was a very VIP in
Rabaul, so a lot of things around the place got done by "public
servants". The ones that really impressed me were those wandering
freely around the garden "mowing" the lawn with bloody great
machetes. When I asked who they were, I was told they were from the
local jail -- and most of them were in jail for murder! (To be fair,
I suspect that was about the only indigenous crime the patrol officers
thought worthy of intervention and "justice" at that time. :-)

Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:44:14 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:

> On 29 Jan 2009 02:12:21 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\""
> > wrote:
>
>>blake murphy >
: in rec.food.cooking
>>
>>>> I can't say as I've never been there. I don't plan on going there
>>>> until Sarah Palin and Joe the plumber win over the whitehouse. I
>>>> won't bother comparing Joe's tax issue to the current head of the IRS
>>>> because there's still too many readers here under the influence of
>>>> the obama pixie dust.
>>>>
>>>> Lou
>>>
>>> i hope the republicans *do* run caribou barbie and joe the
>>> almost-plumber. they'd get beat even worse than her and mcgrampa were.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> bl;ake
>>
>>I agree Blake. I hope they do run in '12. Ms. Caribou is the Democratic
>>party's cheapest campaign ad. All she has to do is speak.
>
> Many people feel the same way about Hilliary.
>
> Lou

many people thought that hillary was a scheming bitch, not that she was
stupid and pig-ignorant.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:34:39 -0800 (PST), merryb wrote:

> On Jan 29, 8:03*am, blake murphy > wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:34:25 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:03:17 GMT, blake murphy
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>>On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:35:08 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:
>>
>>>>>>She probably takes a ton of valium to be able to live with that clown!!
>>
>>>>> She gets to retire in a 3 million dollar home in a beautiful
>>>>> neighborhood. *She hasn't had to cook or clean in 8 years. *She's so
>>>>> shy she told George she would never speak in public yet she learned
>>>>> how to and traveled the world on your dime. *She'll never have a money
>>>>> worry for the rest of her life. She raised two beautiful daughters.
>>>>> She'll never have to work a day again, but she will. *
>>
>>>>> Yep,,,,I can see why she'd need valium to live that life.
>>
>>>>> Lou
>>
>>>>i would need something a lot stronger than valium.
>>
>>> I wouldn't want to live with the guy either. *But If my spouse
>>> provided me with the lifestyle she's going to have I sure wouldn't
>>> need valium. *I probably would enjoy a few more Bombay Sapphires
>>> though. *It might make it easier to ignore the misgramarifications.
>>
>>> Lou <----having a problem with the mispellcheckerfication function
>>
>> yeah, the lifestyle is nice - but the politics require that she appear in
>> public with him and appear to actually like him.
>>
>> bombay sapphire could work.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Do you think she actually likes him? Wonder if they are like Bill &
> Hill? There's one sour relationship- at least the Obamas seem to
> genuinely like & respect each other...

well, it's pointless, really, to speculate about other people's
relationships. but...bill seems to have a charm that george couldn't
touch. and i doubt laura is wowed by george's intelligence.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:27:36 -0600, Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> I would like to be in the company of either the Obamas or the Bushes...and I
> wouldn't **** on the Impeached Scumbag or Former First Bitch if they were on
> fire.

yeah, i wonder what neato-keen nickname george would bestow on you?

blake

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:37:19 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:03:39 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:34:25 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:
>
>>> I wouldn't want to live with the guy either. But If my spouse
>>> provided me with the lifestyle she's going to have I sure wouldn't
>>> need valium. I probably would enjoy a few more Bombay Sapphires
>>> though. It might make it easier to ignore the misgramarifications.
>>>
>>> Lou <----having a problem with the mispellcheckerfication function
>>
>>yeah, the lifestyle is nice - but the politics require that she appear in
>>public with him and appear to actually like him.
>
> If you watched something other than msnbc you'd have a different
> incite.
>
>>bombay sapphire could work.
>
> It always does.
>
> Lou

i watch very little t.v. and no cable. i don't need it to know that bush
is a buffoon.

your pal,
blake

On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:45:44 -0600, Kathleen wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:41:45 +0000 (UTC), Peter-Lucas wrote:
>>
(Phred) wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article >, Terry Pulliam
>>>>Burd > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:50:50 -0600, Lou Decruss
> fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I thought gitmo was closing and all the residents were moving to DC?
>>>>>
>>>>>Ironically, after the EU spent years screaming about the "detainees'"
>>>>>habeas corpus rights, etc., while ensconced at Gitmo, they are now
>>>>>screaming that the US must ensure the detainees' whereabouts once cut
>>>>>loose from detention.
>>>>
>>>>They probably still believe all that stuff you Yanks told us about
>>>>those people being "The worst of the worst." ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>I heard the other day that 4 out of 5 inmates that have already been
>>>released have gone back to terrorist groups.
>>
>> bullshit.
> <snip>
>
> Damn it. Blake. How dare you go dragging facts into the discussion!

i know it's bootless, but sometimes you have to fight ignorance as best you
can.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:27:36 -0600, Gregory Morrow wrote:
> >
> > I would like to be in the company of either the Obamas or the
Bushes...and I
> > wouldn't **** on the Impeached Scumbag or Former First Bitch if they
were on
> > fire.
>
> yeah, i wonder what neato-keen nickname george would bestow on you?
>

I am sure after consultation with Jill and catmandy and Mothra H. they could
come up with *something* suitable, blake...

lol...


--
Best
Greg

blake murphy wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:07:37 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:

>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:19:18 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:

>>>> Goomba > wrote:
>>>> (snip)
>>>>> Did they *need* another chef though? or is that duplication of
>>>>> efforts and unnecessary cost to the American people?
>>>>
>>>> He's filling a vacant position < it's not an expansion of staff.
>>>
>>> who gives a ****, really? let him have three chefs if he wants.
>>> it's a drop in the bucket.

>> Well, that's true enough, and I'm not the one questioning it. But
>> little drops can add up to big buckets, doncha know! Ever hear, "If
>> you watch your pennies, your dollars will take care of themselves"?
>
> well, there is the (possibly apocryphal) quote attributed to everett
> dirksen:
>
> "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real
> money."

What's amusing to me is that the President and family have to
pay for their own food.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:

> What's amusing to me is that the President and family have to pay for
> their own food.
>
> nancy

Why is that amusing? You and I pay for ours.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:12:59 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:37:19 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:03:39 GMT, blake murphy
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:34:25 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:
>>
>>>> I wouldn't want to live with the guy either. But If my spouse
>>>> provided me with the lifestyle she's going to have I sure wouldn't
>>>> need valium. I probably would enjoy a few more Bombay Sapphires
>>>> though. It might make it easier to ignore the misgramarifications.
>>>>
>>>> Lou <----having a problem with the mispellcheckerfication function
>>>
>>>yeah, the lifestyle is nice - but the politics require that she appear in
>>>public with him and appear to actually like him.
>>
>> If you watched something other than msnbc you'd have a different
>> incite.
>>
>>>bombay sapphire could work.
>>
>> It always does.
>>
>> Lou
>
>i watch very little t.v. and no cable. i don't need it to know that bush
>is a buffoon.

I'm not debating his buffoonism. But I do believe Laura and him do
seem to like each other.

Lou

Goomba wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> What's amusing to me is that the President and family have to pay for
>> their own food.

> Why is that amusing? You and I pay for ours.

I pay for my housing, too, but he gets to stay for free.
Seems silly to me (pickayune) to be presenting a bill for
the leader of the nation like he's ordering room service.
No skin off my teeth, but I wouldn't be charging for food
if it was up to me.

nancy

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:16:40 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

>Goomba wrote:
>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>> What's amusing to me is that the President and family have to pay for
>>> their own food.
>
>> Why is that amusing? You and I pay for ours.
>
>I pay for my housing, too, but he gets to stay for free.
>Seems silly to me (pickayune) to be presenting a bill for
>the leader of the nation like he's ordering room service.
>No skin off my teeth, but I wouldn't be charging for food
>if it was up to me.

I have no idea how they are charged for it but it does sound silly. I
wonder if they pay their own dry cleaning bill? Do they tip the
gardeners? Can they use these things as tax deductions? It's mind
boggling.

Lou

Nancy Young wrote:
> Goomba wrote:
>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>> What's amusing to me is that the President and family have to pay for
>>> their own food.
>
>> Why is that amusing? You and I pay for ours.
>
> I pay for my housing, too, but he gets to stay for free.
> Seems silly to me (pickayune) to be presenting a bill for
> the leader of the nation like he's ordering room service.
> No skin off my teeth, but I wouldn't be charging for food
> if it was up to me.
>
> nancy

What about feeding all their buddies and families who come to stay at
the White House for private visits and parties? Where do you draw the line?

Lou Decruss wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:16:40 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:
>
>> Goomba wrote:
>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>>
>>>> What's amusing to me is that the President and family have to pay for
>>>> their own food.
>>> Why is that amusing? You and I pay for ours.
>> I pay for my housing, too, but he gets to stay for free.
>> Seems silly to me (pickayune) to be presenting a bill for
>> the leader of the nation like he's ordering room service.
>> No skin off my teeth, but I wouldn't be charging for food
>> if it was up to me.
>
> I have no idea how they are charged for it but it does sound silly. I
> wonder if they pay their own dry cleaning bill? Do they tip the
> gardeners? Can they use these things as tax deductions? It's mind
> boggling.
>
> Lou

I know they pay for the travel costs of their family members (or used
to) and that seems reasonable to me, as does paying their own grocery
bill when dining *privately*.
Do we know he doesn't get an allowance for certain expenses?

Goomba wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>> Goomba wrote:
>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>>
>>>> What's amusing to me is that the President and family have to pay
>>>> for their own food.
>>
>>> Why is that amusing? You and I pay for ours.
>>
>> I pay for my housing, too, but he gets to stay for free.
>> Seems silly to me (pickayune) to be presenting a bill for
>> the leader of the nation like he's ordering room service.
>> No skin off my teeth, but I wouldn't be charging for food
>> if it was up to me.

> What about feeding all their buddies and families who come to stay at
> the White House for private visits and parties? Where do you draw
> the line?

Doesn't bother me. He's making less than any corporate
executive around, I don't have a problem with one of the percs
being not getting a bill for food. How about an expense account,
anything above that, he pays. Regardless, I personally find it
somewhat laughable to bill the family for their food like they're
hotel guests or something, obviously YMMV.

nancy

Lou Decruss wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:16:40 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:

>> I pay for my housing, too, but he gets to stay for free.
>> Seems silly to me (pickayune) to be presenting a bill for
>> the leader of the nation like he's ordering room service.
>> No skin off my teeth, but I wouldn't be charging for food
>> if it was up to me.
>
> I have no idea how they are charged for it but it does sound silly. I
> wonder if they pay their own dry cleaning bill? Do they tip the
> gardeners? Can they use these things as tax deductions? It's mind
> boggling.

I'm picturing them going over the bill, I don't remember ordering
the foie gras, you? Okay, 3 peanut butter sandwiches, that's
9 bucks, salad, $4.50 ... I just happen to find it a little amusing.

nancy

"Nancy Young" > wrote in news:91Zgl.390$3z4.289
@newsfe30.ams2:

> Lou Decruss wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:16:40 -0500, "Nancy Young"
>> > wrote:
>
>>> I pay for my housing, too, but he gets to stay for free.
>>> Seems silly to me (pickayune) to be presenting a bill for
>>> the leader of the nation like he's ordering room service.
>>> No skin off my teeth, but I wouldn't be charging for food
>>> if it was up to me.
>>
>> I have no idea how they are charged for it but it does sound silly. I
>> wonder if they pay their own dry cleaning bill? Do they tip the
>> gardeners? Can they use these things as tax deductions? It's mind
>> boggling.
>
> I'm picturing them going over the bill, I don't remember ordering
> the foie gras, you? Okay, 3 peanut butter sandwiches, that's
> 9 bucks, salad, $4.50 ... I just happen to find it a little amusing.
>



Barack...."Who ordered the 6-pak of MGD??? Malia Ann.... get back here!!!"



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia


Soldati, io esco da Roma. Chi vuole continuare la guerra contro lo
straniero venga con me. Non posso offrigli ne¤ onori ne¤ stipendi; gli
offro fame, sete, marce forzate, battaglie e morte. Chi ama la Patria mi
segua.

—Garibaldi, Giuseppe

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:14:26 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

>Lou Decruss wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:16:40 -0500, "Nancy Young"
>> > wrote:
>
>>> I pay for my housing, too, but he gets to stay for free.
>>> Seems silly to me (pickayune) to be presenting a bill for
>>> the leader of the nation like he's ordering room service.
>>> No skin off my teeth, but I wouldn't be charging for food
>>> if it was up to me.
>>
>> I have no idea how they are charged for it but it does sound silly. I
>> wonder if they pay their own dry cleaning bill? Do they tip the
>> gardeners? Can they use these things as tax deductions? It's mind
>> boggling.
>
>I'm picturing them going over the bill, I don't remember ordering
>the foie gras, you? Okay, 3 peanut butter sandwiches, that's
>9 bucks, salad, $4.50 ... I just happen to find it a little amusing.

Yes but someone has to keep track of the food and prepare a bill.
That creates another useless government job and that's good for the
economy.

<SNORK>

Lou

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:14:26 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> wrote:

>Lou Decruss wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:16:40 -0500, "Nancy Young"
>> > wrote:
>
>>> I pay for my housing, too, but he gets to stay for free.
>>> Seems silly to me (pickayune) to be presenting a bill for
>>> the leader of the nation like he's ordering room service.
>>> No skin off my teeth, but I wouldn't be charging for food
>>> if it was up to me.
>>
>> I have no idea how they are charged for it but it does sound silly. I
>> wonder if they pay their own dry cleaning bill? Do they tip the
>> gardeners? Can they use these things as tax deductions? It's mind
>> boggling.
>
>I'm picturing them going over the bill, I don't remember ordering
>the foie gras, you? Okay, 3 peanut butter sandwiches, that's
>9 bucks, salad, $4.50 ... I just happen to find it a little amusing.

The cost of their food seems so inconsequential compared to the cost
of firing up Air Force One it kinda seems petty to worry about it. I
would think the book keeping alone would be a pita.

Lou

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 08:56:29 -0500, Goomba >
wrote:

>Lou Decruss wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:16:40 -0500, "Nancy Young"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Goomba wrote:
>>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What's amusing to me is that the President and family have to pay for
>>>>> their own food.
>>>> Why is that amusing? You and I pay for ours.
>>> I pay for my housing, too, but he gets to stay for free.
>>> Seems silly to me (pickayune) to be presenting a bill for
>>> the leader of the nation like he's ordering room service.
>>> No skin off my teeth, but I wouldn't be charging for food
>>> if it was up to me.
>>
>> I have no idea how they are charged for it but it does sound silly. I
>> wonder if they pay their own dry cleaning bill? Do they tip the
>> gardeners? Can they use these things as tax deductions? It's mind
>> boggling.
>>
>> Lou
>
>I know they pay for the travel costs of their family members (or used
>to) and that seems reasonable to me, as does paying their own grocery
>bill when dining *privately*.

I can see Barack raiding the fridge for a midnight snack and leaving a
note for the chef saying "bill the president for a glass of milk and a
piece of cake."

>Do we know he doesn't get an allowance for certain expenses?

I have no idea that they get but I'd sure rather pay for the
presidents food than send stimulus checks to people who don't pay
taxes.

Lou

Lou Decruss wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:14:26 -0500, "Nancy Young"
> > wrote:

>> I'm picturing them going over the bill, I don't remember ordering
>> the foie gras, you? Okay, 3 peanut butter sandwiches, that's
>> 9 bucks, salad, $4.50 ... I just happen to find it a little amusing.
>
> The cost of their food seems so inconsequential compared to the cost
> of firing up Air Force One it kinda seems petty to worry about it. I
> would think the book keeping alone would be a pita.

Hah, yeah, really. I have a feeling it's not particularly cost
effective. Of course, government doesn't often worry about
that, that's nothing new.

I saw somewhere that Secret Service people go out as
ordinary citizens to buy food, shopping at different stores,
etc. for obvious security reasons. So the family can't even
buy their own food the way you would if staying in a hotel
with a kitchen area.

Whatever. No one seems to mind, it's just amusing to me,
strikes me as rather petty. That's all.

nancy

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:49:34 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:12:59 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:37:19 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:03:39 GMT, blake murphy
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:34:25 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't want to live with the guy either. But If my spouse
>>>>> provided me with the lifestyle she's going to have I sure wouldn't
>>>>> need valium. I probably would enjoy a few more Bombay Sapphires
>>>>> though. It might make it easier to ignore the misgramarifications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lou <----having a problem with the mispellcheckerfication function
>>>>
>>>>yeah, the lifestyle is nice - but the politics require that she appear in
>>>>public with him and appear to actually like him.
>>>
>>> If you watched something other than msnbc you'd have a different
>>> incite.
>>>
>>>>bombay sapphire could work.
>>>
>>> It always does.
>>>
>>> Lou
>>
>>i watch very little t.v. and no cable. i don't need it to know that bush
>>is a buffoon.
>
> I'm not debating his buffoonism. But I do believe Laura and him do
> seem to like each other.
>
> Lou

i find laura very hard to read. it's the glassy eyes, i think - maybe
she's already taken your bombay sapphire advice to heart. i would
certainly need it to deal with her mother-in-law, if nothing else.

but she does smoke cigarettes, so she gets some points for that.

your pal,
blake

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:52:41 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:07:37 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
>>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:19:18 -0600, Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
>>>>> Goomba > wrote:
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>> Did they *need* another chef though? or is that duplication of
>>>>>> efforts and unnecessary cost to the American people?
>>>>>
>>>>> He's filling a vacant position < it's not an expansion of staff.
>>>>
>>>> who gives a ****, really? let him have three chefs if he wants.
>>>> it's a drop in the bucket.
>
>>> Well, that's true enough, and I'm not the one questioning it. But
>>> little drops can add up to big buckets, doncha know! Ever hear, "If
>>> you watch your pennies, your dollars will take care of themselves"?
>>
>> well, there is the (possibly apocryphal) quote attributed to everett
>> dirksen:
>>
>> "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real
>> money."
>
> What's amusing to me is that the President and family have to
> pay for their own food.
>
> nancy

probably a good thing. otherwise, they'd be getting army chow.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:05:41 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:

> Goomba wrote:
>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>> Goomba wrote:
>>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What's amusing to me is that the President and family have to pay
>>>>> for their own food.
>>>
>>>> Why is that amusing? You and I pay for ours.
>>>
>>> I pay for my housing, too, but he gets to stay for free.
>>> Seems silly to me (pickayune) to be presenting a bill for
>>> the leader of the nation like he's ordering room service.
>>> No skin off my teeth, but I wouldn't be charging for food
>>> if it was up to me.
>
>> What about feeding all their buddies and families who come to stay at
>> the White House for private visits and parties? Where do you draw
>> the line?
>
> Doesn't bother me. He's making less than any corporate
> executive around, I don't have a problem with one of the percs
> being not getting a bill for food. How about an expense account,
> anything above that, he pays. Regardless, I personally find it
> somewhat laughable to bill the family for their food like they're
> hotel guests or something, obviously YMMV.
>
> nancy

it's not like any recent white house occupants were hurting for money.
well, maybe clinton and carter. and jerry ford.

yikes, i guess that's half of them.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:05:41 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> Goomba wrote:
>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>>> Goomba wrote:
>>>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What's amusing to me is that the President and family have to pay
>>>>>> for their own food.
>>>>
>>>>> Why is that amusing? You and I pay for ours.
>>>>
>>>> I pay for my housing, too, but he gets to stay for free.
>>>> Seems silly to me (pickayune) to be presenting a bill for
>>>> the leader of the nation like he's ordering room service.
>>>> No skin off my teeth, but I wouldn't be charging for food
>>>> if it was up to me.
>>
>>> What about feeding all their buddies and families who come to stay at
>>> the White House for private visits and parties? Where do you draw
>>> the line?
>>
>> Doesn't bother me. He's making less than any corporate
>> executive around, I don't have a problem with one of the percs
>> being not getting a bill for food. How about an expense account,
>> anything above that, he pays. Regardless, I personally find it
>> somewhat laughable to bill the family for their food like they're
>> hotel guests or something, obviously YMMV.
>>
>> nancy
>
> it's not like any recent white house occupants were hurting for money.
> well, maybe clinton and carter. and jerry ford.
>
> yikes, i guess that's half of them.
>
> your pal,
> blake

I dare say friends in high places would give them a dine if they needed it.
Has Obama got money?

blake murphy wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:05:41 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:

>> Doesn't bother me. He's making less than any corporate
>> executive around, I don't have a problem with one of the percs
>> being not getting a bill for food. How about an expense account,
>> anything above that, he pays. Regardless, I personally find it
>> somewhat laughable to bill the family for their food like they're
>> hotel guests or something, obviously YMMV.

> it's not like any recent white house occupants were hurting for money.
> well, maybe clinton and carter. and jerry ford.

Oh, where's my violin? The Clintons hurting for money?

> yikes, i guess that's half of them.

It's not the money, I'm sure none of them had to pass
up any meals because they couldn't afford it.

nancy

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:13:29 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:05:41 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> Doesn't bother me. He's making less than any corporate
>>> executive around, I don't have a problem with one of the percs
>>> being not getting a bill for food. How about an expense account,
>>> anything above that, he pays. Regardless, I personally find it
>>> somewhat laughable to bill the family for their food like they're
>>> hotel guests or something, obviously YMMV.
>
>> it's not like any recent white house occupants were hurting for money.
>> well, maybe clinton and carter. and jerry ford.
>
> Oh, where's my violin? The Clintons hurting for money?

not now, but they weren't rich when they got to the white house. they both
made some pretty good dough from the books they wrote.

>> yikes, i guess that's half of them.
>
> It's not the money, I'm sure none of them had to pass
> up any meals because they couldn't afford it.
>
> nancy

no, not that they were missing meals, but they were probably still at a
point where they had to watch the dollars, unlike, say, the reagans and
bushes i and ii.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:13:29 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:

>>> it's not like any recent white house occupants were hurting for
>>> money. well, maybe clinton and carter. and jerry ford.
>>
>> Oh, where's my violin? The Clintons hurting for money?
>
> not now, but they weren't rich when they got to the white house.
> they both made some pretty good dough from the books they wrote.

As I recall, they pulled down some very nice bucks from
some questionable inside deals. I don't buy that they were
poor by anyone's yardstick.

nancy

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:10:43 GMT, Chu Mi Phany wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:05:41 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>> Goomba wrote:
>>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>>>> Goomba wrote:
>>>>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's amusing to me is that the President and family have to pay
>>>>>>> for their own food.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why is that amusing? You and I pay for ours.
>>>>>
>>>>> I pay for my housing, too, but he gets to stay for free.
>>>>> Seems silly to me (pickayune) to be presenting a bill for
>>>>> the leader of the nation like he's ordering room service.
>>>>> No skin off my teeth, but I wouldn't be charging for food
>>>>> if it was up to me.
>>>
>>>> What about feeding all their buddies and families who come to stay at
>>>> the White House for private visits and parties? Where do you draw
>>>> the line?
>>>
>>> Doesn't bother me. He's making less than any corporate
>>> executive around, I don't have a problem with one of the percs
>>> being not getting a bill for food. How about an expense account,
>>> anything above that, he pays. Regardless, I personally find it
>>> somewhat laughable to bill the family for their food like they're
>>> hotel guests or something, obviously YMMV.
>>>
>>> nancy
>>
>> it's not like any recent white house occupants were hurting for money.
>> well, maybe clinton and carter. and jerry ford.
>>
>> yikes, i guess that's half of them.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> I dare say friends in high places would give them a dine if they needed it.
> Has Obama got money?

he make some pretty good money from the two books he wrote.

your pal,
blake

Nancy Young wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:13:29 -0500, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>>> it's not like any recent white house occupants were hurting for
>>>> money. well, maybe clinton and carter. and jerry ford.
>>>
>>> Oh, where's my violin? The Clintons hurting for money?
>>
>> not now, but they weren't rich when they got to the white house. they
>> both made some pretty good dough from the books they wrote.
>
> As I recall, they pulled down some very nice bucks from some
> questionable inside deals. I don't buy that they were
> poor by anyone's yardstick.
>
> nancy

The Tyson Chicken one was one before reaching Washington, D.C.