Seems wrong to me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ranger

Oh, that's just funny, Nynco tells YOU that you should investigate YOUR sources when he just takes the word of any lib/libertarian rag and it's gospel. Whatever.

Hollohas, this isn't new and it's actually part of the deal of getting secret service, you can charge them for accommodations at your property. If I recall, the Clintons, long after the election, had a scandal about it too and it seems to me it was over $10K a month they were charging SS. I'm sure Bush and republicans have been at fault as well (this will make Nynco happy to hear) so I don't think its as much of a scandal as it is a real punch in the face in a crummy economy. I honestly sort of understand the reason for it, you really don't have a choice to have SS around if you have been in the executive office yet you are then also supposed to pay to house them? Sucks, but understandable.

---

Exactly. Like I said before, I don't know if any other past Presidents or Vice Presidents did the same thing and I would question it if they did too.

I also understand the reason for it and agree they all deserve and need protection but that doesn't make it feel any better that ANY government official get a contract for the tax payers to pay their mortgage on a property they own.

(notice I didn't mention any names nynco, so get it out of your head that the only reason that someone would bring this up is because they hate Obama)

Let them rent the place across the street...

Ok fine.... from the original source to prove that Fox news purposely left something out. Holas...... this is not a winning battle to defend Faux news.

Edwin M. Donovan, special agent in charge at the Secret Service's Office of Government and Public Affairs in Washington, said the agency pays $2,200 in rent per-month, the same amount a previous tenant had paid before moving out.

That would be fair market value.... Faux left that out. Why..... well see my other points about hack piece. 90% of the Faux readers would not click through to read the full article. They cherry picked it to slant it. Even then they are quoting the Wash times...... which is hardly a reputable source. Read about the owner, he is a whack job himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon The guy is a loon. Here is a classic case of the echo chamber effect. Ironically the Moonie Times give more info. But it fell short too.

As to me accusing you of slandering the VP. Sorry, that was not my intent. No ill will directed towards you. Those comments about impugning character were directed at Faux and the Moonie times.

As to renting another location? Well I have confidence that the Secret Service chose that location due to operational needs. What good is a location if it is too far away to serve its intended purpose?

The USSS is going to rent the property that gives them the best capability to complete their mission. If thats on his property, then its on his property. Going further away from your principle to please those at don't like they pay Biden rent is just stupid. Having been involved and led more than a few high level protective service details, I'm getting the closest property to my principle, period. I personally prefer the room right next to theirs.

If they are using his real-estate to complete their mission, then why should he have to forfeit profit from that property simply because he's an elected official. Personally, I think the govt paying for use of the property a reflection of our capitalism system, and right.

SA Friday said it better than me. I agree...

Hollohas, also to think this is not about attacking Obama is to be naive. They are going after the VP, which is pretty much the same thing as the president.

As to what Ranger said about me and my sources. That is his right.

Not trying to defend Fox, just calling you out for your own bias since you're so quick to point it out in every thread that mentions something remotely close to Obama or his administration. I know Fox is a conservative organization and I treat them as such. As you said, they hand picked parts of that article. But to pretend the others don't lean one way or another and do the same thing is having your head in the sand.

BTW, there are a bunch of other news agencies posting the story...ABC, New York Mag, Telegraph, Philadelphia Daily, Washington Post...there's sure a lot of whack job owners...

Hollohas, my bias turned out to be proven true.

As to the other news outlets.... I personally think that far too few people own far too much media. Its not healthy for this nation. Pieces like this show how those people steer readers to political ends. Time to enforce the Sherman Anti Trust bill and break some of them up into smaller independent news that will compete not collude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SA Friday

The USSS is going to rent the property that gives them the best capability to complete their mission. If thats on his property, then its on his property. Going further away from your principle to please those at don't like they pay Biden rent is just stupid. Having been involved and led more than a few high level protective service details, I'm getting the closest property to my principle, period. I personally prefer the room right next to theirs.

If they are using his real-estate to complete their mission, then why should he have to forfeit profit from that property simply because he's an elected official. Personally, I think the govt paying for use of the property a reflection of our capitalism system, and right.

---

I don't disagree. And thanks for your non-bias insight.

Like my OP said, I'll reserve judgement. I just wanted to point out it feels a little wrong even if it's the best way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nynco

Hollohas, my bias turned out to be proven true.

As to the other news outlets.... I personally think that far too few people own far too much media. Its not healthy for this nation. Pieces like this show how those people steer readers to political ends. Time to enforce the Sherman Anti Trust bill and break some of them up into smaller independent news that will compete not collude.

---

Good point but I would argue some of the smaller but well traveled "news" organizations (which mostly surface as blogs or other websites these days) are far more biased and extreme. Do you feel that smaller independent news would be held in check at all? Publishing, media and news are not my strong suits...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hollohas

Good point but I would argue some of the smaller but well traveled "news" organizations (which mostly surface as blogs or other websites these days) are far more biased and extreme. Do you feel that smaller independent news would be held in check at all? Publishing, media and news are not my strong suits...

---

You are correct, some of the news and the blogs are even more biased. But I prefer a system where there are more voices rather than less. This ages saving grace to counter act the fact that most all the major news sources are owned by too few people is the internet. I just hope that people start to ask more fundamental core questions about bias and who pays their bills for the smaller sights. Many of them appear to be small and independent but are again paid for by big interests.

I just hope people educate themselves more and read from all sides.