Printable View
Biden charges secret service to rent cottage
But I don't know what other presidents and vice presidents have done. So I'll reserve judgement but it just seems wrong that our tax dollars are paying for his personal real estate.
Here's the Original article because nynco hates Fox...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ottage-rental/
He may be required by law to do that. Other wise it might seem like improprietorial conflict of interest. But that does not stop the other side from making an issue of it.
I have never heard of something like this before but it sure seems like a conflict of interests to me. And my opinion holds true for any other past political figures who may have benefited like this...
I would not think it would be out of the ordinary for the gov to have a standard rate that was to be paid for all housing of gov workers regardless of who they are or who they work for. Not paying might look like a conflict of interest. Which would reflect on both the Secret Service and the VP. Now should it be shown that there was an exorbitant amount paid by the gov to the VP then there is an issue. So far nothing like that has been presented and most likely the original article did not contain that. Why? Because the point of the article was to impune character alone. The writer accomplished that because most people don't understand all facets of the issue.
Now the easiest way to explain my line of reasoning can be found in the constitution it self. Third Amendment - No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
To not pay the owner of the property fair market value would be in violation of that. This amendment has also been ruled to include other gov officials other than just the military.
Always ask why your source would bring this up, why they have no facts and what they are trying to accomplish or gain.
The Secret Service pays the vice president $2,200 per month to rent a cottage next to his waterfront home outside Wilmington, Del., FoxNews.com has confirmed.
That is not an exorbitant amount and most likely fair market value in that area. Funds most likely paid out in the same way that TDY is paid out for soldiers tasked to go off base for mission purposes.
You indicate you didn't read the original article yet you judge the writer's intent. It was fairly unbiased actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
I don't need schooling from you on how to judge the intent of an article, thanks. Especially from someone who judges an article based solely on it's source without ever reading it.Quote:
Always ask why your source would bring this up, why they have no facts and what they are trying to accomplish or gain.
I understand all the government intricacies you mentioned. And I didn't challenge Biden's character. However it still feels f'd up that our tax dollars pay for a government official's his real estate.
Well you are correct, I did not read it at first. I did how ever and then quoted the article itself. Which backed up my previous assumption. My point still stands. Its rather sad that I could predict what the article said without reading it. That tells you something doesn't it? It mainly says that I could predict the source making much to do about nothing.
I can understand not wanting to pay. It seems stupid. But it would also be against the law not to pay, heck it would look like violating the constitution it self.
Fox news has everything to gain by running a hack piece. Its what they do. They are not a news organization, they are a political outlet for conservatism and facts and honestly take a distant last place to political points.
Its a piece to rally those who need to read things to confirm their hate for the president.
Fox told the truth, but not the whole truth, but the point of the article was to attack the VPs character so they succeeded.
As to this point Always ask why your source would bring this up, why they have no facts and what they are trying to accomplish or gain.
That was more of a blanket statement to be used for all sources. Not just this article.
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.
Ah, but you still haven't read the ORIGINAL article.
This Fox News link is a partial re-print of the ORIGINAL Washington Times article which you didn't read. Maybe I'll edit the OP to include the Times article so you won't have to worry so much about Fox. You reading it now and confirming your initial thoughts does not change the fact that you jumped to conclusions based solely on the source and that my friend proves your bias.
It didn't say shit about the President so I don't know how you can say "Its a piece to rally those who need to read things to confirm their hate for the president". Again, that's your bias...
I'm not saying the SS(hmmm, that sounds bad, Secret Service sounds better) should use it rent free. I am saying they should go back to renting a private citizen's property, not a government official's. Not saying it's wrong (or illegal), but does seem like a conflict of interest.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger
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.
I don't disagree. And thanks for your non-bias insight.Quote:
Originally Posted by SA Friday
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.
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 nynco
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
I just hope people educate themselves more and read from all sides.
As far as general media bias, there is no better example than the 2008 Presidential Elections. No major new org did much of anything to expose Obama and his BS, but they sure loved to go after Palin- and that is why I hate Katie Couric. Obama said some pretty bad things back in the day (like saying things to the effect of "socialism is a better way to go"), but they didn't care because a gun-loving, freedom idolizing, hockey mom who just happened to govern Alaska put a big shock into the status quo mainstream media had enjoyed earlier. Now she's labeled as an idiot (which she is most certainly not), a gun nut, and ditz. Whoops, media out there plugging people into the most insane BS. Hence my stance: "There is no news in the truth, and no truth in the news."Quote:
Originally Posted by nynco
nynco why don't you move down to ATL and live next to CNN. Then their bullshit can at least cover it when you spew it out all the time.
as to the article, seems fair to me that the SS has to pay to rent a building. Whether it is the VP's or not doesn't really matter. I imagine he could rent it out to some crazy libtard that likes him for 5 times more than that.
Sniper7, why don't you stop being a jerk......... If you are going to bitch about me at least have the common sense to do it on an issue where you don't agree with me. Why not put your political stuff aside and look at common ground rather than just attacking to attack.[Beer]
Renting property is routine for the USSS. It was done on the Eisenhower farm in Gettysburg, the Nixon house in NY, Carter's home in GA, etc.
Most protectees do not live in low cost areas and the USSS personnel often work out of glorified closets or storage sheds. Very glamorous working conditions [ROFL2]
When I think of what the USSS has to go through, I think of that movie Guarding Tess. I have no doubt that the detail is about that crappy.
Yeah, I know they have to suck it up sometimes. I worked in Glacier National Park for a while and at one point I had to visit a back-country cabin that Laura Bush and her girlfriends had just stayed in the previous 4 nights. They had left lots of left-over food and adult beverages behind. The girls left nice French wine...what did the USSS have left-over? Ice House beer...yuck!Quote:
Originally Posted by cstone