(11-07-2017, 08:48 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(11-07-2017, 05:35 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: Why is this a story? The family went on vacation and took the dog. He's part of the family too.Whether or not the dog flew with them or separately is meaningless. Where's the controversy?

You don't think the cost of a separate charter flight just for the family dog at the taxpayer's expense is of concern?

The dog is a family member of the family. If this is the only way it could've been done, I have no problem with it. I don't care if it would've been done for the dog of Carter, Bush, Clinton, W. or Obama. The taxpayers are supposed to take care of the immediate families of the former presidents and I consider dogs as part of the family. 

I also believe tax payers should pony up for bullet proof vests for canine officers. If human officers wear the kevlar, so should the k-9 cops.

---

(11-07-2017, 09:46 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote:

(11-07-2017, 05:35 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: Why is this a story? The family went on vacation and took the dog. He's part of the family too.Whether or not the dog flew with them or separately is meaningless. Where's the controversy?

You think it's OK to fly your dog to vacation with you while paying with someone else's money? 

Look, I don't care that Obama wants to vacation, but why the hell does a dog need to vacation with him?

The dog is part of the family. Period.

---