Are You Angry?

[Biff]

Lost in all of this is that, while the U.S. was in Afghanistan, Saddam began posturing himself as if he did have WMD. Whether he did or not, he was setting himself up to terrorize the entire middle east and control the vast majority of the world's oil............all this in violation of the treaty he signed back in 1991.

[-Jiggy-]

Lost in all of this is that, while the U.S. was in Afghanistan, Saddam began posturing himself as if he did have WMD. Whether he did or not, he was setting himself up to terrorize the entire middle east and control the vast majority of the world's oil............all this in violation of the treaty he signed back in 1991.

All of your words are lost on our modern day hippies who find it "cool" to protest something.

[Mad Dog]

Lost in all of this is that, while the U.S. was in Afghanistan, Saddam began posturing himself as if he did have WMD. Whether he did or not, he was setting himself up to terrorize the entire middle east and control the vast majority of the world's oil............all this in violation of the treaty he signed back in 1991.

All of your words are lost on our modern day hippies who find it "cool" to protest something.

+ 1 you are exactly right

[hotzester]

All of your words are lost on our modern day hippies who find it "cool" to protest something.

+1

[lokizilla]

Lost in all of this is that, while the U.S. was in Afghanistan, Saddam began posturing himself as if he did have WMD. Whether he did or not, he was setting himself up to terrorize the entire middle east and control the vast majority of the world's oil............all this in violation of the treaty he signed back in 1991.

All of your words are lost on our modern day hippies who find it "cool" to protest something.

Very true. The hippies live to protest. If not this then other things. But they want to be politically correct in their protests.... Is there such a thing a politically correct protest???

[dingdongyo]

Lost in all of this is that, while the U.S. was in Afghanistan, Saddam began posturing himself as if he did have WMD. Whether he did or not, he was setting himself up to terrorize the entire middle east and control the vast majority of the world's oil............all this in violation of the treaty he signed back in 1991.

never thought of it this way before. makes sense.
i guess the importance of oil is quite a bit more visible to me now.

[Mad Dog]

Lost in all of this is that, while the U.S. was in Afghanistan, Saddam began posturing himself as if he did have WMD. Whether he did or not, he was setting himself up to terrorize the entire middle east and control the vast majority of the world's oil............all this in violation of the treaty he signed back in 1991.

never thought of it this way before. makes sense.
i guess the importance of oil is quite a bit more visible to me now.

Especially since Saddam had already proven he was more than willing to invade his neighbors in the first gulf war. Over territory and oil. Look at the ecological disaster he caused pulling out of Kuwait. If not for some very ingenious oil fire fighters, we would have spent years putting out those fires. I can't believe the left stuck up for this man, except for the fact that they hated Bush II worse.

[speedbump]

To get back to the topic of this thread....it's bullshit.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003

[hotzester]

But at the end of the day, as I stated earlier, his basic expenses are more than that of GWB.

Obama's inaugural committee is in the midst of raising roughly $45 million in private funds, exceeding the $42.3 million President Bush spent in 2005.

Note they cite FNC at the start of the lengthy article that most won't read in its entirety. Media Matters is a left wing hack. Your point?

[dingdongyo]

To get back to the topic of this thread....it's bullshit.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003

i hate whoever wrote that. he repeats himself way too many times. it's why i lose interest in things.

i think i got the important parts, but fix it if i miss anything:

Here's why using the $160 million number and comparing it with Bush's 2005 costs represented a classic apples-and-oranges assessment: For years, the press routinely referred to the cost of presidential inaugurations by calculating how much money was spent on the swearing-in and the social activities surrounding that. The cost of the inauguration's security was virtually never factored into the final tab, as reported by the press.

The federal government spent $115 million dollars for the 2005 inauguration. Keep in mind, that $115 million price tag was separate from the money Bush backers bundled to put on the inauguration festivities. For that, they raised $42 million. So the bottom line for Bush's 2005 inauguration, including the cost of security? That's right, $157 million.

[hotzester]

i hate whoever wrote that. he repeats himself way too many times.

Do any of us really believe that someone with such atrocious writing ability would write for such a high profile outlet as Media Matters? If that were a possibility, I'd have my Emmy by now. No, this author very deliberately chose to over-complicate the facts so as to confuse you, just leaving you with the general vibe of "Well Bush still spent more." It's not a mistake. This is what makes the media bias so dangerous. It's sometimes very subtle.

So to be clear:

Bush's Inauguration not including security: $42.3 million
Obama's Inauguration not including security: $45 million

Bush INCLUDING security: $157 million
Obama INCLUDING security: $160 million

Who is spending more?

Don't get me wrong - I don't care how much Obama spends. It's private funds. My point is that if we're going to attack one, we need to attack both.

[egowx]

So....inflation does not apply to inaugurations? Hell, I'm impressed its not costing millions more considering the crowds.

[hotzester]

Was inflation the reason GWB spent more than his predecessors?

[egowx]

Nope. Poor handling by his financial team.

And I agree we should attack both of em for overall costs. But since it is irrelevant, I'll take the money for my super bowl party to buy a shrimp ring.

[hotzester]

Okay, I think I'm understanding now. When it's President Obama, that's inflation. When it's Bush, that was poor handling by his financial team. Thanks for clearing that up.

Oh, one more thing - is that how it works for ALL republican presidents, or just Bush?

[egowx]

I knew I shoulda read your 9:44 am post before responding. The answer to which would have been Yes.

[cuppie]

I'd worry more about the $700 billion we're giving to unethical businesses or the billions we spend on fighting wars against every one else on the planet.
Remember, $700 billion is 1 billion more than $699 billion.

You mean the $700 billion that a Congress controlled by DEMOCRATS passed?

[lokizilla]

So who is happy about the payroll freezes on Wednesday, and mad that on Friday he turns around and grants foreign aid for abortion money to be given to other countries.... One is good, one is like "umm...need to conserve money but we are going to give aid, when we don't have the money to give it"

[hotzester]

The payroll freezes seemed like good news, but I knew there was going to be another shoe dropping.

[mikesmalltalk]

[quote author=hotzester board=politics thread=2823 post=63295 time=1232323215

So to be clear:

Bush's Inauguration not including security: $42.3 million
Obama's Inauguration not including security: $45 million

Bush INCLUDING security: $157 million
Obama INCLUDING security: $160 million

Who is spending more?

Don't get me wrong - I don't care how much Obama spends. It's private funds. My point is that if we're going to attack one, we need to attack both.
[/quote]

Everyone knows that Obama had to pay more because,esically with security because you know there is some dumb racist group who has plans to hurt him because of his color. and BTW, Bush has used and lost this nation such a ridiculasly large amount of money and your complaining because obama used 3 million more?? wow, dont worry about how much the stupid inaguration cost and worry about how much money our country lost

[lokizilla]

The payroll freezes seemed like good news, but I knew there was going to be another shoe dropping.

I was happy about the freezes. I was happy about the ban on bribes and lobbyists near our elected officials. Not happy about giving constitutional rights to enemies of war, not even the most liberal president we have ever had did that. That president shot the enemies...
Not happy about giving out funds, when we should be diverting any money into healing our debt.

[hotzester]

Well balls, Loki. You and I aren't so different after all! +1

[lokizilla]

Well balls, Loki. You and I aren't so different after all! +1

Thank you.....brought up military brat..my hubby called me a war monger yesterday.....

[powerface71]

In 2004, President George W. Bush's inaugural activities cost an estimated $42.3 million plus the cost of security, which brought the total to somewhere between $50m and $70m....during a war.

If you recall, people were OUTRAGED at the pricetag, which was more expensive than any other president in history.

So to those of you who were so pissed off four years ago, I wanted to offer you my sincere sympathy, since Barack Obama's inauguration costs are slated to top $150,000,000...during what the left mistakenly calls "the worst economy since the Great Depression." (It wasn't, by the way. The recessions of the Carter era and the first few years following the transition to Ronald Reagan were significantly worse.)

I can only imagine how pissed you must be now.

Obama won. It's over. Deal with it. In a landslide victory too so I assume the people are happy. You fail to understand this is important history, and the cost was going to be enormous as this needs to be remembered the best way possible. The first black President! Go find something else to whine about. Thank you, good game.

[hotzester]

Whatever you do, don't let a dead thread lie.

Ignoring your timeliness:

1. It wasn't a landslide victory. Far from it.
2. All elections are important history.
3. The cost was more than the one people bitched about. Your point?
4. No, he isn't. He is at BEST the first HALF black president, and there is even evidence to suggest that this isn't true.
5. While I appreciate your concern, and admire your enthusiasm, I think I can figure out what I'd like to talk about just fine without your insight.

[powerface71]

Whatever you do, don't let a dead thread lie.

Ignoring your timeliness:

1. It wasn't a landslide victory. Far from it.
2. All elections are important history.
3. The cost was more than the one people bitched about. Your point?
4. No, he isn't. He is at BEST the first HALF black president, and there is even evidence to suggest that this isn't true.
5. While I appreciate your concern, and admire your enthusiasm, I think I can figure out what I'd like to talk about just fine without your insight.

Sour grapes.

[hotzester]

Or facts. You decide.

[rabbidgirl]

HA.. had a thought when i was at the mall the other night. I wonder if the inauguration will be paid off by secret funds created from the Obama merchandise that is being sold. Now I will say I did not vote republican or democrat right off the bat so do not say I am republican. Also I respect Obama as a man and our president, but I think that whoever is selling this stuff is awful!! This makes me feel like he, himself is a product. Just to see his face placed on t-shirts, buttons, banners, hand bags, and yes even a pair of high tops, well it just makes me ill that our president is being worshiped and then to have him laced in the same ranks on the store shelves as miley cyrus and the jonas brothers. I then proceeded to count 17 stores in the mall that had his stuff in the windows.
This is leaving a bad taste in my mouth...
Especially when we are suppose to be doing bad off in the economy and yet these people sell these shirts for $30... And people are buying these!!!

[potthole]

Thank you, good game.

You didn't win anything. No need for anybody to thank you.

[Mad Dog]

In 2004, President George W. Bush's inaugural activities cost an estimated $42.3 million plus the cost of security, which brought the total to somewhere between $50m and $70m....during a war.

If you recall, people were OUTRAGED at the pricetag, which was more expensive than any other president in history.

So to those of you who were so pissed off four years ago, I wanted to offer you my sincere sympathy, since Barack Obama's inauguration costs are slated to top $150,000,000...during what the left mistakenly calls "the worst economy since the Great Depression." (It wasn't, by the way. The recessions of the Carter era and the first few years following the transition to Ronald Reagan were significantly worse.)

I can only imagine how pissed you must be now.

Obama won. It's over. Deal with it. In a landslide victory too so I assume the people are happy. You fail to understand this is important history, and the cost was going to be enormous as this needs to be remembered the best way possible. The first black President! Go find something else to whine about. Thank you, good game.

What do you mean landslide? Obama won by a comfortable margin, but it was certainly no land slide. When Regan beat Carter THAT was a landslide. His liberal zombies are acting AS IF his victory was a landslide.

[mainerliser]

Personally, I was pissed at the price of the 2004 inaugural costs because this was his SECOND term AND it was during a war. You can have the big party the first term, but there is no need of it in the second term. Now before you get all up my butt about it hotzester, I have no idea at this time what other presidents spent on their second term inaugurations, if it was a lot then they all suck! When Obama gets elected to a second term I will expect him to have a less expensive inauguration, otherwise, he will suck too!

[doktor]

Anger is my base expression.

[Biff]

[flash=350,287]http://www.youtube.com/v/XREnvJRkif0&hl=en[/flash]

[doktor]

Manson never ceases to entertain me..i Effing love that video/

[-Jiggy-]

Manson never ceases to entertain me..i effing love that video/

Yeah, but he does have a point.

[Biff]

Manson never ceases to entertain me..i effing love that video/

Yeah, but he does have a point.

I like how his eyes soften as he begins to find humor in it. I've watched a lot of Manson videos and it's always amazing to see how charismatic he is. You can tell he has a hell of a sense of humor and knows how to read people. Watch him when he talks to people and you can see he is studying them and watching how they react to certain things he does.

That said, he's insane and I don't want him eating froot loops on my front porch.

[renegade]

Even manson would make a better prez than the marxist, socialist, dick wad that we have now. His speach about the "economic stimulus bull-shit package" was a complete bomb. The democraps used him. Rally the troops democraps we are going to have a new HNIC. Its not his fault. Now we have some of the worst ppl leading this country. It is not what the prez says; its what the crusty corrupt congress and senate let's him do. Everybody obama picked had to withdrawl because of extenuating circumstances. I do not blame obama; I didn't vote for him, but I don't blame him. The democraps used him as a pawn to gain power and that is exactly what they are going to do...gain more power. BIGGER GOVERNMENT = Eff YOUR INALIENABLE RIGHTS. Good bye CONSTITUTION that this country was founded on. Obama. I wish him luck. He fulfilled a dream but was just a pawn in a game of power and politics. Do you know that in 60 days senate is voting on a bill from the un. It has to do with childrens rights. If passed any form of punishment from YOU to YOUR CHILD will be illegal. It gives the child the right to say no I will not mow the yard; no I do not want to do this or that. It is the same bill london has had for many years. they have more of a problem with teen violence than what we do and these m-effers are wanting to adopt their policies and make parents incapacitated as to what and how they control their children. I am not saying control them by locking them up and cutting them off from the world, but when I was a child if I effed up my daddy would pull his belt off so quick it looked like he was starting a damn lawnmower and I took my punishment. Don't take me wrong, I do not take enjoyment in locking my kids in the storm cellar and feeding them fishheads and shit sandwiches but if they screw up I'm still gonna kick them in the ass and then explain to them why they should not repeat their actions. So anyways....I'm not mad anymore.

[renegade]

All I'm saying is; they want to put control of OUR children in the hands of the effin ROCK BITERS across the pond. And once they pass this bill there will be nothing the us govt can do to change it.

[speedbump]

@ the logic of these past few posts.

I would argue, but my time is not infinite, and neither is my patience.

[renegade]

Speedbump. I am sure if you look it up you will see what I am talking about. Un sanctions on childrens rights. This puts the children in control of the parents and ties the parents hands. But you being the wise and intellectual person that you are I am almost positive before you start bad mouthing me you are going to do your research.