Are You Angry?

[hotzester]

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.

[Howie Feltersnatch]

he deserves it...cause he's more popular :

[Howie Feltersnatch]

oh and a minority

[mutts202]

I wonder if hotzester is republican? :
The cost is based on attendance and increased security. It's not because the "left" decided it would be more fun to spend more money. :-X
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.

[Howie Feltersnatch]

it has everything to do with him being liberal, and the media being liberal. They always paint a negative picture for republicans and beautiful pictures for fellow democrats.

Can you list two openly republican celebrities? that are as vocal as say Alec Baldwin or Rosie? Hell can you give me 3 openly centrist celebrities?

If you scream your opinion over and over and over as long as Baldwin and O'Donnel have with their ability to deliver it to the masses, eventually 'Joe Sixpack' will start to buy it and forget just how looney you/they are.

[Rock Monster]

What I don't understand is how Liberals can't see that the media is slanted towards the left...

[hotzester]

I wonder if hotzester is republican?

HotZester IS a republican...a relatively conservative one at that. This isn't something I'd be at all inclined to try to mask. Thanks for pointing it out though - I'm sure there are people here who A) care, B) couldn't figure it out previously, or C) didn't read any of the posts wherein I said as much using fairly small words.

The cost is based on attendance and increased security. It's not because the "left" decided it would be more fun to spend more money.

Not true. The 2004 inauguration cost $42.3 million plus security, whereas Obama's is currently estimated to be $45 million plus security. If you're unaware, 45 is a bigger number than 42.3. Would you like to try again?

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.

I agree (and have said) that spending money on failing businesses is irresponsible. That said, let us not forget that the reason the two major mortgage companies (Fannie and Freddie) failed is because government strong-armed them into taking on high risk loans.

Second, "fighting wars against every one else on the planet"....okay, ignoring the fact that "everyone" is one word and not two as you wrote it, we're not fighting them all. We're in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you're in favor of gas attacks on citizens, rape rooms, and the oppression of women to the point where they can't even attend school, and also want to condone Iraq's acceptance of al Qaeda, the same group who murdered 3,000 Americans, then I can see why you might be against the war. I'm just not in any of those categories.

[Howie Feltersnatch]

there are some news channels slanted against the grain...but not many...like one?

[hotzester]

ONE? Are you kidding me? Howie, I'm disappointed.

[Howie Feltersnatch]

I don't wath the news...what they report isn't really what is going on so I don't pay attention. I get my news via the internetz, and typically I'm only worried about what is happening in my neighborhood.

[krystal]

I don't wath the news...what they report isn't really what is going on so I don't pay attention. I get my news via the internetz, and typically I'm only worried about what is happening in my neighborhood.

It's the only way to keep you sane.

[hotzester]

I disagree. I'd argue that not watching the news (any outlet, preferably multiple) and trying to interject into a debate on the issues is a pretty good definition of crazy.

[krystal]

I listen to NPR a lot and check the local newspapers, but that's about it. I used to worry about things world-wide all the time, but now I only look at them so I can stay informed. The little girl in me would rather look at gossip sites, though.

[hotzester]

I don't mind a liberal slant, but NPR is WAY too far to the left (not to mention unbelievably elitist and boring). I tend to use Google News to scour the various outlets from around the world. I actually had an article from al Jazeera on my desktop this morning....I hope that doesn't get me on any sort of watch list.

[speedbump]

Second, "fighting wars against every one else on the planet"....okay, ignoring the fact that "everyone" is one word and not two as you wrote it, we're not fighting them all. We're in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you're in favor of gas attacks on citizens, rape rooms, and the oppression of women to the point where they can't even attend school, and also want to condone Iraq's acceptance of al Qaeda, the same group who murdered 3,000 Americans, then I can see why you might be against the war. I'm just not in any of those categories.

None of those are reasons WHY we entered Iraq in the first place. It's not like the second the US government finds out there is oppression in a country they jump in the way. The US has allowed oppression and corrupt governments to occur in plenty of terrorist labeled "nations". The government needs to have something to gain before they are going to intervene, which from a "government as a business" standpoint is not an entirely bad thing. Just don't pretend like our number one priority was anything you mentioned.

Telling someone they don't mind the oppression of women, rape rooms, and gas attacks because they aren't in favor of a dishonest war is hardly a fair attack.

[Howie Feltersnatch]

The government needs to have something to gain before they are going to intervene,

you mean it (the need) wasn't getting a Pres with enough balls to go to war instead of getting a Pres with enough balls to get a bj in the oval office?

[hotzester]

None of those are reasons WHY we entered Iraq in the first place.

September 20, 2001 - George Bush, on the war on terror, said it "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

Where did I lose you?

[Howie Feltersnatch]

[quote author=hotzester board=politics thread=2823 post=62734 time=1232038760]

Where did I lose you?

HA!

[lokizilla]

He talks about being transparent and cutting spending....this is a lot of spending that isn't needed.

[Howie Feltersnatch]

Anyone see the South Park called "about last night"....simply awesome, not the funniest but great message

[Biff]

If you're not angry then you're not paying attention.

[plungerhand]

If you're not angry then you're not paying attention.

See? Walking around pissed off at everything IS normal...

Whew! I thought it was just me.

[Queenie]

If you're not angry then you're not paying attention.

See? Walking around pissed off at everything IS normal...

Whew! I thought it was just me.

Thanks a lot Biff . . . :

[whatwouldzappasay]

Oh, I'm pissed off. But there's a place where people are REALLY pissed off on a daily basis. My other home:
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/forum...y.php?f=36

[Mad Dog]

Second, "fighting wars against every one else on the planet"....okay, ignoring the fact that "everyone" is one word and not two as you wrote it, we're not fighting them all. We're in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you're in favor of gas attacks on citizens, rape rooms, and the oppression of women to the point where they can't even attend school, and also want to condone Iraq's acceptance of al Qaeda, the same group who murdered 3,000 Americans, then I can see why you might be against the war. I'm just not in any of those categories.

None of those are reasons WHY we entered Iraq in the first place. It's not like the second the US government finds out there is oppression in a country they jump in the way. The US has allowed oppression and corrupt governments to occur in plenty of terrorist labeled "nations". The government needs to have something to gain before they are going to intervene, which from a "government as a business" standpoint is not an entirely bad thing. Just don't pretend like our number one priority was anything you mentioned.

Telling someone they don't mind the oppression of women, rape rooms, and gas attacks because they aren't in favor of a dishonest war is hardly a fair attack.

Actually, in a half assed way you are right. Hotzesters reasons were actual reasons we went to war, BUT NOT the only reasons. That war killed multiple birds with one stone. And the biggest bird was decapitating Saddam. Lets not forget about securing oil resources either. And why not while we are there try to set up a democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Other than the lives lost, rest their valiant souls, this War was good and just and needed to happen eight years sooner.

[hotzester]

I've never understood the "securing our oil interests" bit. War has historically been HORRIBLE for oil, and this one was no difference.

[speedbump]

None of those are reasons WHY we entered Iraq in the first place.

September 20, 2001 - George Bush, on the war on terror, said it "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

Where did I lose you?

They haven't all been "stopped and defeated", so why aren't we occupying every terrorist supportive nation?

He said that nine days after the worst terrorist attack on our nation in its history(you probably knew this). I'm going to go out on a limb and say he was maybe a little emotional, trigger happy, and just in general not thinking about what he was saying. Since he hasn't defeated every known terrorist harboring country, I would say he has failed.

[dino]

September 20, 2001 - George Bush, on the war on terror, said it "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

Where did I lose you?

They haven't all been "stopped and defeated", so why aren't we occupying every terrorist supportive nation?

He said that nine days after the worst terrorist attack on our nation in its history(you probably knew this). I'm going to go out on a limb and say he was maybe a little emotional, trigger happy, and just in general not thinking about what he was saying. Since he hasn't defeated every known terrorist harboring country, I would say he has failed.

You don't fail until you stop trying.

[dino]

Anyone see the South Park called "about last night"....simply awesome, not the funniest but great message

That was a hilarious episode!

South Park is awesome in the way they make fun of both sides.

[hotzester]

Can you blame him for taking it down a notch after the way he was attacked after Iraq?

[Mad Dog]

I've never understood the "securing our oil interests" bit. War has historically been HORRIBLE for oil, and this one was no difference.

Oil is the life blood of modern life. without it nothing we have works or is manufactured. Obviously when this resource is threatened our way of life is threatened. Thus when the US secured oil producing Iraq, it helped to secure our modern way of life. Not that we can't get oil from other sources but you get my point. Since we were there to kill Saddam and stop the insurgence, securing oil resources was a natural secondary objective.

[hotzester]

Well which is it? Was it a war for oil, or was the oil thing secondary to removing the man responsible for an estimated 600,000 innocent civilians?

[mutts202]

I wonder if hotzester is republican?

HotZester IS a republican...a relatively conservative one at that. This isn't something I'd be at all inclined to try to mask. Thanks for pointing it out though - I'm sure there are people here who A) care, B) couldn't figure it out previously, or C) didn't read any of the posts wherein I said as much using fairly small words.

Not true. The 2004 inauguration cost $42.3 million plus security, whereas Obama's is currently estimated to be $45 million plus security. If you're unaware, 45 is a bigger number than 42.3. Would you like to try again?

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.

I agree (and have said) that spending money on failing businesses is irresponsible. That said, let us not forget that the reason the two major mortgage companies (Fannie and Freddie) failed is because government strong-armed them into taking on high risk loans.

Second, "fighting wars against every one else on the planet"....okay, ignoring the fact that "everyone" is one word and not two as you wrote it, we're not fighting them all. We're in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you're in favor of gas attacks on citizens, rape rooms, and the oppression of women to the point where they can't even attend school, and also want to condone Iraq's acceptance of al Qaeda, the same group who murdered 3,000 Americans, then I can see why you might be against the war. I'm just not in any of those categories.

Hey, I know that "everyone" is one word, not two! I was just typing fast! Nice deflection to prove your superiority!

And about the military, I just think it's a little ridiculous that our military is so huge and is mainly used for offensive reasons, not defensive. We're getting into everyone's business and telling them what to do, not protecting our own soil. You could argue that we're doing "preventive" protection by getting them first, but how is it that the other major countries survive without as huge a military? I think it's just our ego. Plus, half your taxes go to supporting it. Hope you think it's REALLY worth HALF your taxes!

[hotzester]

You're right, it would be much better if our military men and women were fighting enemies in Florida and Virginia right now. As for why we are where we are, it's because we're expected to be the world's defender. It comes with the responsibility of being the world's leading fighting force. No one attacks the other major countries because A) they're generally inferior to us, militarily and economically, and B) they're all allies of ours. Attacking them would be suicide even if they DID have something someone wanted.

Second, I have ZERO issues with my tax money going to the military. In fact, I'd have less of an issue with where my taxes go currently if they took all of the money spent on welfare, along with all of the increased education spending (with little to no result from year to year) and put that all into the military.

[speedbump]

They haven't all been "stopped and defeated", so why aren't we occupying every terrorist supportive nation?

He said that nine days after the worst terrorist attack on our nation in its history(you probably knew this). I'm going to go out on a limb and say he was maybe a little emotional, trigger happy, and just in general not thinking about what he was saying. Since he hasn't defeated every known terrorist harboring country, I would say he has failed.

You don't fail until you stop trying.

What I'm saying is that he never started trying in a lot of nations that support terrorism

Can you blame him for taking it down a notch after the way he was attacked after Iraq?

Basically the same as my above comment, but I don't think he ever had the intent to "go after" other countries.

[Mad Dog]

Well which is it? Was it a war for oil, or was the oil thing secondary to removing the man responsible for an estimated 600,000 innocent civilians?

securing oil resources was a natural secondary objective.

I thought I was pretty clear what I meant.

[hotzester]

Your mom.

[Mad Dog]

Your mom.

My mother kicked your mother in the nose. What color blood came out?

[lokizilla]

Well which is it? Was it a war for oil, or was the oil thing secondary to removing the man responsible for an estimated 600,000 innocent civilians?

Debating on whether it was oil related seems a bit off. That might have been a background, but more or less, Saddam was a very evil man. Just to get him out of power, where he couldn't hurt people anymore, is a great thing. I have met people that had to leave over there because of him. I'll never forget their faces when they described the destruction Saddam amassed on their people. They were happy that he was executed. If it gave them a better sense of security, it was worth it, because those are just a handful of the people saved.

[hotzester]

+1