The Inauguration

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Doesn't seem quite right with the all the problems people in this country are facing to (either party) be throwing a party.

--------------------------------------------------
January 20, 2005

by Christy Harvey, Judd Legum and Jonathan Baskin
with Nico Pitney and Mipe Okunseinde

Inauguration: Lifestyles of the Rich and Heartless

Due to $17 million worth of inaugural security – paid for by the city of Washington, D.C. – the Progress Report is unable to access its office. Never fear – it takes a lot more than that to keep us down. We put this list together for you ahead of time. Your regularly scheduled Progress Report returns tomorrow.

A look at this week's festivities by the numbers:

$40 million: Cost of Bush inaugural ball festivities, not counting security costs.

$2,000: Amount FDR spent on the inaugural in 1945…about $20,000 in today's dollars.

$20,000: Cost of yellow roses purchased for inaugural festivities by D.C.'s Ritz Carlton.

200: Number of Humvees outfitted with top-of-the-line armor for troops in Iraq that could have been purchased with the amount of money blown on the inauguration.

$10,000: Price of an inaugural package at the Fairmont Hotel, which includes a Beluga caviar and Dom Perignon reception, a chauffeured Rolls Royce and two actors posing as "faux" Secret Service agents, complete with black sunglasses and cufflink walkie-talkies.

400: Pounds of lobster provided for "inaugural feeding frenzy" at the exclusive Mandarin Oriental hotel.

3,000: Number of "Laura Bush Cowboy cookies" provided for "inaugural feeding frenzy" at the Mandarin hotel.

$1: Amount per guest President Carter spent on snacks for guests at his inaugural parties. To stick to a tight budget, he served pretzels, peanuts, crackers and cheese and had cash bars.

22 million: Number of children in regions devastated by the tsunami who could have received vaccinations and preventive health care with the amount of money spent on the inauguration.

1,160,000: Number of girls who could be sent to school for a year in Afghanistan with the amount of money lavished on the inauguration.

$15,000: The down payment to rent a fur coat paid by one gala attendee who didn't want the hassle of schlepping her own through the airport.

$200,500: Price of a room package at D.C.'s Mandarin Oriental, including presidential suite, chauffeured Mercedes limo and outfits from Neiman Marcus.

2,500: Number of U.S. troops used to stand guard as President Bush takes his oath of office

26,000: Number of Kevlar vests for U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan that could be purchased for $40 million.

$290: Bonus that could go to each American solider serving in Iraq, if inauguration funds were used for that purpose.

$6.3 million: Amount contributed by the finance and investment industry, which works out to be 25 percent of all the money collected.

$17 million: Amount of money the White House is forcing the cash-strapped city of Washington, D.C., to pony up for inauguration security.

9: Percentage of D.C. residents who voted for Bush in 2004.

66: Percentage of Americans who think this over-the-top inauguration should have been scaled back.
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=100480

[Eye Patch]

But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent.

According to the Consumer Price Index, $42 million in 1997 is the equivalent of $49.5 in 2004.

The significant majority of funding for this year's festivities, including nine officials balls, are from private donations and tickets for events held by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, a similar setup to fund raising Mr. Clinton used to underwrite his inauguration. Mr. Clinton had a record 12 balls in 1997

[Rascal]

You have been bitch slapped.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent.

According to the Consumer Price Index, $42 million in 1997 is the equivalent of $49.5 in 2004.

The significant majority of funding for this year's festivities, including nine officials balls, are from private donations and tickets for events held by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, a similar setup to fund raising Mr. Clinton used to underwrite his inauguration. Mr. Clinton had a record 12 balls in 1997

17 million isn't significant? I don't approve of spending ANY taxpayer money for this crap no matter who's ball it is.

[Eye Patch]

17 million isn't significant? I don't approve of spending ANY taxpayer money for this crap no matter who's ball it is.

Considering how you only blast elephants.. I doubt that..

[Rascal]

And yet you said nothing when Clinton did, yet when Bush does it is so very bad.

Yeah right.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

And yet you said nothing when Clinton did, yet when Bush does it is so very bad.

Yeah right.
You can't read? Or is it a interpretation problem?
How do you know what I was saying about Clinton's little parties when he had his?

[Rascal]

You can't read? Or is it a interpretation problem?
How do you know what I was saying about Clinton's little parties when he had his?

What you can't address Patch's comments or are you too stupid to read it?

Fine, I don't know about you personally. But I do know that nobody complained about it in the media when Clinton had his, only now with Bush.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What you can't address Patch's comments or are you too stupid to read it?

Fine, I don't know about you personally. But I do know that nobody complained about it in the media when Clinton had his, only now with Bush.
I did address his post. Times were pretty good when Clinton had his parties compared to now so there is going to be more criticism now but I voiced my opinion then the same as I do now.

[Rascal]

Times were pretty good when Clinton had his parties but they aren't now...please.

The economy is just fine now and besides less money is still being spent on Bush's inaguration.

I would like to see a receipt of Clinton's inaguration. Blow Job....$15,000.

And you "voicing" your opinion about Clinton...BS.

[Eye Patch]

I did address his post. Times were pretty good when Clinton had his parties compared to now so there is going to be more criticism now but I voiced my opinion then the same as I do now.

times were pretty good?

A war in Bosnia... two American Embassy’s bombed... WTC bombed... U.S Cole bombed.. and we did NOTHING.

yup times were sure good under clinton.

duck and hide.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

times were pretty good?

A war in Bosnia... two American Embasseys bombed... WTC bombed... U.S Cole bombed.. and we did NOTHING.

yup times were sure good under clinton.

duck and hide.
Well, lets compare then.......

Clinton= surplus, record low unemployment, no Americans being killed on a daily basis in a war on a country that was not a threat to us.

Bush= record double deficits, record trade deficits, first president since Hoover to have suffered job losses on his watch, record health care costs, record number of Americans living in poverty, record gas prices, attacked and invaded a country that was no threat to us costing over 20,000 casualties so far and $200 billion.

Yeah, just a little better under Clinton.

[Eye Patch]

Well, lets compare then.......

Clinton= surplus, record low unemployment, no Americans being killed on a daily basis in a war on a country that was not a threat to us.

Bush= record double deficits, record trade deficits, first president since Hoover to have suffered job losses on his watch, record health care costs, record number of Americans living in poverty, record gas prices, attacked and invaded a country that was no threat to us costing over 20,000 casualties so far and $200 billion.

Yeah, just a little better under Clinton.

clinton should have gone to war.. the very day they attacked a U.S warship... not to mention the WTC

that is his legacy...

[TheDave]

Jesus, it's the Inauguration of the president of the U.S.A.. I'm just as disapointed in his re-election as anyone else is, but running around bitching about the costs of the party is absolutely ridiculous. To the victor goes the spoils. As if Kerry won it would of been any cheaper. Every president - elect from every party does it, there are much bigger fish to fry...

[Spider]

Jesus, it's the Inauguration of the president of the U.S.A.. I'm just as disapointed in his re-election as anyone else is, but running around bitching about the costs of the party is absolutely ridiculous. To the victor goes the spoils. As if Kerry won it would of been any cheaper. Every president - elect from every party does it, there are much bigger fish to fry...
Agreed ....... I could care less ...... I do hear that the Wyoming Float will kick ass , but Just like with Clinton , Bush's Daddy .Reagan , I wont watch .......

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Jesus, it's the Inauguration of the president of the U.S.A.. I'm just as disapointed in his re-election as anyone else is, but running around bitching about the costs of the party is absolutely ridiculous. To the victor goes the spoils. As if Kerry won it would of been any cheaper. Every president - elect from every party does it, there are much bigger fish to fry...
And what did Jesus reply when you told him about the bigger fish to fry?

Sorry, I don't approve of taxpayer sponsored government parties and especially while American soldiers are dying in a war.

[Spider]

And what did Jesus reply when you told him about the bigger fish to fry?

Sorry, I don't approve of taxpayer sponsored government parties and especially while American soldiers are dying in a war.
you are looking at this all wrong ... as long as they are Parting , they are not doing any damage ....... They are all in one spot and we know what they are doing ........ ;D

[Eye Patch]

Hey maybe we could get the Hollywood left to give up the Oscars, or the Peoples Choice Awards... or all the other bullsh*t award shows they bestow upon themselves to puff up their inflated egos… not to mention all of the extravagant parties they will go to.

And they do this every year… not just one time in four years.

I bet if they bleeding heart liberals really wanted to help they would take all of that money and help the tsunami victims or buy some more body armor.

After all they do say they are for the troops.

Talk is cheap…

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Hey maybe we could get the Hollywood left to give up the Oscars, or the Peoples Choice Awards... or all the other bullsh*t award shows they bestow upon themselves to puff up their inflated egos… not to mention all of the extravagant parties they will go to.

And they do this every year… not just one time in four years.

I bet if they bleeding heart liberals really wanted to help they would take all of that money and help the tsunami victims or buy some more body armor.

After all they do say they are for the troops.

Talk is cheap…
It's the bleeding heart liberal entertainers fault. I knew it.

[Eye Patch]

It's the bleeding heart liberal entertainers fault. I knew it.

didn't say it's their faullt...

I'm saying put your money where your mouth is...

[Spider]

Hey maybe we could get the Hollywood left to give up the Oscars, or the Peoples Choice Awards... or all the other bullsh*t award shows they bestow upon themselves to puff up their inflated egos… not to mention all of the extravagant parties they will go to.

And they do this every year… not just one time in four years.

I bet if they bleeding heart liberals really wanted to help they would take all of that money and help the tsunami victims or buy some more body armor.

After all they do say they are for the troops.

Talk is cheap…
Last I knew , the Hollywood Left Paid for their own Shindig ......

[Hogan11]

Just take solace in the fact that it's his last Inauguration....in four years, he's history, never to return again. The next four years can't go quickly enough IMO.

[Nuggets4]

But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent.

Prove it.

Newsweek 1/24/05 issue, page 28.

Inaugural Price Tags
(Amount spent, adjusted to 2004 $)
Nixon 1973 - $17 million
Carter 1977 - $11 million
Reagan 1981 - $34 million
Reagan 1985 - $35 million
Bush 1989 - $46 million
Clinton 1993 - $30 million
Clinton 1997 - $35 million
Bush 2001 - $43 million
Bush 2005 - $40 million

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Protesters Target Bush's Inauguration
y GENARO C. ARMAS and LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON - Anti-Bush demonstrators waving signs that said "Worst President Ever" and "the American Nightmare" jeered the president's motorcade during the inaugural parade Thursday.

The procession of cars sped up as President Bush (news - web sites) neared the designated location for protesters on Pennsylvania Avenue. Two rows of police lined the street in front of the main protest site. Officers stationed atop buildings along the route kept close watch on the crowd.

Boos rained down from the crowd and some demonstrators shouted, "No justice, no peace." In some places in the protest area, the crowd was about six rows deep.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050120/capt.wx10101201728.inaugural_protest_wx101.jpg

Juan Carlo Reyes of Lake Tahoe, Calif. carries protest signs labeling President Bush (news - web sites) and Vice President Cheney as 'warmongers' during Inauguration Day protests in downtown Washington, Thursday, Jan. 20, 2005. (AP Photo/Len Spoden)


Three blocks from the White House, protesters tried to rush a security gate and a flag was burned. Police briefly locked down the area, trapping some 400 to 500 spectators.

Annie Katz, 52, of New York, was at the rear of a group of protesters, but she said the experience was worth it despite the bad view. Katz said she was upset by the 2000 election, but "I'm angrier this time, since I'm angry about the war."

U.S. soldiers in dress uniforms and blue coats were greeted with chants of "no more wars."

Some rallying against the war carried coffin-like cardboard boxes to signify the deaths of U.S. troops in Iraq (news - web sites). Some of their chants could be heard as Bush neared the end of his inaugural address. The president continued speaking without interruption and there was no sign that he heard them.

On Capitol Hill, some protesters were briefly detained by police and released after Bush finished speaking, said Andrea Buffa, spokeswoman for CodePink: Women for Peace, one of the protest groups.

Michael Lauer, a Capitol Police spokesman, said police made five arrests during Bush's address.

District of Columbia police said they had to use pepper spray to break up a "push and shoving match" between officers and protesters near the start of the parade. A police spokesman said at least one officer was slightly injured.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050120/lthumb.watw10501202210.inauguration_protests_wash_ watw105.jpg

Joanne Scott, of Seattle, holding a toy skeleton wearing a tie and a cowboy hat, protests President Bush (news - web sites)'s inauguration Thursday, Jan. 20, 2005, at Seattle Central Community College in Seattle. Several hundred students walked out of classes at several Seattle colleges and universities to protest the event. (AP Photo Ted S. Warren)

Police and witnesses said a security checkpoint near the White House was briefly shut down after being blocked by protesters.

Witnesses said the protesters started pulling down flags and inaugural banners from lampposts, and said police used pepper spray on some protesters.

Julie Katz, 39, of Farbury, Neb., watched from a sidewalk as a ring of police in riot gear kept protesters a few dozen yards from the checkpoint.

"This is what makes America great. It's a little disrespectful, but it's their right to protest," said Katz, who volunteered for Bush's 2004 campaign.

First Lt. Bill Steinbach of the Virginia Army National Guard, which was assigned to help guard one of the checkpoints, said: "It's been pretty good overall, generally peaceful. Everyone has been able to express their First Amendment rights."

While President Bush was watching the parade from his reviewing stand in front of the White House, a group of anti-war protesters a block away unfurled a banner reading, "George Bush (news - web sites): Your wars shame U.S." Eight protesters lay down in the street pretending to be dead, with flowers strewn over their bodies.

The demonstration attracted the attention of Bush supporters who were leaving the VIP viewing stands and the two groups engaged in a series of taunts, all under the watchful eye of six U.S. Park Police mounted on horses.
"Aren't you guys cold?" one of the Bush supporters asked the prone demonstrators.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20050120/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inaugural_protests

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050120/s/r4275006926.jpg

Protesters hold up a flag-draped coffin as U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites) passes by during the inaugural parade in Washington, January 20, 2005. Flag-draped coffins and jeering anti-war protesters competed with pomp and circumstance on Thursday at the inauguration of President George W. Bush along the barricaded streets of central Washington. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

[Spider]

Prove it.

Newsweek 1/24/05 issue, page 28.

Inaugural Price Tags
(Amount spent, adjusted to 2004 $)
Nixon 1973 - $17 million
Carter 1977 - $11 million
Reagan 1981 - $34 million
Reagan 1985 - $35 million
Bush 1989 - $46 million
Clinton 1993 - $30 million
Clinton 1997 - $35 million
Bush 2001 - $43 million
Bush 2005 - $40 million

Hey Rascal Speaking of Biatch slapped .. Hilarious!
Good find Nuggets ...........
Yo Patch ........

[Eye Patch]

Prove it.

Newsweek 1/24/05 issue, page 28.

My cut & paste is from the Washington Post.

Seems newsweek and the Post are at odds.

Pick whoever you want that makes you happy or sad?

[Eye Patch]

Hey Rascal Speaking of Biatch slapped .. Hilarious!
Good find Nuggets ...........
Yo Patch ........

Like I said take it up with the Washington Post.

those are their numbers....

[Rascal]

Hey Rascal Speaking of Biatch slapped .. Hilarious!


:moody: ~Popps~

I actually found the same thing a bit later, but didn't mention it. I think he got the figures wrong though, but I don't have the magazine anymore to clarify.

But I did find Patch's article. So it seems they are at odds.

Still, it was a bitch slap.

[Spider]

Like I said take it up with the Washington Post.

those are their numbers....
LOL . naw I wont take it up with them , I dont read their Paper , nor do I use their Paper to back up my arguments ........ I am sure you can see why I dont now ........

[Eye Patch]

:moody: ~Popps~

I actually found the same thing a bit later, but didn't mention it. I think he got the figures wrong though, but I don't have the magazine anymore to clarify.

But I did find Patch's article. So it seems they are at odds.

Still, it was a bitch slap.

So if I quote my numbers and you quote your numbers... somehow I'm bitch slapped?

uncanny logic there..

[Spider]

:moody: ~Popps~

I actually found the same thing a bit later, but didn't mention it. I think he got the figures wrong though, but I don't have the magazine anymore to clarify.

But I did find Patch's article. So it seems they are at odds.

Still, it was a bitch slap.
See Post #29 . my answer to patch Hilarious!

[Eye Patch]

LOL . naw I wont take it up with them , I dont read their Paper , nor do I use their Paper to back up my arguments ........ I am sure you can see why I dont now ........

Oh course I know why... do you?

[Spider]

So if I quote my numbers and you quote your numbers... somehow I'm bitch slapped?

uncanny logic there..
They are if they are wrong yo usure was ...... you made the assertion that Clinton spent as Much as Bush if not more , well Nuggs came up with some #'s to dispute that ...... Now since you made the assertion about Clinton , it is up to you to Prove your assertion correct , or accept Nuggs#'s as fact .......

[Rascal]

So if I quote my numbers and you quote your numbers... somehow I'm bitch slapped?

uncanny logic there..

I was saying how you bitch slapped Bronc earlier.

Obviously somebody is wrong, and since I don't trust the media for hardly anything, this just proves my point.

I was trying to find a more official website with the correct answer but I haven't been able to.

[Eye Patch]

See Post #29 . my answer to patch Hilarious!

that's not an answer... that's an admission that you believe whatever you want to believe.

[Spider]

Oh course I know why... do you?
they are never right ..... But hey I suggest you do some more searching to back up the Washinton Post ......

[Rascal]

What the?

Spider, the Washington post had the #'s that Patch provided. Hence he showed his source. Nuggests had different numbers and showed his source.

It's not a matter of Patch or Nuggests being wrong, it's a matter of finding out who is wrong between Newsweek or the Washington Post.

[Spider]

that's not an answer... that's an admission that you believe whatever you want to believe.
Well are Nuggs# 's right ? you made the assertion Clinton spent more then Bush , now either Nuggs #'s are wrong , or you are .....

[Rascal]

they are never right ..... But hey I suggest you do some more searching to back up the Washinton Post ......

and you should do something to back up Newsweek.

[Spider]

What the?

Spider, the Washington post had the #'s that Patch provided. Hence he showed his source. Nuggests had different numbers and showed his source.

It's not a matter of Patch or Nuggests being wrong, it's a matter of finding out who is wrong between Newsweek or the Washington Post.
Get Busy then look it up ... you see Patch made the assertion that Clinton spent more then Bush , and according to Nuggs #'s he didnt , now either Patch is talking out of his ass , with you Cheering him on , or Nuggs is wrong .....

[Spider]

and you should do something to back up Newsweek.
Not my #'s i didnt make any assertion either way about who spent what ......

[Eye Patch]

What the?

Spider, the Washington post had the #'s that Patch provided. Hence he showed his source. Nuggests had different numbers and showed his source.

It's not a matter of Patch or Nuggests being wrong, it's a matter of finding out who is wrong between Newsweek or the Washington Post.

spider knows that...

He is just starving for my attention....

If I backed the newsweek article... he would be siding with the Washington Post.

so it doesn't make any difference... except to spider.

[Rascal]

Get Busy then look it up ... you see Patch made the assertion that Clinton spent more then Bush , and according to Nuggs #'s he didnt , now either Patch is talking out of his ass , with you Cheering him on , or Nuggs is wrong .....
with you cheering nuggs wrong.

[Spider]

spider knows that...

He is just starving for my attention....

If I backed the newsweek article... he would be siding with the Washington Post.

so it doesn't make any difference... except to spider.
LOL .. naw I just saw that you was wrong , decided to kick you while you was down ..... No Biggie

[Rascal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/
On inaugural costs, complaints (Erick Erickson, Guest Blogger)

A lot of pundits, still not quite happy that the president was re-elected, have now found something else to complain about: the costs of the inauguration.

Unfortunately, given this time in our nation's history, the District of Columbia and the federal government are saddled with just less than $20 million in security costs. If that was not bad enough, complain some, the actual inauguration will cost $40 million, though the money comes from private contributors. Many, like Bernard Ries want a scaled down inaugural and some have made the argument that this is the most expensive inaugural ever. Actually, these complainers in chief are off the mark.

As PoliticalCP points out over at RedState, Bill Clinton's first inaugural, adjusted for inflation, was the most expensive inaugural at $44.5 million. In fact, President Bush's first inaugural in 2001, came in at $43.9 million inflation adjusted dollars. While we can debate the merits of an elaborate inauguration, something tells me that most of those crying foul would not be doing so if president-elect Kerry were being sworn in on Thursday.

[Spider]

with you cheering nuggs wrong.
Not Cheering Nuggs ya goof , Just pointing out that Patch Misspoke about somthing he knew nothing about . Not that is anything new .

[Rascal]

There I backed up Patch's #'s, actually Post's #'s. I claim victory, no recount needed, sworn in, finished, going home with my ball.

[Rascal]

Not Cheering Nuggs ya goof , Just pointing out that Patch Misspoke about somthing he knew nothing about . Not that is anything new .

He didn't misspoke. He quoted a credible organization. Heck, by the article I just posted Patch didn't misspeak, but rather Nuggs did. But I don't blame Nuggs, I blame Newsweak.

[Spider]

http://politicalcp.redstate.org/story/2005/1/15/12341/4696
WTF kind of site is that ?
what I find amazin is you cry about LABF posting Bias stuff, then you come with that site ??? ......

[Rascal]

WTF kind of site is that ?
what I find amazin is you cry about LABF posting Bias stuff, then you come with that site ??? ......

I deleted it.

But I did include the MSNBC article.

[Spider]

He didn't misspoke. He quoted a credible organization. Heck, by the article I just posted Patch didn't misspeak, but rather Nuggs did. But I don't blame Nuggs, I blame Newsweak.
Well he did , he used the Washington post to make his assertion and Now he is wrong .......

[Eye Patch]

LOL .. naw I just saw that you was wrong , decided to kick you while you was down ..... No Biggie

How can I be wrong... if all I did was cut & paste a paragraph with no commentary.

It's not an assertion or being wrong... it's you taking whatever position that is the opposite of mine.

I thought after all this time the wounds would heal.

[Spider]

I deleted it.

But I did include the MSNBC article.
LOL good thing you did Delete it . LABF would have had plenty of ammo

[Eye Patch]

Well he did , he used the Washington post to make his assertion and Now he is wrong .......

You mean the post is wrong and newsweek is right....

rather than trying to pick a stupid argument like this...

[Spider]

How can I be wrong... if all I did was cut & paste a paragraph with no commentary.

It's not an assertion or being wrong... it's you taking whatever position that is the opposite of mine.

I thought after all this time the wounds would heal.
Hilarious! ... could you be any more of a geek ?

[Spider]

You mean the post is wrong and newsweek is right....

rather than trying to pick a stupid argument like this...
Nope not at all ..... See i could care less who spent what when where and How ...... But I just want you to back up your Clinton statement ... See you talk about Beer Slug just being a Hater of Bush , but yet you are Just a Hater of Clinton ....... Just busting your chops on your hypocrisy ......

[Eye Patch]

Nope not at all ..... See i could care less who spent what when where and How ...... But I just want you to back up your Clinton statement ... See you talk about Beer Slug just being a Hater of Bush , but yet you are Just a Hater of Clinton ....... Just busting your chops on your hypocrisy ......

I could care less what clinton spent or who sucked him off... I was just showing beerslug that in regards to $$$ clinton spent more..

or he could have spent less if you want to believe newsweek... I was just trying to put it in perspective..

but it's obvious it went over a few heads.

[Spider]

I could care less what clinton spent or who sucked him off... I was just showing beerslug that in regards to $$$ clinton spent more..
Yeah Right ... Hilarious!

or he could have spent less if you want to believe newsweek... I was just trying to put it in perspective..
Hilarious!

but it's obvious it went over a few heads.
ROFL! ..........

[Spider]

Spin away Patch .......

[Eye Patch]

And since you brought up beerslug and Clinton in order to prove your points…

Here is mine… If Bill Clinton was the prez and he was laying the wood to terrorist or holding them in Cuba.. I would be backing his play.

The difference is beerslug and I would be on the same page unlike he is now with Bush doing the smacking.

[Eye Patch]

Spin away Patch .......

I don't spin.. I float like a butterfly... sting like a bee.

I would something on that sting before you swell up.

[Spider]

And since you brought up beerslug and Clinton in order to prove your points…

Here is mine… If Bill Clinton was the prez and he was laying the wood to terrorist or holding them in Cuba.. I would be backing his play.

The difference is beerslug and I would be on the same page unlike he is now with Bush doing the smacking.
Much like I am doing on the other thread with Bush , the only difference is , you can see me doing it , we can only hear about you doing it ......... Talk is Cheap patch ......

[Spider]

I don't spin.. I float like a butterfly... sting like a bee.

I would something on that sting before you swell up.
LOL .... Stung by a cyber Geek.... How will I ever recover ? ;D

[Eye Patch]

Yeah Right ... Hilarious!


Hilarious!


ROFL! ..........

gee.. how can anybody argue with happy faces...

[Eye Patch]

LOL .... Stung by a cyber Geek.... How will I ever recover ? ;D

you won't... it's not in you.

[Spider]

gee.. how can anybody argue with happy faces...
LOL ..... I always Laugh at Funny Jokes ........

[Spider]

you won't... it's not in you.
and I am sure it has been in you so many times , you have to Tighten up just to stop from falling through your asshole .........

[Eye Patch]

Much like I am doing on the other thread with Bush , the only difference is , you can see me doing it , we can only hear about you doing it ......... Talk is Cheap patch ......

you didn't back Bush.. you backed putting those terrorist away.

sometimes you don't see the difference.

[Eye Patch]

and I am sure it has been in you so many times , you have to Tighten up just to stop from falling through your asshole .........

are you trying to pick a fight with me?

[Spider]

you didn't back Bush.. you backed putting those terrorist away.

sometimes you don't see the difference.
and who put the terrorist away ? ....... Gee Patch I thought you was Brighter then that ....... See I can give Props to Bush when he did do somthing Right ....... I am just glad it doesnt happen very often

[Spider]

are you trying to pick a fight with me?
Naw Just stating the obvious .........

[Spider]

But anyhoo .. you served your Purpose Patch , I now can go back to dealing with Ignorant People with a tad bit more patience ......... ;D

[bronco_diesel]

and who put the terrorist away ? ....... Gee Patch I thought you was Brighter then that ....... See I can give Props to Bush when he did do somthing Right ....... I am just glad it doesnt happen very often


what kind of statement is that? your glad when the president doesn't do something right? but you can give props when he does?

by that statement it sounds like you'd rather see him fail to support your own dislike for him.

[Eye Patch]

But anyhoo .. you served your Purpose Patch , I now can go back to dealing with Ignorant People with a tad bit more patience ......... ;D

like I don't know what your doing....

you are so obvious...

best you move along...

[Eye Patch]

by that statement it sounds like you'd rather see him fail to support your own dislike for him.

bingo... we have a winner.

[Eye Patch]

But anyhoo .. you served your Purpose Patch , I now can go back to dealing with Ignorant People with a tad bit more patience ......... ;D

you mean chief fans...

and your right about patience... they have been waiting for so long...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent.

According to the Consumer Price Index, $42 million in 1997 is the equivalent of $49.5 in 2004.

The significant majority of funding for this year's festivities, including nine officials balls, are from private donations and tickets for events held by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, a similar setup to fund raising Mr. Clinton used to underwrite his inauguration. Mr. Clinton had a record 12 balls in 1997

The difference?

The U.S. was rolling in cash in '97 when Clinton was president.

Now we're up to our eyeballs in hock under the monkey. (And we've got a war on...troops don't have adequate equipment, etc., etc.)

http://www.bartcop.com/inaug-floats.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The economy is just fine now....

rofl

You forgot "war is peace," ignorance is strength," and "freedom is slavery."

I would like to see a receipt of Clinton's inaguration. Blow Job....$15,000.

"The WMD scandal--which few in the media recognize as a bona fide scandal. If only Bush had been receiving a blowjob from an intern when he told the public Iraq was a "direct" threat to America because it had--no doubt about it--weapons of mass destruction."

--David Corn

http://www.davidcorn.com/


The dirty-legged American press doesn't take a scandal seriously unless there's fur on it .

Lies that kill 1500 soldiers?

That's no scandal.

Not with Bush's good puppy press.

Lies about oral sex?

Stop everything - we need more details!

http://www.bartcop.com/kaboom-speech.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Well, lets compare then.......

Clinton= surplus, record low unemployment, no Americans being killed on a daily basis in a war on a country that was not a threat to us.

Bush= record double deficits, record trade deficits, first president since Hoover to have suffered job losses on his watch, record health care costs, record number of Americans living in poverty, record gas prices, attacked and invaded a country that was no threat to us costing over 20,000 casualties so far and $200 billion.

Yeah, just a little better under Clinton.

:thumbsup:

BB with the reality check.

http://www.bartcop.com/leader-free-world.gif

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Prove it.

Newsweek 1/24/05 issue, page 28.

Inaugural Price Tags
(Amount spent, adjusted to 2004 $)
Nixon 1973 - $17 million
Carter 1977 - $11 million
Reagan 1981 - $34 million
Reagan 1985 - $35 million
Bush 1989 - $46 million
Clinton 1993 - $30 million
Clinton 1997 - $35 million
Bush 2001 - $43 million
Bush 2005 - $40 million



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Nuggets4 again.

[Exile_In_SJ]

Jeez you lefties sure get your panties bunched up pretty easily. Get over it. The man is the most powerful man in the world, freely elected. When that happens, he is inaugurated. It's ceremony, it's pomp and circumstance.

If you don't like it, well, tough sh*t. Life is full of things we don't like. Learn to deal with it. or whine incessantly. It doesn't matter a bit.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...freely elected.

More like "freely selected" by Diebold.

http://www.bartcop.com/still-free.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wednesday January 19, 2005--Forty-six percent (46%) of American adults approve of the way George W. Bush is performing his role as President. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

Doesn't quite jibe with the ditto monkey myth that Dim Son was "freely elected," does it?

[Nuggets4]

I think he got the figures wrong though, but I don't have the magazine anymore to clarify.

Good thing I still have it then, eh?

http://www.webhosting4free.org/jlucas4092/ForRascalSmall.jpg

Because I know Rascal will say I could have doctored it, the link to the high res scan of the entire page is below.

http://www.geocities.com/jlucas4092/forrascal.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Good thing I still have it then, eh?

http://www.webhosting4free.org/jlucas4092/ForRascalSmall.jpg

Because I know Rascal will say I could have doctored it, the link to the high res scan of the entire page is below.

http://www.geocities.com/jlucas4092/forrascal.html

Also noteworthy is the fact that Clinton didn't loot some sort of homeland security fund (or the equivalent) during wartime in order to pay for his inauguration.

And AWOL Boy is supposed to have terrorism/homeland security higher on his list of priorities than Clinton?

What a thigh-slapper! rofl

[errand]

1,160,000: Number of girls who could be sent to school for a year in Afghanistan with the amount of money lavished on the inauguration


I find one example of what that money could accomplish elsewhere rather ironic.....

You claim that over 1.1 million Afghan girls could go to school on the money spent on the ignaugaration of the man who made it possible for them to go to school in the first place.....

Prior to Bush's last inaugaration in '01....Afghan girls weren't allowed to even go to school....now they can.

Doesn't that alone make this man worthy of having a lavish party thrown in his honor?

[errand]

Well, lets compare then.......

Clinton= surplus, record low unemployment, no Americans being killed on a daily basis in a war on a country that was not a threat to us.

Bush= record double deficits, record trade deficits, first president since Hoover to have suffered job losses on his watch, record health care costs, record number of Americans living in poverty, record gas prices, attacked and invaded a country that was no threat to us costing over 20,000 casualties so far and $200 billion.

Yeah, just a little better under Clinton.

Bush liberated all those Afghan girls so they could actually could go to school for a year on his ignaugaration money.....

[errand]

Last I knew , the Hollywood Left Paid for their own Shindig ......

...and so are the Bush supporters who donated the money for his ignaugaration balls.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...and so are the Bush supporters who donated the money for his ignaugaration balls.

At the risk of sounding like a beer commercial, I gotta throw a flag on errant here for a flagrant half-truth and unnecessary BS...

U.S. Tells D.C. to Pay Inaugural Expenses

Other Security Projects Would Lose $11.9 Million

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2005Jan10.html

D.C. officials said yesterday that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the District for most of the costs associated with next week's inauguration, breaking with precedent and forcing the city to divert $11.9 million from homeland security projects.

Federal officials have told the District that it should cover the expenses by using some of the $240 million in federal homeland security grants it has received in the past three years -- money awarded to the city because it is among the places at highest risk of a terrorist attack.

But that grant money is earmarked for other security needs, Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) said in a Dec. 27 letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua B. Bolten and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Williams's ofice released the letter yesterday.

DC To Use Homeland Security Funds To Pay Inaugural

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0105/199714.html

Fifteen yard penalty - repeat fourth down.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/user_files/10815.gif

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Hail to the thief...

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/01/20/national/protest.slide2.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2005/01/20/image668200.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Letting the giggling murderer know where he stands with the people...

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20050120/i/r122417129.jpg

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Thousands Protest Bush's Inauguration Around Country.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
By MARTHA MENDOZA, AP National Writer

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20050121/mdf829676.jpg

Protestors shout as the presidential limousine passes by during the inaugural parade of President Bush (news - web sites) in Washington, January 20, 2005. As the president's motorcade made its way down Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House amid the tightest security in inaugural history, thousands of protesters along the parade route and nearby downtown streets booed, chanted slogans and carried placards condemning Bush's policies at home and abroad. (Shannon Stapleton/Reuters)

Thousands of people in dozens of cities across the nation walked out of work and school, held mock coronations, intoned the names of the Iraq (news - web sites) war dead and held candlelight vigils to show their disapproval of President Bush (news - web sites) as he was sworn in for his second term.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050121/lthumb.sge.dli96.210105084906.photo02.photo.defaul t-340x384.jpg

Security officers stand in front of demonstrators against US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) along the Inaugural Parade route in Washington, DC. Though the demonstrations were peaceful -- mainly booing of Bush's motorcade and marches and rallies -- about 50 anarchists tried in one incident to push past security checkpoints and advance toward the parade route, but were pushed back by police(AFP/Leslie E. Kossoff)

From Bridgewater, Mass., to San Francisco, the protesters carried a similar message Thursday, deploring the war in Iraq, angry about the Patriot Act and concerned about the next four years.

"The administration thinks it's got a mandate to continue its policies," said David Williams, a 49-year-old construction company owner from Oakland, Calif., who wore a T-shirt to the San Francisco march with Bush's picture and the description, "International Terrorist."

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050121/capt.la11001210646.inaugural_protests_la110.jpg

Security officers stand in front of demonstrators against US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) along the Inaugural Parade route in Washington, DC. Though the demonstrations were peaceful -- mainly booing of Bush's motorcade and marches and rallies -- about 50 anarchists tried in one incident to push past security checkpoints and advance toward the parade route, but were pushed back by police(AFP/Leslie E. Kossoff)

"This is my way of saying, 'I don't think so.' The Bush administration has no respect for human rights outside the United States and they have no respect for people anywhere else in the world," he said.

Crowds were larger than organizers expected in some communities — more than 1,500 people took to the streets of New Orleans in a "jazz funeral of democracy," an event that took on the appearance of a lugubrious Mardi Gras ball, a raucous street protest, Halloween freak show and traditional New Orleans jazz funeral rolled into one.

About 1,000 people rallied in Seattle, more than 2,000 in Portland, Ore., and several thousand gathered in downtown San Francisco, where protesters waved signs and carried banners with slogans such as "Not Our President," "Drop Bush Not Bombs," and "Hail To The Thief."

There were dozens of smaller rallies, marches and walkouts as well. Two hundred protesters filled a city block marching through downtown Atlanta, 150 marched on the state capitol in Lincoln, Neb., and in Denver, several hundred demonstrators were joined at the state Capitol by a group of women wearing witches' hats who chanted "We've been under a spell." The crowd cheered when they added "But we are waking up."

In Santa Cruz, Calif., about 250 marchers followed a 20-foot-tall Statue of Liberty puppet to the Town Clock in a demonstration where former Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern was the featured speaker.

Many demonstrators said the protests were galvanizing, a way to motivate anti-Bush activists.

"We need to build a massive movement for change in this country because it's going to be a bleak four years," said Margo Polley, an organizer with Not in Our Name, which sponsored rallies at the federal courthouse in Seattle.

Besides those in Washington, D.C., there were few arrests — one in Seattle, and another in Portland, Ore., where clusters of Bush supporters got into shouting matches with protesters as they marched by.

But hundreds clashed with police in the nation's capital at the inaugural parade. Gary Gillespie, an activist in Baltimore, said he had planned to travel the 35 miles for the larger demonstrations, but decided "local action" was important.

Many demonstrators said they deliberately avoided watching or listening to the inauguration.

"I missed the whole thing, thank goodness," said Pat Neary, 62, a real estate agent who joined about 50 people gathered on the snowy town common in Bridgewater, Mass.


http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20050121/lthumb.sge.dkp05.210105071749.photo02.photo.defaul t-255x384.jpg

Anti-War Network (DAWN) demonstrators carry mock coffins draped with the US flag as they arrive in downtown Washington, DC for the inauguration of US President George W. Bush (news - web sites).(AFP/Oscar Mataquin)
___

Associated Press writers Chuck Brown, Sarah Brumfield, Cain Burdeau, Terence Chea, Melanthia Mitchell, Colleen Slevin, Niki Sullivan and Kristen Wyatt contributed to this report.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20050121/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inaugural_demonstrations

[errand]

At the risk of sounding like a beer commercial, I gotta throw a flag on errant here for a flagrant half-truth and unnecessary BS...

U.S. Tells D.C. to Pay Inaugural Expenses

Other Security Projects Would Lose $11.9 Million

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2005Jan10.html

D.C. officials said yesterday that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the District for most of the costs associated with next week's inauguration, breaking with precedent and forcing the city to divert $11.9 million from homeland security projects.

Federal officials have told the District that it should cover the expenses by using some of the $240 million in federal homeland security grants it has received in the past three years -- money awarded to the city because it is among the places at highest risk of a terrorist attack.

But that grant money is earmarked for other security needs, Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) said in a Dec. 27 letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua B. Bolten and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Williams's ofice released the letter yesterday.

DC To Use Homeland Security Funds To Pay Inaugural

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0105/199714.html

Fifteen yard penalty - repeat fourth down.

Yeah, like Washington DC doesn't have to spend that much for his protection on a daily basis or when foriegn dignitaries come to town.....

Read the post clown...I said they donated the money spent on the inaugaral ball.....

[errand]

BTW...thanks for the freak show....gotta love those that gripe about how their freedom is provided.

[Rascal]

First off, we have two sources that claim that Clinton outspent Bush (Washington Post and MSNBC), and we have one source that claims otherwise (Newsweek). Two versus one...hmmm.

Secondly, even if Bush did outspend Clinton, which he didn't, there was an obvious reason. Clinton didn't have the security concerns of Bush, because of 9-11 obviously, so the cost of security was undoubtedly less. How much so...we don't know. With the increase in security requirements how is it not expected to see an increase in cost? Are you suggesting that there not be an inauguaration because of it? Please. There will continue to be an inauguration until the security issues become so severe that it is prohibitive because of that and not of cost. If there is ever a democratic president again (haha) they will undoubtedly have an inauguaration, are you prepared to say that they should not have one?

[Nuggets4]

Dude, the MSNBC article you're quoting doesn't say it believes it, it says "according to redstate.org". That's hardly an MSNBC endorsement.

And considering MSNBC and Newsweek work together..........

[Rascal]

If it's on their website they obviously feel it is worth using and had credibility.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

First off, we have two sources that claim that Clinton outspent Bush (Washington Post and MSNBC), and we have one source that claims otherwise (Newsweek). Two versus one...hmmm.

Secondly, even if Bush did outspend Clinton, which he didn't, there was an obvious reason. Clinton didn't have the security concerns of Bush, because of 9-11 obviously, so the cost of security was undoubtedly less. How much so...we don't know. With the increase in security requirements how is it not expected to see an increase in cost? Are you suggesting that there not be an inauguaration because of it? Please. There will continue to be an inauguration until the security issues become so severe that it is prohibitive because of that and not of cost. If there is ever a democratic president again (haha) they will undoubtedly have an inauguaration, are you prepared to say that they should not have one?

Why we do we need to have a taxpayer sponsored party for politicians? I see no reason for it unless the economy is great, there are no deficits, we aren't at war, poverty is erased, everyone has healthcare and there are no more criminals running the streets. Do these politicians have time to party with what this country is facing?

----------------------------------------------------
No expense spared at inauguration

By Kevin Anderson
BBC News website, Washington

With an estimated price tag of $40m, the three-day celebration that is President Bush's second inauguration will be the most expensive ever.

The lavish dinners, parties and fireworks began on Tuesday and will continue through his swearing-in on Thursday, followed by a parade and nine official inaugural balls.

The cost will be paid by individual and corporate donations, while the city of Washington is being asked to pay for an estimated $17m in security costs.

Some have criticised the expense, questioning the propriety of a flashy celebration as US troops are dying in Iraq and South Asia still recovers from last month's deadly tsunami.

The overt criticism of an inauguration is unusual, but a Washington Post poll found that a majority of Americans would prefer a smaller, more subdued event.

Big money donors

The biggest ticket was on Wednesday at the Texas State Society's Black Tie & Boots Ball.

Preparations started the day before the event to prepare 21,000 enchiladas, 20,000 quesadillas, 25,000 pastries, and 3,000 lbs (1,360kg) of beef barbeque.

A day earlier, Mr Bush paid tribute to the military's men and women with a free concert.

"As we prepare to celebrate our nation's 55th presidential inauguration, I can think of no better way to begin than by giving thanks for our freedom and those who make it possible," President Bush told a crowd of 7,000 on Tuesday.

The free event was part of the military focus, but it was also used by inaugural organisers to deflect criticism of the inauguration as overly extravagant.

On Wednesday evening, President Bush hosted three candlelight dinners with the individual and corporate donors who helped pay for the festivities.
The list of donors is full of big-name corporations and top Bush fundraisers - the campaign's "pioneers", who raised $100,000, and the "rangers", who raised $250,000.

Political reform advocates say the corporations stand to benefit from Mr Bush's proposed energy policy, his efforts to reform immigration and proposals to partially convert Social Security, a state pension scheme, into private investment accounts.
Defence giants Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin each gave $100,000 to the inaugural committee, and oil companies ChevronTexaco and Exxon Mobil each gave $250,000.

Both Coca-Cola and its rival Pepsi gave $100,000, and the Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotel groups each gave $250,000.

Those who contribute $250,000 received tickets to a number of events over the celebration, including the swearing-in ceremony, the inaugural parade, and an exclusive luncheon with President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney.
And they received tickets to one of the nine balls marking the inauguration.

While numerous, the number of balls is five shy of the record 14 balls held for Bill Clinton on the night of his second inauguration in 1997.

King for a day

But it's not just balls and private dinners: For the inaugural attendee with money to burn, Washington hotels are offering pampering packages.
If you want to walk a mile in George Bush's shoes, you can stay at the Fairmont Hotel and buy their "President for 4 Days" package.

For a mere $10,000 (£5,350) a night, you get your own faux Secret Service detail, with two actors pretending to be your presidential bodyguards.
If you really want an inauguration to remember, the Mandarin Oriental Hotel is offering a four-night package for the princely sum of $200,500 (£107,300).

For that, private jet service will whisk you to Washington where you'll be met by your chauffeur-driven Maybach super-luxury sedan.
When you're not dancing the night away at the inaugural balls, you can lounge in the 3,500 sq ft presidential suite with champagne and caviar served nightly at dusk.

Inaugural critics

But with the recent tsunami in the Indian Ocean and the ongoing war in Iraq, some think the expensive inaugural is an inappropriate, ostentatious display.
"Precedent suggests that inaugural festivities should be muted - if not cancelled - in wartime," New York Democrat Representative Anthony Weiner said in a letter to President Bush.

He noted the money could be used to buy 690 Humvees and pay for a $290 bonus for each soldier serving in Iraq.

And city officials in Washington are complaining that for the first time the city and not the US government is being asked to foot the bill for the security operations.

Some Republicans say that criticism of the inauguration is mere political partisanship and ask why there was no criticism of the cost of President Clinton's inaugurations.

Bill Clinton's first inauguration cost $30m, which was comparable to the inaugural costs of George HW Bush in 1989. His second inauguration cost $23.6m.

But a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that two-thirds of Americans think inaugural festivities should be scaled back. That includes half of those who voted for President Bush and 80% of John Kerry's supporters.

President Bush defended the pomp and parties, saying in an interview with US network CBS: "You can be equally concerned about our troops in Iraq and those who suffered in the tsunami while celebrating democracy."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4187023.stm

[Rascal]

"Why we do we need to have a taxpayer sponsored party for politicians? I see no reason for it unless the economy is great, there are no deficits, we aren't at war, poverty is erased, everyone has healthcare and there are no more criminals running the streets. Do these politicians have time to party with what this country is facing?"


So then Clinton and everyone else should never have had an inauguaration? Right.

"While numerous, the number of balls is five shy of the record 14 balls held for Bill Clinton on the night of his second inauguration in 1997."

And your own article proves my point that Bush's amount was more due to security reasons reather then pomp like Clinton's. Clinton's was expensive because of their partying and subsequent blow jobs, Bush's was expensive because of security.

[Eye Patch]

By Kevin Anderson
BBC News website, Washington

With an estimated price tag of $40m, the three-day celebration that is President Bush's second inauguration will be the most expensive ever.


gee an anti-bush hit from the BBC no less... who would have thunk it.

and since their first sentence is based on a lie.... the rest of the article is nothing but a hatchet job.

Just like I said... everyday beerslug scours the net looking for anti-bush articles. I wonder what unbiased newsworthy tripe he will find tomorrow.. or the day after that... or the day after that....

Man you have some serious issues... to hate this much.

The election is over... you lost.... get over it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

gee an anti-bush hit from the BBC no less... who would have thunk it.

and since their first sentence is based on a lie.... the rest of the article is nothing but a hatchet job.

Just like I said... everyday beerslug scours the net looking for anti-bush articles. I wonder what unbiased newsworthy tripe he will find tomorrow.. or the day after that... or the day after that....

Man you have some serious issues... to hate this much.

The election is over... you lost.... get over it.

Anti-Bush? Why is it anti-Bush? What are they lying about? I wasn't aware I ran for an election. Which one was it?

--------------------------------
Bush Vows Activist Agenda in Second Term

(snip)
Instrumental and choral music filled the church and an interfaith lineup of Christian, Jewish and Muslim clergy helped celebrate through prayer the events of the day before — Bush's swearing-in at the Capitol.

Offering one prayer, the Rev. Billy Graham said he believed God had a hand in Bush's re-election.

"Their next four years are hidden from us, but they are not hidden from you," said the 86-year-old evangelist, whom Bush credits with inspiring him to reaffirm his faith and give up drinking at age 40. "You know the challenges and opportunities they will face. Give them a clear mind, a warm heart, calmness in the midst of turmoil, reassurance in times of discouragement and your presence always."

Bush's inaugural address was light on specifics and heavy on high-minded symbolism.

He pledged to reform "great institutions to serve the needs of our time. He talked of fighting terrorism by both bearing arms and spreading democracy. He promised that U.S. relations with other countries will turn on how decently they treat their own people. He used the word "tyranny" five times, "liberty" 15 and "freedom" 27.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20050121/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inaugural_rdp

[Eye Patch]

Anti-Bush? Why is it anti-Bush? What are they lying about? I wasn't aware I ran for an election. Which one was it?



are you retard?

Their very first sentence is a lie... and I said so in my post...

Maybe you should try reading and comprehending before you post in your haste to hate.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So then Clinton and everyone else should never have had an inauguaration? Right.

Now you've finally understood what I said at the beginning of the thread. I've been complaining about these taxpayer sponsored parties by politicians since the Reagan era.

And your own article proves my point that Bush's amount was more due to security reasons reather then pomp like Clinton's. Clinton's was expensive because of their partying and subsequent blow jobs, Bush's was expensive because of security.

Your point is what? Clinton's reason for spending for his inauguration was worse than Bush's?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

are you retard?

Their very first sentence is a lie... and I said so in my post...

Maybe you should try reading and comprehending before you post in your haste to hate.
Why is it a lie? Tell me again.

[Eye Patch]

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/05.01.19.DissentVotes-X.gif

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What does your cartoon have to do with the topic?
If you want to read up on Rice click on the little bar.


http://img32.exs.cx/img32/5151/rice15rv.th.gif (http://img32.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img32&image=rice15rv.gif)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Read the post clown...I said they donated the money spent on the inaugaral ball.....

Read the thread title, jagazz - it says "The Inauguration."

Yeah, like Washington DC doesn't have to spend that much for his protection on a daily basis or when foriegn dignitaries come to town....

Is that so?

So you're trying to tell us that $11.9 million per day above the total homeland security allocation is spent on personal security for the monkey?

I know we'd all love to see your sources for this.

U.S. Tells D.C. to Pay Inaugural Expenses

Other Security Projects Would Lose $11.9 Million

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2005Jan10.html

D.C. officials said yesterday that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the District for most of the costs associated with next week's inauguration, breaking with precedent and forcing the city to divert $11.9 million from homeland security projects.

Federal officials have told the District that it should cover the expenses by using some of the $240 million in federal homeland security grants it has received in the past three years -- money awarded to the city because it is among the places at highest risk of a terrorist attack.

But that grant money is earmarked for other security needs, Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) said in a Dec. 27 letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Joshua B. Bolten and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Williams's ofice released the letter yesterday.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oaf Of Office

Today we witnessed more than the coronation of some privileged little munchkin of mendacity. It is the triumphal re-occupation of our nation by nitwits who think Ollie North's a hero not a conman, who can't name their congressman, who believe that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were going steady, who can't tell Afghanistan from Souvlaki-stan. Bloated with lies and super-size fries, they clomped to the polls 59 million strong to vent their small-minded little hatreds on us all. When I looked today at the oaf of office, I could not shake the feeling that this election was an intelligence test that America flunked."

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=410&row=0

http://www.bartcop.com/inauguration-2005.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/king-monkey2005.jpg
"I swear to be The Monkey King to all Americans...not just the whites-only, super-rich, straight Christians."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Insurgents" Delay "Second Coming" of Bush

The dreams of the faithful who came to honor the Christian crusaders were shattered today amid chants and tear-gas, when what was expected to be a grand victory march down Pennsylvania Avenue descended into an embarassing public spectacle for the president that temporarily brought his motorcade to a complete hault.

With all eyes on Washington, DC, viewers across the nation and around the world were treated to parade images of waffing smoke and pepper spray, as police battled protesters right on the inaugural motorcade route. At one point, the fence barrackades on Pennsylvania Avenue about a mile ahead of the presidential parade were brought down by demonstrators during a prolonged clash that first slowed the president's motorcade, ultimately bringing it to a stand-still.

Moments before the motorcade stopped, it was actually forced to speed up briefly in an attempt to spare the president a prolonged exposure to an expanse of protesters who dwarfed the numbers of Bush supporters on the parade route at the site of the ANSWER rally. Large signs designating the president a fascist and his actions war-crimes framed the presidential limousine, and on mainstream television the voices of commentators attempting to downplay the significance of the protests were drowned out by the loud and angry shouts of "**** Bush!"

This was followed almost immediately by a request from police to slow down the advancing parade due to a continuing confrontation between security forces and demonstrators several blocks ahead on Pennsylvania Avenue. Police used tear-gas and pepper spray in their attempts to clear the street, and several media outlets including CBS captured images of the clash. Yet other television stations like CNN refused to air these pictures, focusing on the parade route while their commentators actually stated that they had no intention of "making too much" out of the displays of opposition.

The day began with a Critical Mass bike ride through DC early in the morning. A few hours later, a massive rally at Malcolm X Park, sponsored by the DC Anti-War Network (DAWN), was followed by a march to McPherson Square -- a march estimated by police to be 10,000 or more strong. A second march from the rally ended in civil disobedience at Lafayette Park, at the end of the parade route and in front of the White House.

actions continued into the night:
http://dc.indymedia.org/feature/display/115229/index.php

[W*GS]

I find this voluminous spillage of furious indignation from LABF and his ilk to be most amusing.

How many boxes of tissues do you go through in a day, LABF, mopping up the spittle continuously oozing from your mouth?

Honestly, I've never seen anyone so over-the-top frothing with rage as you. Slow down, or you'll be dead of a stroke long before you hit 30.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I find this voluminous spillage of furious indignation from LABF and his ilk...

W*GS to the boy king's rescue - just like clockwork.

How many boxes of tissues do you go through in a day, LABF, mopping up the spittle continuously oozing from your mouth?

Not as many boxes (not to mention bottles of Jergens) as you consume while beating off to your autographed 8x10 of Ken Starr, I'd wager.

Honestly, I've never seen anyone so over-the-top frothing with rage as you. Slow down, or you'll be dead of a stroke long before you hit 30.

Want to see me make W*GS "froth with rage?"

[ahem!]

Clinton was a great president!

Go get 'em, boy!

[W*GS]

W*GS to the boy king's rescue - just like clockwork.

How does mocking you defend Bush?

Want to see me make W*GS "froth with rage?"

[ahem!]

Clinton was a great president!

Go get 'em, boy!

Rage? Nah - but just what I would expect from you.

I can think of dozens of things that will give you a stroke - "Bush is President!", "Bush is not a Nazi!", "Clinton failed to stop al-Qaeda!", "The Democrats are becoming the permanent minority party!", "Clinton is not God".

Time for a more kleenex for you, LABF.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How does mocking you defend Bush?

But you're not mocking me - you're mocking our constitutional right to criticize our "elected" officials in a democracy.

(Not that I really expect you to grasp the difference.)

Rage? Nah - but just what I would expect from you.

Denial - it ain't just a river in Egypt.

If I had a nickel for everytime I've caused you to froth at the mouth just by praising Bill Clinton, I'd be eligible for a huge Bush tax cut.

Time for a more kleenex for you, LABF.

Thanks for offering to share, but I think you're going to need all you can save for those sessions w/ your 8x10s of Kenny Boy and GeeDubya.

[W*GS]

But you're not mocking me - you're mocking our constitutional right to criticize our "elected" officials in a democracy.

How so? You have a inalienable constitutional right to make an ass of yourself - which you exercise regularly.

Can you point me to specific quote in which I advocated censoring you?

Typical liberal tactic - you're free to criticize Bush, but those who criticize you are attempting censorship.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Screw all that - the real critical question is "why does W*GS spend such an enormous amount of time and energy covering the flank of a guy he 'couldn't vote for' and a political party with which he is not affiliated?"

Either W*GS is lying about his political affiliations/2004 vote, or he's doing it all for personal reasons, i.e., hatred, spite, etc.

Either way, he has zero integrity.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Can you point me to specific quote in which I advocated censoring you?

There you go with one of your typical distortions and misrepresentations again.

I didn't say you had advocated censoring anyone - I said you were mocking our constitutional right to criticize our elected officials.

Typical liberal tactic - you're free to criticize Bush, but those who criticize you are attempting censorship.

Your tactic is transparently typical of most conservatives: Attack those who exercise their right to criticise Smirk and the GOP while looking the other way for those who criticize liberals.

Need proof? Open any thread on this forum. Show me one example where W*GS objects to an attack on liberals by right-wingnuts - no matter how personal and full of "slurs."

W*GS is all about the double standard.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The emperor of vulgarity

George Bush's second inaugural extravaganza was every bit as repugnant as I had expected, a vulgar orgy of triumphalism probably unmatched since Napoleon crowned himself emperor of the French in Notre Dame in 1804.

The little Corsican corporal had a few decent victories to his escutcheon. Lodi, Marengo, that sort of thing. Not so this strutting Texan mountebank, with his chimpanzee smirk and his born-again banalities delivered in that constipated syntax that sounds the way cold cheeseburgers look, and his grinning plastic wife, and his scheming junta of neo-con spivs, shamans, flatterers and armchair warmongers, and his sinuous evasions and his brazen lies, and his sleight of hand theft from the American poor, and his rape of the environment, and his lethal conviction that the world must submit to his Pax Americana or be bombed into charcoal.

http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/01/21/1106110942667.html

1600 Pennsylvania meets Madison Ave

By now many commentators, including "realist" conservatives, seem to agree that President Bush's inaugural speech was radical, if not downright bizarre, in its insistence that the United States can and will deliver freedom to Earth's more than 6 billion human residents. "If Bush means it literally, then it means we have an extremist in the White House," said Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center.

What critics here and abroad are glossing over, however, is that as a political marketing device, Bush's address was absolutely brilliant. It takes a true demagogue to remorselessly cheapen the lovely word "freedom" by deploying it 27 times in a 21-minute speech, while never admitting that its real-life creation is more complicated than cranking out a batch of Pepsi-Cola and selling it to the natives with a catchy "Feeling Free!" jingle.

In Bush's neocon lexicon, the fight for freedom has been transmogrified from a noble, but complex and often elusive, historical struggle for human emancipation into a simplistic slogan draped over the stark contradictions and tragic failures of this administration's foreign policy.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scheer25jan25,1,1952574.column

[Montaq]

I wonder how much body armor $45 million would have bought. ???

[Rascal]

Yet more spam see posts 110-112 and 120.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/mmail06.gif

Yet more spam...

Yes, we know you are a purveyor of right-wing spam, rascal.

No need to give us a heads up.

[W*GS]

Screw all that - the real critical question is "why does W*GS spend such an enormous amount of time and energy covering the flank of a guy he 'couldn't vote for' and a political party with which he is not affiliated?"

Your question should really be:

"Why does W*GS spend such an enormous amount of time and energy poking fun at a guy who obviously can't help but make such a huge horse's patoot of himself?"

Either W*GS is lying about his political affiliations/2004 vote, or he's doing it all for personal reasons, i.e., hatred, spite, etc.

I do it for entertainment - and to see how low you'll go - which is pretty damned low.

I just wonder why you enjoy getting the (rhetorical) crap beat out of you so much - but it fits with your general feelings of powerlessness and your fearfulness. Maybe I'm a bit too hard on you - maybe I should let you get a lick in now and again - it would do wonders for your painfully apparent lack of self-esteem and self-confidence.

[W*GS]

There you go with one of your typical distortions and misrepresentations again.

Sigh. Poor persecuted LABF.

I didn't say you had advocated censoring anyone - I said you were mocking our constitutional right to criticize our elected officials.

I don't "mock" your constitutional right.

I mock you and your laughably silly takes.

But please continue - every day all of us need a good laugh, and dammit, son, you're funny as hell.

Your tactic is transparently typical of most conservatives: Attack those who exercise their right to criticise Smirk and the GOP while looking the other way for those who criticize liberals.

Wait a sec - I'm now supposed to help you defend yourself against your own sheer idiocy? Are your "opponents" just too mean? Are we being too tough on you? Poor dear - I didn't realize. I'll try to be nicer, just so you don't feel so bad. Tsk, tsk, tsk - I didn't mean to make you cry.

Here - have a tissue. Blot those tears - there, there, isn't that better, now?

Need proof? Open any thread on this forum. Show me one example where W*GS objects to an attack on liberals by right-wingnuts - no matter how personal and full of "slurs."

Are you looking for a Prince Charming (me) to protect the fair maiden (you) from the nasty ogres of the OM?

If ya can't take the heat, honey, stay out of the kitchen.

I'm a-broilin' me up some pansy liberals, and damned if they ain't tasty with A-1 and a hearty red!

'Scuse me while I wrassle up some nice gelato for dessert.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/mmail-by2.jpg

Your question should really be:

"Why does W*GS spend such an enormous amount of time and energy poking fun at a guy who obviously can't help but make such a huge horse's patoot of himself?"

What a surprise: Unable to answer the question at hand, W*GS cops out and ops for the ad hominem.

Oh well, we all know the answer anyway, I suppose.

I do it for entertainment - and to see how low you'll go - which is pretty damned low.

Translation: "When I find myself on the ropes, I know I can always opt for the 'I'm just here for the entertainment' defense. Beats having to actually defend or explain my words and actions."



I just wonder why you enjoy getting the (rhetorical) crap beat out of you so much..

Your question should really be "I wonder what makes me retreat into the same delusions of grandeur each time I'm thoroughly pummeled in a debate by LABF? Do these delusions serve as some sort of protective shell for my fragile and deflated ego? Or do they serve as Stuart Smalley-esque affirmations which bolster my inadequate sense of self-esteem?"

I don't "mock" your constitutional right.

Tsk, tsk. Now you're resorting to outright lies. What is it about right-wingers like W*GS that they seem to suffer from such arrested moral development?
And, BTW, I pointed out that you were mocking "our" right - not "my" right.

Wait a sec - I'm now supposed to help you defend yourself against your own sheer idiocy?

First of all, you own the patent on "idiocy." Second, who said you were "supposed" to "do" anything? I merely noted another example of the inherent hypocrisy of your alleged "principles," and noted the double standard which informs your behavior here. Apparently, I was right on target - as evidenced by your failue to respond with anything more than further ad hominems.

Tsk, tsk, tsk - I didn't mean to make you cry.

Cry? No, those are guffaws you're hearing. Watching you entangle yourself in your own web of contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy always makes me chuckle.

Are you looking for a Prince Charming (me) to protect the fair maiden (you) from the nasty ogres of the OM?

Thanks for the offer, Spike, but I'm still digging chicks these days.

As for "nasty ogres" - I can't seem to think of one I don't already own (even back on the old DPO when it was ten against one.)

If ya can't take the heat, honey, stay out of the kitchen.

Heat? What heat?

I haven't broken a sweat yet.

Of course, I can't feel what you feel...

I'm a-broilin' me up some pansy liberals, and damned if they ain't tasty with A-1 and a hearty red!

If you're not gainfully employed writing copy for Rush, O'Liely, or Ann "The Man" Coulter, then you're, sadly, missing your calling.

Perhaps Rush has an opening for an intern. I understand that some of the perks, e.g., 'hillbilly heroin,' can help folks like you cope with the pain of living in a world that doesn't resemble your perceptions or your claims.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The haves and the have-mores

Freshly inaugurated President George W Bush armoured limousine raced down Pennsylvania Avenue, while thousands of protesters pelted his motorcade with jeers and insults. As Bush aloofly prepared to partake in numerous lavish black-tie dinners and balls to celebrate his razor-thin election win, polls released by The New York Times show clear majorities in the United States opposition of his signature policies: war and privatisation. Despite claims of national unity, Bush presides over a country never more deeply divided. Over half of Americans say the country is on the wrong track.

The crass opulence of the inaugural celebrations highlights the reasons for the growing disunity. Funded by a handful of corporations and wealthy individuals, inaugural events are a way for donors to buy influence openly.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a non-partisan organisation that provides financial data on the US political system, 140 individuals and corporations gave $100,000 or more to finance the inaugural events. About $40 million will be spent, while one million people suffer unemployment as a result of the Asian tsunami.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/727/in1.htm

[W*GS]

Thanks for the entertainment once again, LABF.

You poor dear - you really ought to grow up and learn to stand on your own two feet and end the whining. My nearly-two-year-old could teach you more than a few things about maturity.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Thanks for the entertainment once again, LABF.

No, thank you, Chuckles.

You poor dear - you really ought to grow up and learn to stand on your own two feet and end the whining. My nearly-two-year-old could teach you more than a few things about maturity.

I know two year olds who have a more highly developed sense of right and wrong than W*GS (not to mention an ability to distinguish between "whining" and legitimate anger.)

W*GS is the OM poster boy for arrested development.

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/B-Daddy'sWar.gif

[W*GS]

I know two year olds who have a more highly developed sense of right and wrong than W*GS

This from the epitome of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

Amoebae have more developed ethics than LABF.

(not to mention an ability to distinguish between "whining" and legitimate anger.)

You're just whining.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/mmail-by2.jpg

This from the epitome of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.
Amoebae have more developed ethics than LABF.

Lacking any concrete examples, W*GS once again opts for the "I am rubber, you are glue" defense (just like a two year-old.)

Your inadequate moral development is visible for all to see in your continued defense of the most amoral administration in U.S. history.

You're just whining.

Riiiiiiight.

And I'm sure you will say the same about this woman and her son:

Quotes

"My son is an army reservist and he returned from Iraq last March. He was ordered to attend one of the inauguration parties...Around midnight on Tuesday, my son returned home, looking tired from the drive. The next morning, he told me he didn’t have a good time because they basically stood around and watched the president say a few words. He said there was no food provided for them, so they ate after the event at some fast-food restaurant. They spend all this money for this celebration and can't feed my son? He stayed at a local military base with the rest of the group, but they made him pay for the room...I am angered at the way he has been treated. People need to know how some heroes are being treated by their own government."

--Rebecca Lawson

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6863629

Ms. Lawson - your first clue as to how Bush feels about the troops should've been when he sent them into the desert without adequate armor, water, guns etc., so they could die helping him steal that oil.

[Exile_In_SJ]

the best thing to do with a moron like LAbs is to just laugh at him and enjoy his rantings for what they are. The rantings of a lost soul who got his teeth kicked in once again on the playground.

Nothing to see here, move along people.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

the best thing to do with a moron like LAbs is to just laugh at him and enjoy his rantings for what they are. The rantings of a lost soul who got his teeth kicked in once again on the playground.

Nothing to see here, move along people.

The best thing to do with an inbred, sister-diddling yokel and a poster boy for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome like Exile from Sound Judgment is to remember that he believed a man who presided over the first net job loss since Hoover, the worst security failure in U.S. history, and the worst foreign policy blunder of all time deserved another term.

Anything he says subsequent to this will automatically be taken with several grains of salt.

http://www.bartcop.com/moron-shadow.jpg

[W*GS]

Riiiiiiight.

And I'm sure you will say the same about this woman and her son:

No.

The word "whining" I reserve for those who deserve it - as of now, you, LABF.

[RaiderH8r]

http://www.warroom.com/images/cry_baby.JPG

And the left loses again.

http://www.rondagates.com/images/whiner.gif

As LABF plugs away on another fruitless effort to win friends and influence voters.

[bronco_diesel]

My nearly-two-year-old could teach you more than a few things about maturity.

i doubt it w*gs. doesn't look like anyone at this point has been able to accomplish that task.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No.

The word "whining" I reserve for those who deserve it - as of now, you, LABF.

Wrong again.

According to your own criterea, the woman is "whining" about her son.

Can't apply your own rules consistently, eh?

What a surprise.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

And the left loses again.


Wrong again.

It should read "And the right cheats again."

But what more can we expect from a guy who thought a man who presided over the first net job loss since Hoover deserved to be re-'elected?'

http://www.bartcop.com/retard-bush.jpg