Yes, there are and always will be lavish inauguration ceremonies, but not many of them occur while American troops in Iraq are using scrap metal for "hillbilly armor".
Yes, there are and always will be lavish inauguration ceremonies, but not many of them occur while American troops in Iraq are using scrap metal for "hillbilly armor".
I think we need to set a few things straight here. Technically, most of the cost is paid for by private companies/individuals. Who are you to say what they should do with their money? Would you like people going around telling you to buy less videogames and give more to charities?
Second, while not at war/during a natural disaster, Clinton's second inauguration ceremonies cost (inflation accounted for) roughly the same as Bush's second (the Washington Post 2001 article's data would put it a bit below, the Washington Times data puts it 25% above).
So, do you all want (French) cheese with your whine?
And then there is Death
Yes. [img]http://home.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/heart.gif[/img] Endless.most of the cost is paid for by private companies/individuals. Who are you to say what they should do with their money?
You guys are unbelievable. .-.
Originally Posted by Kawaii Ryűkishi
You're right, we ought to be. Though there are some president's who cut it back a bit. Aside from the fact that he's throwing such a huge party for being re-elected, he's doing it with all our troops overseas using inferior armor-- note, which is all thanks to him.
Perhaps we failed to take note of some of the other lavish parties, but at the very least Bush's has brought it to our attention. Now we can do something about it so should we choose.
I thought we were all entitled to share our opinion, whether it be outrage or not? I hardly consider it whining. It's not as if we're all upset we didn't get invited to the party, we're a little sick to our stomaches as to what the money is being ridiculously lavished on. If we're upset about it, then we are, and perhaps if enough people are upset about it, we can make a difference as to how things work.So, do you all want (French) cheese with your whine?
Edit: Donated or not, Bush never had to accept the money. It was his party and if he wanted to be conservative about it he could've very well made sure that happened.
"Love is the triumph of Imagination over Intelligence."
Wait, did he throw the money into a bonfire? Or did it go into the economy?
The "trickle down" theory has never actually worked.
"Love is the triumph of Imagination over Intelligence."
Who thinks Kerry would've done the same thing? *raises hand*
And...? That's completely besides the point. I would hope the American people would be just as outraged if Kerry spent an obscene amount of money on his party. It's not about Bush, it's about the action he took.
"Love is the triumph of Imagination over Intelligence."
Oh I'm sorry I'll try again:
Who thinks just about any president would've done the same? *raises hand*
My point is that while it's a large sum of money to spend on a party, I don't find it surprising for people of politics to spend large sums of (our) money any more.
Go forth and fight all you wish, but I for one don't feel outraged. Now if conscription was in effect and I was sent to Iraq then found out the threat was less than it was, and all that, then I would be outraged. I'm also outraged by other things I won't mention here. But 'a president holding an exensive party'...maybe I don't see things the way you did?
I agree.Bush didn't invent the concept of an inaugural ceremony, and he can't be the first president to have "wasted" millions on one. If you're outraged by this one, you ought to be outraged by all the others.
Some of you guys just hate Bush, and get over it. I just laughed at those protesters trying to interfere with Bushs' innaugaration, the police laying down the law and responding with tear gas and water hoses to the crowds throwing snow balls and trying to climb over the fences. And stupid protesters waiving signs like "Bush is the #1 terrorist", and "Regime Change". They're like a bunch of hippy liberals.
It isn't so much the idea that all presidents typically have insanely lavish inaugeral ceremonies (with the exception of a few), it's the idea that they ought not to, because other people take precidence.
If you're going to place blame on an action/theory/motivation, at least try not to do the same yourself. There is no easy answer to properly distributing wealth to those who need it. Either you give some (which is not enough, apparently. I'm sure the administration has allocated tax dollars to those who need it), more than some (in which case you'd be at fault because you probably only give 'some', but not 'a lot'), or all, which is just stupid because then you'd be the one being poor and needing money.
Contrary to popular belief , I am NOT one of these fanatical anti-Bush campaigners - and he's obviously not the first president to have spent huge amounts on lavish inauguration ceremonies , I realize that , but given these present circumstances , this one is just OTT. Ok , so nobody has to make snipes at Bush , and I'm not saying he or anyone else has to donate but I just think it's in bad taste in lightof recent events.
And I'm sure that speech sent a shiver down the spine of everyone listening ...
Last edited by Itsunari 2000; 01-22-2005 at 02:31 AM.
That money could've been used for hte american public schools.They suck.Tax dolars go mor einto prisons then they go into public schools.
I think how much the Reagan's spent on new china and other decorations for the inside of the white house as soon as Ronald got in is more sickening than this.
I like Kung-Fu.
The problem with the public school system in America isn't a lack of money.
Posting Permissions
