Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

2004 Inauguartion flashback


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
12 replies to this topic

#1 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,109 posts

Posted 15 January 2009 - 01:43 PM

Remember what Dems were saying about what they felt was an inappropriately opulent inauguration for George Bush? The pricetag next week is estimated to be more like $150 million.

Now, don't get me wrong (again) ... I'm not against Obama or the inauguration plans. Just wondering where all these voices are now. Fair treatment?

Critics are calling on U.S. President George W Bush to scale back the glittering multimillion dollar parties planned this week in honor of his second-term inauguration, saying lavish festivities are unseemly at a time of war.

Bush is to be sworn in Thursday and feted with four days of pomp and party-going at a price tag of about $40 million.

An unprecedented military presence and other security measures will add another $100 million to the cost, to pay for everything from police overtime wages to reviewing stands stretching from the U.S. Capitol building to the White House.

But critics insist that with U.S. troops dying daily in Iraq, the tone surrounding this year’s inaugural celebration should be more modest.

“I would have hoped they would have followed the traditions of President Wilson and President Roosevelt, who at a time of war had a very muted celebration,” said Democratic Representative Robert Menendez, speaking on CNN.

“I think when young men and women are dying we should think about the reality of how we conduct ourselves here at home.”


His comments echoed those of Democratic Representative Anthony Weiner, who, in a letter to Bush, urged the president to redirect some of the $40 million “towards a use more fitting to these somber times — bonuses or equipment for our troops.”

Inaugural committee officials however, point out that the theme of the inaugural fete — “Celebrating Freedom, Honoring Service” — already honors the U.S. military, as well as the president’s role as commander-in-chief.

Bush told reporters last week he sees no problem with either how the money is raised or how it is spent, noting that it has all been raised with private donations.

“There’s no taxpayer money involved in this,” the president said, brushing aside calls that some of the funds be channeled to South Asia for tsunami relief.

“A lot of the people who are coming here to the inauguration have given” to tsunami victims, Bush said.

“I think it’s important to celebrate a peaceful transfer of power. I’m looking forward to the celebration,” he told reporters.



#2 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,783 posts

Posted 15 January 2009 - 02:09 PM

1. This inauguration is a little more meaningful for a large portion of our nations citizens. A lot more people, accordingly, will be showing up.
2. The objections were tied to war deaths that the president being sworn in (again) was responsible for creating, according to your own post.
3. Will your bitterness keep increasing as the inauguration approaches?

#3 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,109 posts

Posted 15 January 2009 - 02:16 PM

1. This inauguration is a little more meaningful for a large portion of our nations citizens. A lot more people, accordingly, will be showing up.
2. The objections were tied to war deaths that the president being sworn in (again) was responsible for creating, according to your own post.
3. Will your bitterness keep increasing as the inauguration approaches?


Yep ... predictable as usual.

#4 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,783 posts

Posted 15 January 2009 - 02:32 PM

Logic usually is.

#5 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,504 posts

Posted 15 January 2009 - 02:35 PM

1. This inauguration is a little more meaningful for a large portion of our nations citizens. A lot more people, accordingly, will be showing up.
2. The objections were tied to war deaths that the president being sworn in (again) was responsible for creating, according to your own post.
3. Will your bitterness keep increasing as the inauguration approaches?


So the objections to the 04 inauguration were based, not on the inaguration, or on the amount of money spent, but on who was being inaugurated? It seems that those who lost the election in 04 were bitter, just as there are some who are bitter about the results in 08.

I can understand increased funding because more are coming and for additional security. I just don't see any difference in complaining about it now, and complaining about it in 04.

#6 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,783 posts

Posted 15 January 2009 - 02:38 PM

I guess that that is what usually happens.

Except of course my reasoning involved the fact that the person getting inaugurated started the war that people were griping about, and not necessarily (but yes, probably) about the person himself.

#7 Epistaxis

Epistaxis

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts

Posted 15 January 2009 - 02:45 PM

gas....be balanced.

Same crap, different party.
The (D) have to take this stupid crap now, because they slung the same stupid crap 4 years ago.

Bush may have started this war, but you know damn well (almost) all those (D) were behind it, until they weren't behind it, since it became unpopular.

Say all you want about faulty intelligence, you know that can just as easily be used as an excuse for the dumbass outgoing prez.

#8 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,783 posts

Posted 15 January 2009 - 02:56 PM

Hmm...that was basically what I meant in my first sentence there. I'll try to be less obscure about stuff like that.

#9 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,504 posts

Posted 15 January 2009 - 03:05 PM

I guess that that is what usually happens.

Except of course my reasoning involved the fact that the person getting inaugurated started the war that people were griping about, and not necessarily (but yes, probably) about the person himself.


No doubt that was the case with most people who objected to the cost of the inaguration in 04.

FWIW, my understanding of it is that the parties and events are being paid with donations, while the security and other necessary items are covered by the government. And that Bush released additional funds from FEMA to the locals to cover that security.

#10 Samuel L. Jackson

Samuel L. Jackson

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,407 posts

Posted 15 January 2009 - 03:40 PM

I see some people are STILL crying...

#11 Woodcookedbbq

Woodcookedbbq

    Vinegar Based

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,411 posts

Posted 16 January 2009 - 07:20 PM

It don't matter to me. I'm going to be at the movies next week during inauguration time. I think I'm going to go see "My Bloody Valentine"

#12 shinner

shinner

    Anomaly

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,781 posts

Posted 16 January 2009 - 08:26 PM

They're always going to be excessive but you can't blame people for noticing that there's no complaining about it this year versus 2004. Money is money....if it was extravagant in '04, it's just as extravagant this time around...who the candidate is shouldn't matter a bit. And you can bet your sweet ass that if it were McCain who'd won, there'd be plenty of griping in the media about all the money being wasted.

#13 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts

Posted 16 January 2009 - 09:50 PM

I hope Obama does a good job, and the very real world problems fizzle out under his leadership.


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com