Presidential Inaguration

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,085
0
0
In a van down by the river
DonQuixote said:
Come on langeweile. My point is this: Why is this the first time the city of
Washington DC has to pay for the security? As I've said many times before,
I'm neither D nor R. Why are they passing the bill to the City?

Also, this is a party for the victor. Try to get a ticket to one of the events if
you're a D. Your observation is almost laughably naieve. :)
They were scalping tickets this morning. it was about $600 for a standing room only ticket and a bout a $1000 for the dinner tonight...you wanna go?

Yeah you are right I am naive.....but happy...well most of the time...
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,085
0
0
In a van down by the river
DonQuixote said:
You can't be an R. You took responsibility for your decision.
Good for you. You're like the rest of us, somewhat flawed but well-intentioned.
You'd never be on Bush's Cabinet. :rolleyes:
Boy..you are on the roll today..you correct in my heart I am an American conservative not an R.
 
Y

yychobbyist

langeweile said:
Come on man, we don't have many tradition as it is, why can't we have this one, without people bitching and moaning about it.
Every country has their own tradition, that from the outside look dumb, but mean a lot to the population.
Can we not even have a party without somebody bitching about it???
Give me a break...
I'm not bitching or moaning. I just simply don't understand the need.

Does an inauguration in fact mean something to the population or are they just more for insiders? I honestly don't know and am interested in your opinions.
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,085
0
0
In a van down by the river
yychobbyist said:
I'm not bitching or moaning. I just simply don't understand the need.

Does an inauguration in fact mean something to the population or are they just more for insiders? I honestly don't know and am interested in your opinions.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4458056

Yeah..I think the political-junkies will celebrate. Funny you asked there was piece in NPR this morning. Not only did they talk about the hoopla surrounding the celebration, but also interviewed families, that celebrate without going to DC.
Personaly speaking...I don't watch it and really don't care about it.
 

mrpolarbear

New member
Sep 10, 2001
1,093
0
0
69
chicago
WoodPeckr said:
Officials fear "limousine bombs" at Bush inauguration

Sun Jan 16, 3:00 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US officials working on security for President George W. Bush's second presidential inauguration fear terrorists could use limousines packed with propane gas canisters for an attack.


Fears of an attack by VBIEDs -- vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices -- come from a 39-page Al-Qaeda document seized in Britain in 2003, according to the Monday edition of Time magazine.

The document, titled "Rough Presentation for Gas Limo Project," discusses using limousines to deliver bombs equipped with propane gas cylinders.

The document recommends hiding bombs in limos because the long classy vehicles "blend in" and "can transport larger payloads than sedans ... and do not require special driving skills," according to Time, in its editions set to hit newsstands Monday.

Hundreds of limos are expected to jam the Washington streets throughout the week carrying inauguration guests from around the country.

The limos can also "access underground parking structures that do not accommodate trucks" and "have tinted windows that can hide an improvised explosive device from outside."

Even though the Bush inauguration is not mentioned in the document, segments are being passed around among US intelligence officials, according to Time.

The Al-Qaeda document calls for using three limos each carrying 12 or more compressed-gas cylinders each to create a "full fuel-air explosion by venting flammable gas into a confined space and then igniting it," according to Time.

The cylinders could even be painted yellow to falsely "signify toxic gases to spread terror and chaos when emergency and haz-mat teams arrive," the magazine reported.

link:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=2&u=/afp/usbushsecurityattack
Hopefully Bush gets a ride in one of them limos.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,939
5,739
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Quite a few people around the world won't be celebrating the Presidential Inauguration ......they fear GWB could still cause WWIII !

Nobel Peace Prize nominee: Bush re-election may end the human race

By ANI

01/17/05 "ANI" -- The world-renowned anti-nuclear and environmental activist and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Helen Caldicott, has warned that US President George Bush's re-election does not bode well for mankind, and she fears that the human race may not survive his second term (2005-2009).

"This is the most serious election that has ever occurred in the history of the human race, without a scrag of doubt. I don't know if we'll survive the next four years ... I don't think the Americans have, on the whole, the faintest idea - and I have to say also I don't think most Australians do either. But it's not just the threat from nuclear war. It's the threat of what's happening to the environment, the global warming which is occurring rapidly now, to ozone depletion, to species extinction, to deforestation - it's the whole thing," the Sydney Morning Herald quoted Caldicott as saying.

Speaking from her son Will's Boston home, the Australian paediatrician, who runs the Nuclear Policy Research Institute in Washington, has just spent a frantic two-and-a-half months criss-crossing America to deliver her anti-nuclear and anti-Bush message. She discovered the country was more divided than at any time since she first stepped onto American soil in 1966.

"I don't think I've ever felt so personally, politically devastated in my life and that includes when [former president Ronald] Reagan won a second term of office - which was pretty devastating for me as I was so heavily involved in the anti-nuclear movement in those days.But this is worse, these people are much worse than the Reagan people," Caldicott adds.

Dr Caldicott rose to fame in the American peace movement during the '70s and '80s, her vehement anti-nuclear stance earning her many enemies, some of whom saw her as an apologist for the Soviet Union. She has long warned of the dangers of nuclear weapons, America's "first strike" policy and missile defence.

"The Bush administration have been able to con the American people with their extremely brilliant propaganda and brainwashing, with the help of the media ... they consistently lie. On the whole the American people don't really understand the dynamics of the right at all. They don't know that Bush et al want to go into Iran next and that they want to dominate the world militarily and that they want to put weapons in space. I don't think they [the American public] understand. It is a mandate for Bush to do absolutely anything he wants. I know people don't like me using this word but they're fascists," she concludes.

link:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7759.htm
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Long Life and properity

Long Life and prosperity to Bush and all those who support him.
 

Mcluhan

New member

Flower

New member
I don't know if this belongs in this thread but ...

From today's N.Y. Daily News ~

George Bush,master of delusion


Alchemy is the purported science of turning base metals into gold. It does not exist. Political alchemy is the ability to turn hard failures into gossamer triumphs. It does exist. The inauguration of President Bush for a second term proves it.

The President, of course, does not see it that way. He proclaims himself at the top of his game: ruler of the free world, liberator of Iraq and magnificent chief of the Grand Old Party. Most important, in his view, is that his view is shared by the American people. His reelection was no mere mandate, since, you will recall, he claimed that the last time, when he scratched out a win in Florida by only several hundred votes. No, this victory is a mandate of Rooseveltian dimensions. With precisely this sort of self-assurance, Napoleon crowned himself Emperor of France.

In reality, Bush's view of the American people is not shared by the American people. In fact, a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found Bush with what you might call a negative mandate. Only 45% said they wanted the country to go in the direction Bush wants, and on Iraq - the No. 1 issue for most Americans - 58% disapproved of the way he has handled what to him is a grand triumph.

The 60-day war is now in its second year, and the chorus of those urging a pullout grows louder and louder. Even former Mayor Ed Koch says it's time for the U.S. "to declare victory and ... bring our troops home." Koch, a Democrat who supported Bush's reelection, also supported the war and, oddly, still does. Still, he wants out.

Koch's position may seem inconsistent, but it's consistent with a kind of inconsistency writ large. The war in Iraq is a debacle, and yet Bush talks about it as if it were going swimmingly. His original aims have been amended a bit - now it's a grand march toward Middle East democracy. Daily, Americans are losing their lives for ... well, it's hard to say. A Shiite majority? Sunni participation in the election? An autonomous Kurdish state? All of these, without question, are issues that have long transfixed the people of Omaha and other cities in America, and for which they gladly have sacrificed their sons and daughters.

The cover of Mad magazine used to show a picture of a smiling Alfred E. Neuman and ask, "What, me worry?" Bush has the same perplexing affect: Why? Iraq aside - and, really, that's not possible - are there other areas where the administration has done so well that you can say it explains Bush's smile? The economy? Hardly. It's okay - not really terrific and not bad, either. It is, though, the recipient of huge and reckless tax cuts that have spread cash like Tinkerbell does fairy dust. The result has been a burgeoning national debt that can be paid off only if space exploration discovers a planet of suckers willing to buy U.S. bonds. Is the universe that big?

Could it be education? Hardly. No Child Left Behind is a nifty slogan and maybe a good idea, but it is not the sort of thing that gets Presidents on Mount Rushmore. Conservation? Are you mad? Agriculture? You jest.

Maybe it's the way we've been able to stop nuclear proliferation or the way America is now respected around the world, particularly in Muslim countries. Sorry. Just kidding.

Bush's unsurpassing achievement has been to make fantasy seem like reality and failure seem like success. He strides the world stage, a genuine smile on his face and a false mandate in his pocket.

Behold the gold! What, you don't see it? No matter. Washington does.

Originally published on January 20, 2005
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,085
0
0
In a van down by the river
DonQuixote said:
langeweile, I have a question and am very interested in your response.
How do you describe or define yourself as a conservative? Words and
descriptions are used so loosly anymore that I'm not really sure what
the words mean. Therefore, what does the word 'conservative' mean to you?

Don
To me it means.
Fiscal conservative.
Less goverment is better goverment.
Self reliance.
Believe in universal spiritual values.
Protect individual freedoms.
Free and FAIR trade with everybody and alliances with no one.

That's a broad but fairly complete outline..
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,085
0
0
In a van down by the river
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published January 20, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters news agency this week headlined a story, "Critics Say Bush Inaugural Too Lavish for Wartime," then quoted one "critic," Rep. Anthony Weiner, New York Democrat, who complained that the estimated $40 million for the Bush-Cheney inauguration is extravagant.
The Associated Press moved a story that asked, "With that kind of money, what could you buy?" The answer, the wire service said: "200 armored Humvees ... vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children ... and a down payment on the nation's deficit."
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.
A Jan. 20, 1997, story by USA Today estimated about $12.7 million of Mr. Clinton's inauguration was financed by U.S. taxpayers. Initial estimates indicate the District will foot about $17 million in security costs this year.
"Every inaugural, there's a really good reason given why you should spend whatever donors are sending in on something else," Rich Galen, a veteran Republican activist, told the Associated Press, saying many of the complaints come from the losers of the election.
Mr. Weiner and Rep. Jim McDermott, Washington Democrat, in a letter to President Bush said that a celebration during the war on terror is inappropriate and the money could be better spent, saying the funds could be used pay for 690 Humvees and a $290 bonus for each soldier serving in Iraq.
"Precedent suggests that inaugural festivities should be muted -- if not canceled -- in wartime," said the letter, which cited President Roosevelt's scaled back inauguration in 1945 that had a menu of cold chicken salad and pound cake.
Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Presidential Inaugural Committee, and White House officials say the inauguration is an American tradition that transcends partisan politics and is a symbol to the world.
President Johnson didn't eschew pageantry in 1965, racking up a $1.6 million bill for inaugural festivities despite the Vietnam War, historian Robert Dallek told Reuters.
In 1997, there was grumbling that the inauguration cost too much. But Clinton spokesman Barry Toiv said at the time, "It's really a symbol to the world and has been for over 200 years, and it's worth celebrating."
This year, the inaugural committee has taken a similar tact, dubbing the events "Celebrating Freedom, Honoring Service."
 

Flower

New member
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.
Who is responsible for this type of inflation? :(
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,085
0
0
In a van down by the river
DonQuixote said:
Is President Bush a conservative?

In my opinion he is not a fiscal conservative, he has expanded government and
under the Patriot Act goverment has become more intrusive thereby threatening
individual freedoms. I think self reliance is an admirable virtue and is a core value
in America. But, I also believe to those that are given much, much is expected.
The eldery, the children and those that are displaced require our aid and assistance
in order to live in a civil society. The aid needn't be from the government. It is preferred
that aid be given by charitable organizations. But, the law should also be used to
ensure those without a voice, without power are protected. I agree with free and fair
trade but the world is too interdependent with multinational trade to important to forgo
alliances. The Soviets wouldn't have come to their end without NATO. We wouldn't
have defeated the Germans, Italians and Japanese without alliances. The world has
become too complex for a go-it-alone foreign policy.

True. Bush is not a conservative, but he was the lesser of the two evils. Kerry just didn't come across as being sincere, he is more of a phony, then probably GWB is.
Sometimes if you can't have what you want, you just have to settle for the second choice. It is much better than not voting.

Self reliance does not automaticlly imply that you neglect your duty as a person, and forget about the once in need. This is where the "Universal spiritual values" come in.

My reference on alliances was geared towards mainly "military alliances", those are a no win situation.
For the life of it I can't understand why we still have troops in Europe, Korea and other places today.It is a waste of money that we could make better use of. I don't think the USA should play the police for everybody and try to solve someone elses problems. Unless it is a threat to us.

This position does not imply isolationism. We need FREE and FAIR trade not military alliances. Let other nations take care of their own problems ad defense.
I am also not in favor of a "going alone policy" on foreign issues, but does it have to rise to a level of alliance? You can form consences with others without being bound to them forever, or?
 

Flower

New member
I'll start with this, it is a bit dated but I'll post some more later ....

Squandering Prosperity

George W. Bush has the worst economic record of any president
since Herbert Hoover.


by Harold Meyerson
The American Prospect, June 2003


Economists are admitting to confusion, always a bad sign. The American economy has entered "a baffling twilight zone," writes Robert J. Samuelson. "People yearn for clarity and confidence, while the new stagnation provides mainly uncertainty and contradiction."
The Federal Reserve seems particularly vexed. Profits and productivity are up, but growth is negligible and employment is down. The Fed's governors have been cutting interest rates since January 2001-12 separate cuts, taking interest rates on overnight bank loans from 6.5 percent down to 1.25 percent, the lowest level in 40 years-yet the layoffs keep coming. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has been predicting recovery, but recovery hasn't appeared. Testifying before Congress in late April, Greenspan prophesied a better second half of 2003. "1 think it includes jobs," he said.
Companies, the Fed complains, aren't expanding as they should. "An undercurrent of pessimism has persisted among business leaders for some time now," Fed governor Ben Bernanke recently grumped, "more so than can be accounted for by what seem to be the generally good fundamentals of the U.S. economy."

Official unemployment now stands at 6 percent; 8.8 million Americans are unemployed, an increase of 3 million since October 2000. The specter stalking the Fed is that of deflation, something that our central bank has not concerned itself with since the Great Depression. The Fed's most recent report warns, in ever-cloudy Fedspeak, of an "unwelcome substantial fall in inflation." No one is anticipating a 1930s-style collapse of prices, wages and employment, but the threat of prolonged stagnation, with all its quiet human disasters, is very real.

Several decades ago, French social commentator Alain Minc wrote evocatively of a "slow 1939," in which the economy, bolstered by the safety nets put in place in response to the real 1939, does not crash; it sags. We seem to be in a slow l929 right now: Wages decline slightly (by 1.5 percent over the past year for workers at the median income level), workweeks grow shorter (to 34 hours, the lowest level since the government started measuring workweeks in 1964), health insurance premiums and co-payments grow more costly, and factories don't run at full speed. (In fact, they're running at the lowest level of capacity since 1983.) Growth creeps along (rising at a 1.6 percent annual rate in the first three months of 2003) but productivity grows faster (at nearly 2.5 percent). America can increase its output by z.5 percent, therefore, without hiring more workers. To hire more workers, growth has to outpace productivity. It's not.
Disasters occur, but discretely and discreetly: Medicaid is cut, and seniors can no longer afford their medication; college tuitions are raised, and students have to leave school.

And jobs are lost: The private sector has shrunk by more than 2.6 million jobs since George W. Bush became president. That is, by any standard, quite a record: No American president has presided over a net loss of jobs during his term in office since Herbert Hoover grappled so disastrously with the real 1929. When Bill Clinton was in the White House, America gained an average of 239,000 jobs per month. Since Bush took office, the number of jobs has declined at a monthly clip of 69,000.

On the basis of no credible evidence whatsoever, the White House boasts that Bush's proposed tax cut would create 1.4 million jobs by the end of 2004. Even if it did, Bush would still have presided over a net loss of 1.3 million jobs during the 2001-2005 presidential term.

Presidents do not really pay a penalty for holding office when the economy first implodes. Americans did not turn against Hoover because the market crashed; they turned against him because his recovery program, such as it was, failed to produce a recovery, because the economy cascaded downward for three and a half years while he rejected one plausible remedy after another. Likewise, no one holds Bush accountable for the dot-com bust or the shock of September 11. His problems are that he's enacted and proposed nothing that would arrest the current slide, and that his policies have actually worsened it.

*For the entire article ~ http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Economics/Squandering_Prosperity.html
 

Flower

New member
yychobbyist said:
That's a whole other 50 page thread in and of itself
YYC, I agree ...

BBKing ~ As I stated, it was a bit dated but IMNSHO, matters have only gone down hill. I could post and post articles but in the end, nothing will change people's minds .. on the lighter side and more in keeping with the inaguration ...

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18404
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,085
0
0
In a van down by the river
You are right to a degree...

To blame the POTUS alone for failed policies ignores tthe fact, that he is a dead duck if congress and senate don't support him. Those "nay" sayers of today were many times the "yea" sayers of yesterday.
He is the CEO and at the end of the day, the buck stops with him.One of the joys of being a leader.

Economic activity, especially in a global market, are very much depended on outside forces.
Goverment can do it's share by providing the right climate and provide some jobs, but it can't do it alone.

shrinking job market? IMHO that is a problem we all (in the west) have to come to terms with. Cheap labor out of China, India and there like have slowly pulled manufacturing jobs out of "the western part of the world".

What's the solution? If I knew I would be a millionaire. On one hand the consumer demands cheaper and cheaper goods, on the other hand they complain about loosng manufacturing job.
Somewhere in their, something has to give. Globalization has it's price. Tarifs will only delay the inevidable and close the markets to whatever goods we have left to sell.

Yes, Bush has to take responsibility. No, it is not all his fault alone.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts