I don't agree with the rhetoric of the first part of this AP article, but I must admit that the inaugurations cost too much, especially in this times, because of the need to prevent terroristic attacks etc. Security costs are very expensive and we could find another way for "celebrating freedom and honoring service". I would have liked a scaled back event, even if I like President Bush.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-54 last
To: alessandrofiaschi
122 posted on
01/14/2005 5:19:11 AM PST by
verity
(The Liberal Media is America's Enemy)
To: alessandrofiaschi
"Some Now Question Cost of Inauguration"Mostly, those on the outside looking in!
Bwahahahaha!
123 posted on
01/14/2005 5:57:00 AM PST by
Redbob
To: alessandrofiaschi
Apparently these "some" were OK with clinton's spending.
And they seem to be OK with the feds' $2 trillion of annual non-defense spending.
To: alessandrofiaschi
Let's look through the archives for his screed against Clintoon's 2nd inaugural, shall we?
130 posted on
01/14/2005 10:45:05 AM PST by
Mr. K
(all your tagline are belong to us)
To: alessandrofiaschi
I hope President Bush walks out and lights a victory cigar with a $100 dollar bill.
To: alessandrofiaschi
They didn't complain when Clinton held his party. This is a celebration of our Democracy.
142 posted on
01/14/2005 3:18:32 PM PST by
xm177e2
(Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
To: alessandrofiaschi
Will Lester. A liberal masquerading as an objective journalist. See, AP does have an agenda and its liberal journalists have opinions like every one else but they think the American people are too stupid to notice what they're doing, that they miss the blatant bias in opinion pieces dressed up as straightforward news stories. As for the issue at hand - so what? The Inauguration is being paid for with privately raised funds. Its one event in our nation's history in which NOT a single dollar of hard-earned taxpayers' money is being spent. Libs are seething with hatred, rage and bile at President Bush and to them its also illegitimate to have a public function in which there's no stealing from the taxpayers' wallets. And they can't be happy about a unique event which happens only in America. A peaceful assumption or re-assumption of power is rare across this world. We've been doing it successfully in America for two centuries. The Left is so psychotically worked up about President Bush that it can't be happy for the American people, for our country or for our President. They still don't get it why they lost. Go figure.
153 posted on
01/14/2005 4:23:02 PM PST by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: alessandrofiaschi
President Bush should agree and since DC loves making laws they should pass a new one. From here on out the people of America shall not celebrate the election of a new President in any manner that exceeds the price of a tailgate party at a football game (Professional or college game of course).
We should stop having "balls" and make the limp wristed pantie wearing sodomite loving liberals have one big picnic on the Whitehouse lawn. BYO of course.
159 posted on
01/14/2005 4:32:25 PM PST by
winodog
(I am gonna stop calling them liberals. They are humanists. Liberal is actually a good word)
To: alessandrofiaschi
If I recall, 40 million is less than the clinton's last junket to Africa when they took along a large entourage including Chelsea
161 posted on
01/14/2005 4:33:35 PM PST by
paul51
(11 September 2001 - Never forget)
To: alessandrofiaschi
We visited this topic some time ago.
Getting more than a little late.
I wouldn't mind increasing the wages etc. of hotel etc. staff in DC, if more of them were more patriotic.
As it is, I'd rather the troops got at least half this much and the events were scaled way back in costs but not celebration.
174 posted on
01/15/2005 6:33:49 AM PST by
Quix
(HAVING A FORM of GODLINESS but DENYING IT'S POWER. 2 TIM 3:5)
To: alessandrofiaschi
but I must admit that the inaugurations cost too much,
And who are you to tell a private company how to spend their own money ?
To: alessandrofiaschi
When they Win they can do it on the Cheap! This Country can do both an Inaugaration and send $$$Billions to Indochina.
Pray for W and Our Troops
192 posted on
01/17/2005 8:10:52 PM PST by
bray
(The Rather-hate Scandal was to support Michael Maroon's Fraudumentary!)
To: alessandrofiaschi
Roosevelt in 1945 was a very sick man and we now know he was suffering heart problems and who knows what else.
That was the reason he had such a restrained Inauguration.
A very poor example to use by Democrats.
Also all of this money is private donations and it cannot be used for other purposes other than what is was donated for.
Ir can't go for more Tsunami relief or more tanks or more armored Hummers.
Where was all this outrage when Clinton took 1000 of his best buddies to Africa or China and what about his Inaugurations, what did they cost?
I am sick and tired of the Double Standard crap from the Left. Maybe Bush should have toned it down but it's his call and not the Government's money paying for it.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-54 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson