ilmor Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 More wacky right right wing BS...didn't even make it through the first day! http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...9_01/016501.php What's really funny is that Bush's $157 million was for an attendence of about 500,000 ($314 a head) while estimates for Obama are between 3-5 million ($56 a head). Which do you think was the better deal? No one will know until they look back on history maybe 50 to 100 years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilmor Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 no wonder the US is going down the toilet. Spread the 140million around u morons!!! Ok i am not racist or all..........but I getting tired of the "1st African-American President"..........Obama isnt a "true" black man, his mom is white. Just pisses me off, im sorry, if i offended anyone I've read somewhere that since his father was from Kenya, he is really our first Arab-American president. I don't really know if Kenya is considered "Arab" or not...but, being a politician seeking the most advantage, he would naturally prefer the African-American title. If he had portrayed himself as Arab-American, I don't think he would have won the election! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffIsHereToo Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 I've read somewhere that since his father was from Kenya, he is really our first Arab-American president. I don't really know if Kenya is considered "Arab" or not...but, being a politician seeking the most advantage, he would naturally prefer the African-American title. If he had portrayed himself as Arab-American, I don't think he would have won the election! OMG! Please tell me you're kidding! I know are schools our are supposed to be bad when it comes to geography but PLEASE tell me, as an adult now, you're making a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Doctor Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 More wacky right right wing BS...didn't even make it through the first day! http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...9_01/016501.php What's really funny is that Bush's $157 million was for an attendence of about 500,000 ($314 a head) while estimates for Obama are between 3-5 million ($56 a head). Which do you think was the better deal? Neither one is the better deal. How many people could have been helped with that money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffIsHereToo Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Neither one is the better deal. How many people could have been helped with that money? Let me get this straight, you're worried about 170 million, which by the way was paid into the economy and gave people jobs rather than handouts to banks, but have you considered how many could have been helped with the $1 trillion+ thus far spent on Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Doctor Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Let me get this straight, you're worried about 170 million, which by the way was paid into the economy and gave people jobs rather than handouts to banks, but have you considered how many could have been helped with the $1 trillion+ thus far spent on Iraq? You sure like to make assumptions, because I've never said that: however, there is a big difference between war and ceremonies. The latter is certainly not needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffIsHereToo Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 You sure like to make assumptions, because I've never said that: however, there is a big difference between war and ceremonies. The latter is certainly not needed. LOL....and the war was! I think we could use more ceremonies and a little less war... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormeaston Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 I heard this morning that Obama was going to end winter, heck.............I'm all for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiaCobra Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 no wonder the US is going down the toilet. Spread the 140million around u morons!!! Ok i am not racist or all..........but I getting tired of the "1st African-American President"..........Obama isnt a "true" black man, his mom is white. Just pisses me off, im sorry, if i offended anyone Ok, I try to stay away from these type of threads but i'll make an exception here. I agree about the whole hoopla about the "1st Black President". The man isn't even black. Ok, look at it this way. Where I grew up, the black kids considered a kid who had a black parent, and a white parent to be white. They always said you had white in you so you're not like the rest of us. This was the way it always was but it's changing recently with the likes of Tiger Woods, Derek Jeter, and now Obama. I guess they make it fit to their liking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rlhay2 Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 The man isn't even black. Ok, look at it this way. Where I grew up, the black kids considered a kid who had a black parent, and a white parent to be white. They always said you had white in you so you're not like the rest of us. This was the way it always was but it's changing recently with the likes of Tiger Woods, Derek Jeter, and now Obama. I guess they make it fit to their liking. Perspective is a funny thing, isn't it? One Drop rule The original topic was rather or not this country could afford such a lavish inauguration. Critiquing a man's heritage based on arbitrary standards is a waste of bandwidth. Ignorance has always existed on both sides of the fence. Just my $.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Doctor Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 LOL....and the war was! I think we could use more ceremonies and a little less war... "LOL....and the war was!" I guess your opinion depends on whether you are Kurdish or not, doesn't it? I get a chuckle out of Libs who scream about this war, but you heard nary a peep out of them when it came to Bosnia, Kosovo, or Somalia. They are also the ones screaming about us not doing something about Darfur, right? I think that's called hypocrisy. On one hand I'm tired of our soldiers being used as the world's police department, but on the other hand I don't think it's wise to allow an enemy to become strong enough to do real damage as we did with Hitler. "I think we could use more ceremonies and a little less war..."I think we can use less of both acroos the board, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffIsHereToo Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 "LOL....and the war was!" I guess your opinion depends on whether you are Kurdish or not, doesn't it? I get a chuckle out of Libs who scream about this war, but you heard nary a peep out of them when it came to Bosnia, Kosovo, or Somalia. They are also the ones screaming about us not doing something about Darfur, right? I think that's called hypocrisy. On one hand I'm tired of our soldiers being used as the world's police department, but on the other hand I don't think it's wise to allow an enemy to become strong enough to do real damage as we did with Hitler. "I think we could use more ceremonies and a little less war..."I think we can use less of both acroos the board, don't you? Let's not mix and match conflicts and claim "hypocrisy". Your revisionist views of my we went into Iraq, I guess the new right excuse now is to help the Kurds is it, don't wash. We did go into Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia to specifically stop the killing of innocents and genocide, the issues at stake today in Darfur. These actions were taken by Clinton and he was called out on it by Republican's especially "candidate" Bush who said going into other countries like this was a mistake and we shouldn't be in the business of "nation building". Great video to watch in hindsight: Sadam was more than contained and in fact served as counter weight to Iran as he had for many years. He was not going to try a Hitler "take over the region by force" strategy so that analogy is silly. I do agree with you that I don't believe we should be the world's police or go it alone, I also agree we could use a little less of BOTH, but a focus on inaugural costs that are in line with the numbers of people, the threat from possible terrorism, and inflation, never mind the symbolic need we have as a nation, I think doesn't do us much good. But I enjoy the debate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Doctor Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Let's not mix and match conflicts and claim "hypocrisy". Your revisionist views of my we went into Iraq, I guess the new right excuse now is to help the Kurds is it, don't wash. We did go into Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia to specifically stop the killing of innocents and genocide, the issues at stake today in Darfur. These actions were taken by Clinton and he was called out on it by Republican's especially "candidate" Bush who said going into other countries like this was a mistake and we shouldn't be in the business of "nation building". Oh, please! Revisionist views is to say that WMD was the only reason for going into Iraq. Come on, you're smarter than that! It was multiple reasons, and you know it. Or is it ok with you to kill hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Iraqis, but not Bosnians, Somalis, etc? Great video to watch in hindsight: Sadam was more than contained and in fact served as counter weight to Iran as he had for many years. He was not going to try a Hitler "take over the region by force" strategy so that analogy is silly. Really? Tell that to Kuwait and Saudia Arabia. BTW, he was "contained" after a war, right? I don't think the Kurds appreciated his containment either. I do agree with you that I don't believe we should be the world's police or go it alone, I also agree we could use a little less of BOTH, but a focus on inaugural costs that are in line with the numbers of people, the threat from possible terrorism, and inflation, never mind the symbolic need we have as a nation, I think doesn't do us much good. More crap! A ceremony in the oval office negates the number of people AND the threat of terrorism. But I enjoy the debate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffIsHereToo Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Well the tone has changed I see...no longer fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLOWN Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Thinking more about the inaguration events this morning... I find it incredibly ironic that the "party of change" preaches strongly about two things; helping the poor and global warming / environment. So, here they are WASTING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS on all these parties (not including all of the costs of the attendees to get there, stay there, and return), plus, this inaguration has got to be a HUGE CARBON FOOTPRINT considering all of the energy being utilized for it. All of this while the country (and the world) is mired in a global recession. This doesn't seem like a good example of change to me. Hey ilmore this is the way the hill does things and this is the way they think, Don't do as I do DO AS I SAY TO DO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turnsignaldelete Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 WOW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss Doctor Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Well the tone has changed I see...no longer fun! Ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexandros Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 You do have a strange system ,it takes a year to elect a president & then a fortune to get him settled in his job. What a time to be wasting money. Oh well our goverment isn`t much better. I wonder how much they will spend when Obama comes to Canada on his first out of the country visit. Yah.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump_breaker Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 They way the hype is going I would have thought Obama would have been able to produce money from the mouth of a fish and feed the multitudes with 5 loaves and 2 fishes. :elefant: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest markham51 Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 They way the hype is going I would have thought Obama would have been able to produce money from the mouth of a fish and feed the multitudes with 5 loaves and 2 fishes. :elefant: Sorry, I hear he is saving this for his second term. You know... its going to be a tough act to follow with him fixing the economy, extracating the US from various wars, securing peace in the middle east and ending Global Warming in the first 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroDan Posted January 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 More wacky right right wing BS...didn't even make it through the first day! http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...9_01/016501.php What's really funny is that Bush's $157 million was for an attendence of about 500,000 ($314 a head) while estimates for Obama are between 3-5 million ($56 a head). Which do you think was the better deal? OK... (thnx Jeff!) I don't either is a better deal! The only difference is that NOW we are in a recession with bail-outs, the other the economy was booming! Both suck IMO. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.