Presidential inauguration

[Decadence]

[color=silver] I was just wondering what every one olse thought about the inauguration today, I missed it since I was in class, but i've been reading abotu it and getting information on it, well more the protests held at it really. But like I said i was just wondering what other people thought about it, the fact so much was spent on it, while we are still at war, the way the protests were organized, and other stuff (makes it pretty broad doesn't it?) And seeing as no one else has made a thread abotu this I just thought I'd ask.[/color]

[Dagger]

What I'm irritated about is the fact that DC has to foot the bill for the inaugural security, which is pretty much unprecedented. It's pretty insulting, in my opinion, to make the District use its own security funds for protecting a ceremony with [i]national[/i] importance.

Other than that, I couldn't care less about the inauguration. I actually forgot it was happening until I started listening to the news earlier this evening. :sweat:

~Dagger~

[Morpheus]

Even if I had the lunch session that saw the inag, I probably wouldn't watch. It's boring to see someone re-sworn.

I thought protesting there was retarded. People said that DC voted against him 9 to 1, and that he disgraced DC by being here. It's the freaking capitol! Where do you think we'll Inagurate him? Paris?

[James]

[color=#811C3A]I watched the entire thing on TV very late at night here - it was something I just didn't want to miss.

Generally it was very good. I think this speech was Bush at his best; unfortunately, few of his dectractors really seem to watch his speeches. Most of them are reasonably good, but the inauguration speech really clearly laid out the drive behind spreading freedom and democracy (a compassionate message of tolerance rather than an imnperalist message).

Of course, I am the very first in line when it comes to disagreeing with President Bush on a variety of issues. In one line he talked about pursuing freedom and leaving biggotry behind - unfortunately, President Bush has promoted some biggoted policies in his presidency. So he needs to take heed of his own advice a little there.

However, on the whole, it was a brilliant speech, particularly the foreign policy component. I felt that it spoke to me in a personal way, considering that Australia would currently be part of the Japanese Empire had the United States not been drawn into WWII. I'm certainly glad that America is the world's superpower, rather than Japan or China.[/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Morpheus'] I thought protesting there was retarded. People said that DC voted against him 9 to 1, and that he disgraced DC by being here. It's the freaking capitol! Where do you think we'll Inagurate him? Paris?[/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Good Goddess, I hope not...the cost for the whole inauguration and the balls are bad enough! But having to pay the dude's airfare to Paris (you do mean Paris France right? Because there's a Paris Kentucky...personally I think it would have been funny to hold it there..duh, of course it's France.)

I think it's stupid to get someone re-sworn in. Bush really hasn't changed much in the past 4 years, he still has the same hair style he did four years ago...and those shoes. But hey, tradition is tradition. What really got me was how much they're spending on all these inaguration balls, over 3 million or more I think. It's obscene in the light of what this world is going through right now to waste money on a bunch of parties to celebrate yourself...how vain can you get?

I think Bush should have just done his speech and had a quiet evening at home and instead of spending all that money on a bunch of parties he should have donated it to some after school programs, the Red Cross and the Susan Coleman Breast Cancer research center. Then just taken all his supporters to Crawford for a BBQ. Go annoy the Texans for El's sake.

Of course, that's just my opinion. One party for one 'victory' is enough. Two is just vain and an over kill.

I will not eat them here or there, I will not eat them anywhere,
CHibi Horsewoman.[/color]

[James]

[color=#811C3A]Did you object to President Clinton's second inauguration in the same way? I just thought I'd throw that in, lol.

But really, I remember someone saying that America doesn't have royalty and that now and then, such events are good pageantry for the country. I tend to agree with that, I think it's nice to be able to celebrate the office of the presidency in such a way (rather than necessarily celebrating the actual president, who you may or may not disagree with).

I imagine that much of the money went to security operations too, which seems reasonable. People would be whining about a lack of security if it'd been the other way around.[/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='James][color=#811C3A']Did you object to President Clinton's second inauguration in the same way? I just thought I'd throw that in, lol.[/color][/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Well, yes I did (atleast I think I did, since I think I may have been starting 10th grade when he had his second inauguration). I think it's nuts to spend so much money for something you're doing for the second time. Whether it's a second marriage (unless it's because a.) your first one was seriously screwed up or b) because your first spouse died and you're getting remarried) or a second term.

Hell, if I was president and I was elected a second term, I think I'd have a pizza party or something. Maybe a back yard BBQ...on my ranch.

I have no problem with security, give the guy all the protection he needs because he has to show his stuff this time since the country decided he needed a second chance. He sure can't screw it up any more unless he suddenly decides to invade Iran or North Korea...or enlarges or deficite some more. Yeah, I'm such an optomist aren't I?

Yeah, so I don't care much for Bush, but I think that question was unfair to me since I was only 15 when Clinton was reelected and I didn't care about politics.

Can I Shami your head?

CHibi Horsewoman[/color]

[James]

[color=#811C3A]I just wonder whether or not your objection actually relates to the cost factor itself, or because you simply don't want to reward Bush in any way. lol

I mean, the figure isn't exactly small, but I have to admit that the cost was a lot smaller than what I'd expected. That is particularly due to the fact that far more frivolous events in the United States have incurred much higher costs.[/color]

[Juke Box Hero]

Some 500 million dollars were spent on the campaign, so whats the problem with spending 3 million on a party for the victor? Poor DC has to foot the bill, but poor DC also has to foot the prestige of being the US Capitol, it must deal with the obvious pain of having one of the world's stronger business areas, and, worst of all, poor DC must bear the shame of being the most protected city in the world (except maybe Langley).

[Dagger]

[quote name='Raid3r']Poor DC has to foot the bill, but poor DC also has to foot the prestige of being the US Capitol, it must deal with the obvious pain of having one of the world's stronger business areas, and, worst of all, poor DC must bear the shame of being the most protected city in the world (except maybe Langley).[/quote]
Heh. To my knowledge, this is the first time poor DC has ever been required to pay for inaugural security, using money which was originally intended to continue making it "the most protected city in the world" (although from what I've seen, New York could easily give it a run for its money). If the administration wants to penny-pinch--and I'd be the first to commend them for doing so--I'm sure there are better ways to accomplish that.

And frankly I don't see what your other comments have do to with the situation. It's the principle of the thing, really. Besides, being the nation's capital hasn't gotten the District very far... the school system is disastrous, and let's not forget why residents started using those "Taxation without Representation" license plates.

~Dagger~

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE=Dagger IX1]Heh. To my knowledge, this is the first time poor DC has ever been required to pay for inaugural security, using money which was originally intended to continue making it "the most protected city in the world" (although from what I've seen, New York could easily give it a run for its money). If the administration wants to penny-pinch--and I'd be the first to commend them for doing so--I'm sure there are better ways to accomplish that.

And frankly I don't see what your other comments have do to with the situation. It's the principle of the thing, really. Besides, being the nation's capital hasn't gotten the District very far... the school system is disastrous, and let's not forget why residents started using those "Taxation without Representation" license plates.

~Dagger~[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=INDIGO]It is the first year D.C. has had to foot the bill for the security aspect of a Presidential inauguration, however, every four years they have to foot the bill for some aspect of this event and it is always to the tune of several million dollars. When I lived in DC I remember this being a big deal for the Republicans when Clinton was elected.

Think about it this way, the security is necessary so someone has to foot the bill. Now Washington D.C.?s economy skyrockets during the inaugurations, hotels are booked, restraints and bars are swamped, tourist attractions are filled, and shops are packed. Business owners make hundreds of millions of dollars during a time when the tourist season is at its deadest in DC. So why instead of having the whole country footing the bill for the inauguration security, D.C. is asked to pay a small price back for the large boom they received. It is really no different then when a football stadium is built. Part of the money used to build it comes from the tax payers, however, since a stadium creates jobs and revenue in the long run it is an investment.

On a side note, D.C.?s problems lie in the fact that they vote inept Mayors into office. Marion Barry was a known drug addict that had a limo service drive him around and the tax payers voted him into two terms of office.
[/COLOR]

[Morpheus]

$3,000,000/300,000 people= $10 per person. Same price as one of their picket signs.

[Japan]

[COLOR=Navy]Chibi, you and a couple of my teachers been complaining about the costs of this event.

I mean, this is a tradition. Would you complain if it was Kerry getting the inauguration instead of Bush.

That being a tradition, there would be an inauguration for the president regardless of it being their second term. Look at Clinton, did you truly feel that way about him?

I agree with HC about DC paying the bill. Inaugurations always bring in loads of people into the area, and that brings business. If the businesses and citizens are benefitting from this so greatly, why not help out with the bill?

The money they received [I]were[/I] originally owned by the tourists and other people that came to DC during that time. [/COLOR]

[eleanor]

[color=darkslateblue] I think it's sad that Bush is the first president (please correct me if I'm wrong) since Nixon that had so many opposers that obviously felt so much anger that they had to protest him at such a massive scale. I mean...didn't they pelt eggs at him at his first one? And not to mention the protests in [i]other[/i] cities this year.

Or maybe we're all just getting rebellious.[/color]

[Lady Asphyxia]

[font=Verdana][size=1]As well as that, inauguration week is paid for by multi-million dollar companies. It's a chance for these companies to 'wine and dine' politicians and higher ups and it's one of the last places that these companies can legally do that. Like HC said, they see it as an investment; after all, wining and dining the right people could get the 'right' policies pushed through faster. [/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=1][/size][/font]
[font=Verdana][size=1]Of course, that's all I know about it, because that's the only part of the news that I got last night in between my brother's X-box playing. I might have missed the bigger picture, but I do find that part interesting.[/size][/font]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=maladjusted][color=darkslateblue] I think it's sad that Bush is the first president (please correct me if I'm wrong) since Nixon that had so many opposers that obviously felt so much anger that they had to protest him at such a massive scale. I mean...didn't they pelt eggs at him at his first one? And not to mention the protests in [i]other[/i] cities this year.

Or maybe we're all just getting rebellious.[/color][/QUOTE]

Wow, sounds to me like you are implying tha Bush is accountable for those people's actions. Sure, you can protest.. that's one thing. But throwing eggs and slandering is an entirely different matter. I hope this isn't the integrity that the democrats choose to acknowledge; I would be ashamed if I were one.

[eleanor]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Wow, sounds to me like you are implying tha Bush is accountable for those people's actions. Sure, you can protest.. that's one thing. But throwing eggs and slandering is an entirely different matter. I hope this isn't the integrity that the democrats choose to acknowledge; I would be ashamed if I were one.[/quote]

[color=darkslateblue] Oh, no. I think you got me wrong. I think it's dumb that George Bush has lead the nation in such a way that the nation is now completely divided, but in NO way am I saying it's his fault that the protestors there were so violent. Indirectly? Yes. You can't say he hasn't somehow affected their behavior, but trust me: I think protestors are sometimes just wasting their time. [/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[quote name='maladjusted][color=darkslateblue'] Oh, no. I think you got me wrong. I think it's dumb that George Bush has lead the nation in such a way that the nation is now completely divided, but in NO way am I saying it's his fault that the protestors there were so violent. Indirectly? Yes. You can't say he hasn't somehow affected their behavior, but trust me: I think protestors are sometimes just wasting their time. [/color][/quote]

Partisanship runs deep in both Democrats and Republicans. The problem is neither a single man's fault (like Bush) or a single party's. I think that we have separated our agendas so much that certain issues have now been restricted to party bais (i.e. abortion tends to be a Democratic ticket, while Capital Punishment a Republican ticket). I think that it's important for both sides to recognize the differences between them, and the dichotomy that can very well exist in their own party structures. Look at Kerry.. he was against gay marriage, but he didn't take any action against it because "he didn't think the govn't should be involved." I smell BS, since when didn't he want governmental involvement (think socializing basically everything...)? My guess, his backers just didn't want him touching that issue, it wasn't the Democrat's way of dealing with that.

Sure, Bush has made some people angry. But to protest his innaguration? He was voted by the people, and we need to respect the people's decision. Those protesters at DC aren't just protesting Bush, they are basically protesting my vote for him. Hey, free speech, doesn't really bother me... but if they want someone to blame for getting Bush into office, they probably shouldn't lay it on him.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=Japan_86][COLOR=Navy]Chibi, you and a couple of my teachers been complaining about the costs of this event.

I mean, this is a tradition. Would you complain if it was Kerry getting the inauguration instead of Bush.

That being a tradition, there would be an inauguration for the president regardless of it being their second term. Look at Clinton, did you truly feel that way about him?

[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=James][color=#811C3A]I just wonder whether or not your objection actually relates to the cost factor itself, or because you simply don't want to reward Bush in any way. lol

I mean, the figure isn't exactly small, but I have to admit that the cost was a lot smaller than what I'd expected. That is particularly due to the fact that far more frivolous events in the United States have incurred much higher costs.[/color][/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]My brain isn't working properly because I haven't gotten 8 hours of unintterupted sleep since I think November 2003 so that's why the quotes aren't separated, so give me some credit for knowing what I'm talking about...I hope.

I was only 15 when Clinton was reinaugurated so asking me how I feel about the costs of those balls back in 1996 (that just sounded so wrong) is a bit irrelevent since I wasn't paying much attention to [politics in 1996 and I can't remember too much of what happened outside of my personal life then. Yeah, I think spending too much money when peopel can't even afford to buy medication and don't know how long Social Security will be around is quite obscene. From any party.

I don't think spending a lot of money on your first inauguration is bad. It's your first time being president, you're excited go all out...democrat, republican or crazy freak with a bad hair cut. Actually I think I'd be as poed about Kerry since the economy is in bad shape and so many of the american people are either out of work, or making less money than they are now because the good paying jobs they did have went over seas.

That's all I have to say.[/color]

[Decadence]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Sure, Bush has made some people angry. But to protest his innaguration? He was voted by the people, and we need to respect the people's decision. Those protesters at DC aren't just protesting Bush, they are basically protesting my vote for him. Hey, free speech, doesn't really bother me... but if they want someone to blame for getting Bush into office, they probably shouldn't lay it on him.[/quote]

[color=silver]The protestors don't agree with him, and they're using the big televised event to get the word out. To show bush that there are people who don't agree with him, or the values he sets forth and tries the enforce upon the masses. And yes if your wondering had I been able to get up to D.C. i would have been protesting too. [/color]

[Japan]

[quote name='ShadO MagE][color=silver']The protestors don't agree with him, and they're using the big televised event to get the word out. To show bush that there are people who don't agree with him, or the values he sets forth and tries the enforce upon the masses. And yes if your wondering had I been able to get up to D.C. i would have been protesting too. [/color][/quote]

[COLOR=Navy]He already knows how those kind of people feel about him, so why bother, and why so violent?

If they don't like Bush for the war, here's an interesting fact. There's 100,000 soldiers in Iraq, while 400,000 police in the state of California. My teacher says that there is just about the same amount of violence in California as there is in Iraq.[/COLOR]

[eleanor]

[i]Sure, Bush has made some people angry. But to protest his innaguration? He was voted by the people, and we need to respect the people's decision. Those protesters at DC aren't just protesting Bush, they are basically protesting my vote for him. Hey, free speech, doesn't really bother me... but if they want someone to blame for getting Bush into office, they probably shouldn't lay it on him.[/i]

[color=darkslateblue]Like I said...sometimes I think protestors are just wasting their time. I'm not trying to use this thread to blame Bush about stuff. But then again you can't deny that Bush indirectly caused the behavior of these people. Am I saying I support the protestors? No. I'm just pointing something out.

Maybe, just [b]maybe[/b], the protestors had a right the last time because of Bush's supposed cheating or whatever (I wasn't remotely interested in politics then), but this year's was sort of dumb. Would I have protested at his inauguration if I had the chance? No.[/color]

[Boba Fett]

[color=green]I really don't see a problem with the inauguration, or the expenses of the aforementioned event. No matter who's elected, first term or second, this kind of ceremony will go on. There will always be business interests, so they too will figure out how best to buddy up to the winning political party.

If Kerry were elected, the Republicans would make the same stink; there would be the same protests (hopefully with catchier slogans) and the like.

To me, it's not really a big deal.[/color]


[quote name='Japan_86][COLOR=Navy']If they don't like Bush for the war, here's an interesting fact. There's 100,000 soldiers in Iraq, while 400,000 police in the state of California. My teacher says that there is just about the same amount of violence in California as there is in Iraq.[/COLOR][/quote]

[color=green]Good thing we're training Iraqis to fill police and national guard/military roles.

I'd take issue with your teacher saying there's about the same amount of violence in CA as Iraq. I don?t see an entrenched insurgency kidnapping and beheading all non-Californians and demanding everyone else leave the state. Iraq definitely is a more dangerous, violent place right now than CA.[/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Drix D'Zanth'] Look at Kerry.. he was against gay marriage, but he didn't take any action against it because "he didn't think the govn't should be involved." I smell BS, since when didn't he want governmental involvement (think socializing basically everything...)? My guess, his backers just didn't want him touching that issue, it wasn't the Democrat's way of dealing with that.[/quote]

[color=darkviolet] Yeah, it [i]can't[/i] be because Kerry thinks that the government shouldn't get involved in people's personal lives. It's all a big conspiracy theory. Get over it. Some people have to deal with the fact that this is a Judeo Christian country and others have to deal with the fact that maybe some politicians just don't think that the government has any business telling people what they should and shouldn't be allowed to do.

It's not because of what political party the guy is associated with. Hell, I consider myself more Democrat than republican, but I think that if someone kills soemone and theyre's solid evidence that the person who is suspected did it then take him out back and shoot him. Of course I'm also pro choice so...yeah, that thread is somewhere else.[/color]


[quote name='Drix D'Zanth']Sure, Bush has made some people angry. But to protest his innaguration? He was voted by the people, and we need to respect the people's decision. Those protesters at DC aren't just protesting Bush, they are basically protesting my vote for him. Hey, free speech, doesn't really bother me... but if they want someone to blame for getting Bush into office, they probably shouldn't lay it on him. [/quote]

[color=darkviolet] Well, maybe in the end the Republican party just ran a better campaign...ok that's obvious sicne we have a republican president. And since it would take too damn long and too much money to go and protest everyone who voted for Bush not to mention the fact that who people voted for is private of course they're going to protest the president.

You can't say yes, I'm for freedom of speech one minute then complain the next when someone says something you don't like (ie protesting a guy you voted for) That's the thing with freedom of speech that I learned in my US History class back in 11th grade..I may not like what you have to say, but I will let you say it. That's why klan members are allowed to have rallies and not be arrested. You just got to love America!

Oh, and Bush may have won a second term in office, but not [i]all[/i] the people voted for him. I know I didn't. But hey, I wish him luck.

Drix, if you ever want to debate anything, you know where to find my yahoo screenname[/color]

[quote name='Japan_86][COLOR=Navy']If they don't like Bush for the war, here's an interesting fact. There's 100,000 soldiers in Iraq, while 400,000 police in the state of California. My teacher says that there is just about the same amount of violence in California as there is in Iraq.[/COLOR][/quote]

[color=darkviolet]Not to sound immature, but as my husband would say, your teacher needs a poking.

Ok, so there may be as much violence in California (or New Jersey for that matter) as there is in Iraq, but it's not on the same level as the violence in Iraq. Nobody takes a bunch of national guardsmen in California and shoots them execution style. And nobody does a bunch of car bombings on schools in California. Iraq is not California and California is not Iraq.

No, I'm not blaming Bush for the insurgents doing all that stupid crap in Iraq. How was he to know that people could be that violent even after 9/11? But I think that the methods were a bit off. I don't think he thought it through long enough and I don't think he learned too much from seeing what happened in Afghanistan, even if there hasn't been as much opposition in Afghanistan as there is in Iraq. It's like burning a candle at two ends, starting two wars is never really a good idea. And don't even get me started on how the National Guard troops are over there for longer than the enlisted men and women even though they don't have the same kind of experiance asw the enlisted men and women and are experiancing more casualties because of it.

Now all I have to do is dig myself a whole and live there for the next four years,
Chibi HOrsewoman[/color]