• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * - - - 6 votes

Obscenely expensive inauguration! (cont)


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#31 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 21 January 2009 - 11:03 PM

Consider the source.

Wishful thinking. For one thing this fits with a pattern of behavior for her. She has a clear history of abusing/exploiting her position for personal gain. For another thing, I don't think McCain gives a shit. This was his last run. He's not going to be back in 2012 so I don't think he has any vested interest in trying to cover his ass by making false accusations.


McCain was not the source of the comments. The persons running his campaign hope to have long successful careers. An electoral college rout is not exactly a feather in their caps.


The quotes came from the staffers not the campaign head. The staffers all had to migrate to other jobs after the election loss so what incentive would they have had to lie? You are just engaging in fantasy at this point.


Your paragraph says "top advisors," and the fact that they needed to migrate to new jobs IS THE WHOLE POINT. I'm engaging in fantasy? Let's get this thread back OT and back to the facts. The Obama coronation was THE most expensive in history, and by a WHOLE lot.

#32 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 22 January 2009 - 12:09 AM

The Obama coronation was THE most expensive in history, and by a WHOLE lot.

Bullshit. Read the link.

#33 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 22 January 2009 - 01:00 AM

The Obama coronation was THE most expensive in history, and by a WHOLE lot.

Bullshit. Read the link.


Where are Boehlert's references?

And you know, the expense of the party is not the worst of it. It's the fact that the media broke Bush's balls about it, but gave the Obamassiah a pass. And they gave him a pass at one of the *bleakest* moments in US history! Now THAT's some bullshit.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#34 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,090 posts
  • 237
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 22 January 2009 - 01:08 AM

And you know, the expense of the party is not the worst of it. It's the fact that the media broke Bush's balls about it, but gave the Obamassiah a pass. And they gave him a pass at one of the *bleakest* moments in US history! Now THAT's some bullshit.


Give it a rest already.

Obama didn't get a pass from the media he gave them all passes. He invited them all to the party unlike Bush and the executives of AIG that make them private exclusive affairs at public expense. He even gave passes to the right wing media so they could come and carp although then they were counted in the crowd, albeit against their wishes.

There is no hypocrisy in the idea of a moral boosting event for all Americans at this time, especially when it didn't cost the taxpayers anymore than Bush's bash.

Are you just doing all this kvetching of sour grapes because you didn't get a personalized invite of your own to gloat about?

#35 aim1

  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 7

Posted 22 January 2009 - 01:12 AM

The New York Times:

-- The American public is bemused by the tasteless show-biz extravaganza surrounding Barack Obama's inauguration today.

-- There is something to be said for some showiness in an inauguration. But one felt discomfited all the same.

-- This is an inauguration, not a coronation.

-- Is there a parallel between Mrs. Obama's jewel-toned outfit and somebody else's glass slippers? Why limousines and not shank's mare?

It is still unclear whether we are supposed to shout "Whoopee!" or "Shame!" about the new elegance the Obamas are bringing to Washington.


#36 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 22 January 2009 - 01:16 AM

And you know, the expense of the party is not the worst of it. It's the fact that the media broke Bush's balls about it, but gave the Obamassiah a pass. And they gave him a pass at one of the *bleakest* moments in US history! Now THAT's some bullshit.


Give it a rest already.

Obama didn't get a pass from the media he gave them all passes..


Of course he did. They helped elect him.

#37 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 22 January 2009 - 01:19 AM

The New York Times:

-- The American public is bemused by the tasteless show-biz extravaganza surrounding Barack Obama's inauguration today.

-- There is something to be said for some showiness in an inauguration. But one felt discomfited all the same.

-- This is an inauguration, not a coronation.

-- Is there a parallel between Mrs. Obama's jewel-toned outfit and somebody else's glass slippers? Why limousines and not shank's mare?

It is still unclear whether we are supposed to shout "Whoopee!" or "Shame!" about the new elegance the Obamas are bringing to Washington.


LOL! Where'd you find that? I think you might have made a BIG mistake. See:

http://www.anncoulte...cgi?article=294

#38 Ben Simon

  • Guest
  • 352 posts
  • 3
  • Location:London

Posted 22 January 2009 - 01:22 AM

I'm kinda shocked by the vitriol in this thread. Some of this stuff reads more like kneejerk retaliatory attacks, as opposed to a conversation. And hey, maybe as much can be said about the original post, but so what? If someone made a similarly critical statement about Bush it would be given a pass.

To the OP, I'm not sure where I stand on this kind of issue. On the one hand, yes, a lot of the Obama worship drives me crazy. And yes, the inauguration did seem unnecessarily lavish (whether it was more or less lavish than Bush's hardly seems the point). On the other hand, maybe one part of good leadership is providing the people with something to look up to and believe in and aspire to - and Obama's certainly done just that. I'll be interested to see how the effects of the current civic cheerfulness plays out. What might an inspired, optimistic electorate be able to achieve? Will they be complacent and uncritical of Obama's mistakes? Or will they be personally empowered to bring about positive change? Both? ...Time will tell.

#39 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 22 January 2009 - 02:48 AM

And you know, the expense of the party is not the worst of it. It's the fact that the media broke Bush's balls about it, but gave the Obamassiah a pass. And they gave him a pass at one of the *bleakest* moments in US history! Now THAT's some bullshit.


Give it a rest already.

Obama didn't get a pass from the media he gave them all passes..


Of course he did. They helped elect him.


Look, I know its going to be a tough 8 years for you bud. Just keep the FoxNews on and try to relax. Remember, there's always Jeb and Palin.

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#40 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 60
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 22 January 2009 - 04:07 AM

Look, I know its going to be a tough 8 years for you bud.


Don't count yer presidential terms before they're hatched.

#41 AgeDefier

  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 0

Posted 22 January 2009 - 08:11 AM

I agree with OP, the inauguration (treated like a coronation) was obscenely expensive. This man is only a government official. He doesn't deserve to be treated like a King.

How ironic that today they had to re-do the inauguration. But this time they did it at no cost inside the White House, without the show, without the narrative for the masses.

What an obscene irony.

#42 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 22 January 2009 - 11:06 AM

Look, I know its going to be a tough 8 years for you bud.


Don't count yer presidential terms before they're hatched.

Its destiny... And how sweet it is.

#43 Prometheus

  • Guest
  • 592 posts
  • -3
  • Location:right behind you

Posted 22 January 2009 - 11:07 AM

I agree with OP, the inauguration (treated like a coronation) was obscenely expensive. This man is only a government official. He doesn't deserve to be treated like a King.

How ironic that today they had to re-do the inauguration. But this time they did it at no cost inside the White House, without the show, without the narrative for the masses.

What an obscene irony.


Obscene is what you call the last 8 years.

#44 Ben Simon

  • Guest
  • 352 posts
  • 3
  • Location:London

Posted 22 January 2009 - 12:40 PM

Obscene is what you call the last 8 years.


Why can't both be true?

#45 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 22 January 2009 - 02:27 PM

I agree with OP, the inauguration (treated like a coronation) was obscenely expensive. This man is only a government official. He doesn't deserve to be treated like a King.

If this inauguration were any different, or any more expensive than any other inauguration in recent memory, you might have a point. As it stands, you appear to be misinformed.

#46 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 60
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 22 January 2009 - 04:43 PM

Look, I know its going to be a tough 8 years for you bud.


Don't count yer presidential terms before they're hatched.

Its destiny... And how sweet it is.


Today is what, day 3 of the age of Obama ?
Lets talk about "sweet" when we get closer to the 4 year mark.

#47 AgeDefier

  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 0

Posted 22 January 2009 - 06:38 PM

I agree with OP, the inauguration (treated like a coronation) was obscenely expensive. This man is only a government official. He doesn't deserve to be treated like a King.

If this inauguration were any different, or any more expensive than any other inauguration in recent memory, you might have a point. As it stands, you appear to be misinformed.


It doesn't matter if it was the *most* or the *least* expensive. It was still a colossal waste of money and hypocritical.

Obscene is what you call the last 8 years.


No argument there. Both Democrat and Republican government officials/representatives are responsible.

#48 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 22 January 2009 - 07:14 PM

Look, I know its going to be a tough 8 years for you bud.


Don't count yer presidential terms before they're hatched.


I'd say Obama is one terrorist attack away from being a one term president. Let's face it, it if weren't for the stock market meltdown, McCain would be president. He had a commanding lead just a few months before election day.

I'd give Obama six months. If there is a terrorist attack domestically, I'd say we'd have a very interesting mid-term election. The Senate would be in play. The public would remember eight years of safety, remember Bush saying the eavesdropping program was necessary for safety, and the inaugural platitudes would seem insignificant. This is especially likely if the economy starts to return around. The public would say thank you very much, and then shift to Republicans to ensure their safety, just as they have for decades.

#49 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,090 posts
  • 237
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 22 January 2009 - 07:19 PM

Look, I know its going to be a tough 8 years for you bud.


Don't count yer presidential terms before they're hatched.


I'd say Obama is one terrorist attack away from being a one term president. Let's face it, it if weren't for the stock market meltdown, McCain would be president. He had a commanding lead just a few months before election day.

I'd give Obama six months. If there is a terrorist attack domestically, I'd say we'd have a very interesting mid-term election. The Senate would be in play. The public would remember eight years of safety, remember Bush saying the eavesdropping program was necessary for safety, and the inaugural platitudes would seem insignificant. This is especially likely if the economy starts to return around. The public would say thank you very much, and then shift to Republicans to ensure their safety, just as they have for decades.


Aside from sounding almost wistful for the idea I think you have your facts wrong here too. Bush was on his way to being a one term president until 9-11. After all it did happen under his watch and he did neglect the clear warnings that could have prevented it but Americans decided that in a time of crisis to stay with the leader they had instead the unknown leader.

I hope we are NOT attacked for any reason but if we are then it is just as likely that Obama would be reelected precisely BECAUSE of it.

BTW in the last election McCain never had a commanding lead and regardless of the economic meltdown (which did obviously demonstrate his inability in this respect) the numbers indicate he probably would have lost anyway.

#50 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 22 January 2009 - 07:48 PM

Look, I know its going to be a tough 8 years for you bud.


Don't count yer presidential terms before they're hatched.


I'd say Obama is one terrorist attack away from being a one term president. Let's face it, it if weren't for the stock market meltdown, McCain would be president. He had a commanding lead just a few months before election day.

I'd give Obama six months. If there is a terrorist attack domestically, I'd say we'd have a very interesting mid-term election. The Senate would be in play. The public would remember eight years of safety, remember Bush saying the eavesdropping program was necessary for safety, and the inaugural platitudes would seem insignificant. This is especially likely if the economy starts to return around. The public would say thank you very much, and then shift to Republicans to ensure their safety, just as they have for decades.


Aside from sounding almost wistful for the idea...


Some would be angered by that comment, but I'm not. It's the usual and customary character attack of the left, not unexpected. Feel free to pull more from the ole liberal playbook. It's so easy to learn too, like crying "rascist" in any conversation about race. LOL, so typical.

#51 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,090 posts
  • 237
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 22 January 2009 - 08:06 PM

Some would be angered by that comment, but I'm not. It's the usual and customary character attack of the left, not unexpected. Feel free to pull more from the ole liberal playbook. It's so easy to learn too, like crying "rascist" in any conversation about race. LOL, so typical.


You know occasionally enough the reason such things end up in your so called "play book" is because they work and they work because they are true.

Much of the debate has been racist regardless of whether the individuals involved are self aware enough to recognize it. And you do sound almost wistful for the idea of such an attack, the term in other respects is called schadenfreude .

All I have to do is list the last twenty titles of the threads you have started to demonstrate the validity of the assertion that you are at the very least seeking the experience of schadenfreude.

#52 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 22 January 2009 - 08:20 PM

Some would be angered by that comment, but I'm not. It's the usual and customary character attack of the left, not unexpected. Feel free to pull more from the ole liberal playbook. It's so easy to learn too, like crying "rascist" in any conversation about race. LOL, so typical.


You know occasionally enough the reason such things end up in your so called "play book" is because they work and they work because they are true.

Much of the debate has been racist regardless of whether the individuals involved are self aware enough to recognize it. And you do sound almost wistful for the idea of such an attack, the term in other respects is called schadenfreude .

All I have to do is list the last twenty titles of the threads you have started to demonstrate the validity of the assertion that you are at the very least seeking the experience of schadenfreude.


Ahhh, a *sophisticated* character attack from the left, the "coffee shop" variety.

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#53 Ben Simon

  • Guest
  • 352 posts
  • 3
  • Location:London

Posted 22 January 2009 - 09:54 PM

I agree with OP, the inauguration (treated like a coronation) was obscenely expensive. This man is only a government official. He doesn't deserve to be treated like a King.

If this inauguration were any different, or any more expensive than any other inauguration in recent memory, you might have a point. As it stands, you appear to be misinformed.


Non sequitur.

#54 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,090 posts
  • 237
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 22 January 2009 - 10:04 PM

Some would be angered by that comment, but I'm not. It's the usual and customary character attack of the left, not unexpected. Feel free to pull more from the ole liberal playbook. It's so easy to learn too, like crying "rascist" in any conversation about race. LOL, so typical.


You know occasionally enough the reason such things end up in your so called "play book" is because they work and they work because they are true.

Much of the debate has been racist regardless of whether the individuals involved are self aware enough to recognize it. And you do sound almost wistful for the idea of such an attack, the term in other respects is called schadenfreude .

All I have to do is list the last twenty titles of the threads you have started to demonstrate the validity of the assertion that you are at the very least seeking the experience of schadenfreude.


Ahhh, a *sophisticated* character attack from the left, the "coffee shop" variety.


Not particularly sophisticated and certainly not a character attack. Your character speaks for itself, avatar, attitude, opinions and all.

Actually you (and a few others here) have been in *attack mode* all along since before the election and even since. That is also demonstrated by your posts. Do you expect those that disagree with you to be afraid to confront you directly with the same kind of imagery, implication, and suggestion that you foment?

The problem is that you really believe you are facing cowards unwilling to stand toe to toe in a street fight against your bullying tactics.

You are too used to liberals. Not all who oppose your POV are liberals.

The difference is that I will stay on topic and play by the more responsible rules of discourse. No it is not character assassination and frankly it is not about you, nor me. It is about the issues you raised. You raised them and I responded. I am not interested in making this personal, you are taking it personally. I suggest you get over it.

The reason I prefer the more rigid rules of discourse in the regular forum is that it forces us all to stay on topic and not make it personal, a tactic all too commonly employed in the anarchic FSF to derail a topic.

You have brought up this topic and others, then when people presented multiple examples of why your facts were at best skewed you then cry personal foul. So again I say, it is not about you (or me), just address the issues. You have spent a consider amount of time engaging in what a good Republican would consider borderline treason in the manner of your treatment of the Presidential Office. You may not like the man but he is our President, please give him the respect the office deserves instead of continuous character assassination.

I am not attacking you nor willing to let you play your personal Gulf of Tonkin strategy and claim I attacked you as justification of your repeated attacks on me and others. You and I are not the issue, the topic of this thread is "Obscenely expensive inauguration!"

If you had said lavish I would have agreed with you. If you wanted to argue that some on the left should be outraged that more of the money was not directed at the poor I think you would have had a good argument but "Obscene"?

The definition of obscene is:

1: disgusting to the senses : repulsive
2 a: abhorrent to morality or virtue ; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity
b: containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage <obscene lyrics>
c: repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles <an obscene misuse of power>
d: so excessive as to be offensive <obscene wealth> <obscene waste>
synonyms see coarse


You are at best intending the more obscure usage of the word presented in c & d but ignoring intentionally the implications of the more common well known applications of the word. I doubt it's accidental, hence it is intentionally insulting of our President and this nation's highest office.

If you really didn't like the liberals behaving this way toward Bush and the Republicans why are you mimicking so closely their behavior? Why not at least attempt a higher standard of discourse?

I do know this.

I was not happy when Bush was elected but I sure as hell gave him much more the benefit of the doubt than you and others here are giving this man. I served in the military of this country proudly and honorably with his father as my Commander in Chief and I have a considerable amount of respect for the man. I have not spent any effort to attack this nation for its principles, only the hypocrisy of not living up to them at times. I am patriot that has before and will will stand again if called upon to serve this country.

#55 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 22 January 2009 - 10:13 PM

Lazarus, no amount of spinning will change the nature of the comment you made. It's pointless to address each and every 'excuse' you now make for having made the comment. If you hurry, you may have time to edit it out...

#56 Shepard

  • Guest, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 22 January 2009 - 10:30 PM

Ahhh, a *sophisticated* character attack from the left, the "coffee shop" variety.


Please, when you're throwing out bait, don't bitch when the fish bite.

#57 .fonclea.

  • Guest, F@H
  • 300 posts
  • 2
  • Location:none

Posted 22 January 2009 - 11:02 PM

I'd give Obama six months. If there is a terrorist attack domestically, I'd say we'd have a very interesting mid-term election. The Senate would be in play. The public would remember eight years of safety, remember Bush saying the eavesdropping program was necessary for safety, and the inaugural platitudes would seem insignificant. This is especially likely if the .....


8 years of safety ??? are you kiding ? It is probably because bush and his staff unederestimate the extremist you had some troubles.... after the death of masud bush did not move a finger thinking " Oh, it's just 15 hours by plain" and then 1 week after it was your turn.

Republicans are not safe :) they are insane with their moral, their guns, their ridiculous old fashioned symboles of a "glorious" america. :)

Spending all that money is not a good point, ok we are in crisis but 6 months is too short to change 8 years of mess :)

#58 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 23 January 2009 - 12:12 AM

I agree with OP, the inauguration (treated like a coronation) was obscenely expensive. This man is only a government official. He doesn't deserve to be treated like a King.

If this inauguration were any different, or any more expensive than any other inauguration in recent memory, you might have a point. As it stands, you appear to be misinformed.

Non sequitur.

How do you figure? Obama's inauguration cost about the same as Bush's, perhaps less. See my post above if you missed the debunking. AgeDefier's suggestion that he's being treated like a king is presumably linked to the misconception that this inauguration was significantly different than any other recent inauguration of an American President. If his point is that all American presidents are treated like kings, then, well, I wouldn't agree with that either. I am working under the assumption that AgeDefier considers this inauguration to be special, which it was not, other than people really cared about it.

#59 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 23 January 2009 - 12:18 AM

The title of this thread shows the hypocrisy of the Right. If Obama's inauguration was "obscenely" expensive, why were they not saying the same thing about Bush's last inauguration, which cost about the same amount? This thread started with claims that the left were hypocrites, based on cost calculations which counted the cost of security for Obama, but not for Bush. Now that this charge has been shown to be bullshit, there should be an apology from the Right. Who is going to step up? I won't hold my breath.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#60 AgeDefier

  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 0

Posted 23 January 2009 - 02:11 AM

The title of this thread shows the hypocrisy of the Right. If Obama's inauguration was "obscenely" expensive, why were they not saying the same thing about Bush's last inauguration, which cost about the same amount?

Although I don't consider myself on the "Right", fine, Bush's inauguration was obscenely expensive too.

This thread started with claims that the left were hypocrites, based on cost calculations which counted the cost of security for Obama, but not for Bush. Now that this charge has been shown to be bullshit, there should be an apology from the Right. Who is going to step up? I won't hold my breath.


Obama criticizes waste in Washington and says everybody makes sacrifices....then spends a massive amount of PUBLIC (our) money SELFISHLY (on himself) on something that could have been done for FREE (and was the next day) while we are on the edge of a Depression and the Federal Govt. is in record debt. With over a dozen parties (many open only to elites).

That seems hypocritical.

Or do you think profligate spending on an oath-taking ceremony for a public official is a wise way to spend public money?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users