| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| US Presidential Inauguration; January 20, 2005 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 19 2005, 05:34 PM (1,041 Views) | |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 20 2005, 01:27 PM Post #46 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Didn't he say he would retire when a Republican president was elected so a conservative judge could replace him? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Jan 20 2005, 01:45 PM Post #47 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Source? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 20 2005, 01:49 PM Post #48 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
I don't know, I just remember hearing that somewhere. If he isn't going to retire now, he must really like his job. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Jan 20 2005, 02:10 PM Post #49 |
|
Admiral
|
Seems alien to me to bestow such lavish celebration on an elected politician. Surely it just inflates their ego which really isnt a good thing for the person running the country. I mean fair enough the first time round I suppose, but why the second inauguration. The guy is already President, I dont see why you have to do it all again. A King or Queen only ever has one Coronation and a Prime Minister has to settle for a morning drive to the palace the day after the election to pick up the seals of office. If they are reelected they dont even get to do that, they just continue. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 20 2005, 02:12 PM Post #50 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
With all due respect ds, how do you feel about lavish celebrations for royalty? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Jan 20 2005, 02:23 PM Post #51 |
|
Admiral
|
The Royals though are not running the country so in my opinion that a quite different affair. Certainly our royal occasions are very lavish, more so that other European Royalty, but I would sooner the Queen be the reciever because even if it does go to her head what can she do? Not a lot. Our elected politicians on the otherhand tend to be full of their own importance anyway, I wouldnt want mine to have this kind of fanfare given to them. Humble them wherever possible and while you allow the comforts they need to do their job you dont go to far. TB gets to live in a town house which is too small for his family while HM QE2 is up on Constitution Hill in a Palace which is way way bigger than she is ever going to need, surrounded by several smaller palaces and houses. I like that arrangement. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Jan 20 2005, 02:32 PM Post #52 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response You do know that the President doesn't get the whole White House to live in, don't you? Sorry - hearing someone who supports a Queen complain about an innaguration amuses me. End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 20 2005, 02:35 PM Post #53 |
|
Time to put something here
|
We don’t have the luxury of separating our glamour from our elected leader. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 20 2005, 02:39 PM Post #54 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
If only we could.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Jan 20 2005, 02:40 PM Post #55 |
|
Admiral
|
Well put I think the sums up what I was getting at. I like the seperation. These kinds of things are envitably partiotic and it is easier to be patriotic about a neutral head of state than a partisan one IMO.
I'm not complaining about an inauguration, lets make that clear. If its something you do and want to keep doing then thats your perogative and I hope you keep putting on a good show. On your first point yes in the same way that the Queen doesnt really get the whole of Buckingham Palace to live in. Some of its open to the public, some of its used effectively as an office and a quite a bit is reserved for occassions of state. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 20 2005, 02:43 PM Post #56 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Maybe we should do like the Klingons and clone George Washington and call him the Emporer, as a figurehead without political power. Sorry, had a thought and it struck me funny. Let's hope it turns out better today. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Jan 20 2005, 03:01 PM Post #57 |
|
Time to put something here
|
I guess one can think of it like this (although in recent years people have not live up to it) their is a difference between the man the president and the office of the presidency. Much of the respect and glamour is for the office of president, and who ever is occupying that seat at the time gets the luxury of excepting it (a prick of the job). We don’t give Gorge W Bush a big white house on a hill, we give the president a Big white house on a hill, it just happens to be Gorge W Bush at this point in time, tomorrow it wont be any more it will be some one else. It shouldn’t inflate his ego because the house (and ect) aren’t his we are just letting him use them while he performs a function for us. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Jan 20 2005, 04:12 PM Post #58 |
|
Admiral
|
Your also giving over control of that office and the white house to a political party. Often people write things like "the democrats need to take back the white house in 2008" etc etc. The Court of St James on the other hand is not controlled by any political party at all, its politically neutral. Walter Bagehot summed up the situation best;
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Jan 20 2005, 04:18 PM Post #59 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
No, we don't give control over that office to a political party at all. The candidate WON in a duly-elected process. You could say he earned it. It happens every four years. Also, "taking back the White House" is nothing more than a figure of speech. Your system is different than ours, not better. Let it go. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Jan 20 2005, 04:19 PM Post #60 |
|
Admiral
|
AB, I didn't know then nor do I know now what the cost of Clinton's inauguration was. If it was anywhere near Bush's, I certainly would frown on it just the same. Why do you ASSUME I'd be hypocritical? :angry: We gave more because there was world-wide scorn not necessarily because we would have done so anyway. Maybe we would have and maybe we wouldn't have. We'll never know because the scorn followed and so did Bush's reaction. All I'm saying is it didn't take scorn to get other countries to contribute more IMMEDIATELY. I found this President's actions frankly embarrassing and he should be ashamed! Oh so now a different viewpoint from yours is "petty". Well I found your style of commentary here petty and quite unbecoming of a moderator! :angry: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


9:47 AM Jul 11