Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
US Presidential Inauguration; January 20, 2005
Topic Started: Jan 19 2005, 05:34 PM (1,041 Views)
Dr. Noah
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
UberAdmiral
The Sisko
Jan 20 2005, 12:27 PM
Didn't he say he would retire when a Republican president was elected so a conservative judge could replace him?

Source?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
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
Member Avatar
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
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
With all due respect ds, how do you feel about lavish celebrations for royalty?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
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
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
ds9074
Jan 20 2005, 07:23 PM
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.

Personal Response

You do know that the President doesn't get the whole White House to live in, don't you? :D

Sorry - hearing someone who supports a Queen complain about an innaguration amuses me.

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
We don’t have the luxury of separating our glamour from our elected leader.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
If only we could. :(
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Dandandat
Jan 20 2005, 07:35 PM
We don’t have the luxury of separating our glamour from our elected leader.

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.

Quote:
 
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.

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
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. :rotfl:

Sorry, had a thought and it struck me funny. Let's hope it turns out better today.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
ds9074
Jan 20 2005, 02:40 PM
Dandandat
Jan 20 2005, 07:35 PM
We don’t have the luxury of separating our glamour from our elected leader.

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 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
Member Avatar
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;

Quote:
 
No one can approach to an understanding of English institutions unless he divides them into two classes. In such institutions there are two parts. First, those which excite and preserve the reverence of the population, the dignified parts, if I may so call them; and, next, the efficient parts, those by which it, in fact, works and rules. Every institution must first win the loyalty and confidence of mankind and then employ that homage in the work of government.

The dignified parts of government are those which bring it force, which attract its motive power. The efficient parts only employ that power. If all subjects of the same government only thought of what was useful to them, the efficient members of the constitution would suffice and no impressive adjuncts would be needed. But it is not true that even the lower classes will be absorbed in the useful. The ruder sort of men will sacrifice all they hope for, all they have, themselves, for what is called an idea. The elements which excite the most easy reverence will be not the most useful, but the theatrical. It is the characteristic merit of the English constitution that its dignified parts are imposing and venerable, while its efficient part is simple and rather modern.

The efficient secret of the English constitution is the nearly complete fusion of the executive and legislative powers. The connecting link is the cabinet. This is a committee of the legislative body, in choosing which, indirectly, but not directly, the legislature is nearly omnipotent. The prime minister is chosen by the House of Commons and is the head of the efficient part of the constitution. The queen is only at the head of its dignified part.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ds9074
Jan 20 2005, 03:12 PM
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.

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
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 20 2005, 01:01 PM
What a pantload.

Did you whine about the cost of Clinton's second inaugural, which after inflation cost more than Bush's second? I'll bet not. I'll bet you didn't even think about it.

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:

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
As for the price tag on this inauguration, it gets a    from me too.  (Compare that to the initial $15 million that was pledged for Tsunami aid.  I can see where our priorities are...  )


I thought this incredibly petty. You don't know the details as to how tsunami aid was initially organized, so you are comparing apples to watermelons.

At first WE DID NOT KNOW THE DEGREE OF DEVASTATION of the tsunami. Freeing up immediate credit for those nations in need was the RIGHT thing to do. We knew that this wouldn't be a fraction of the sum total, which didn't include the day-to-day operations of an aircraft carrier group (about $10 million per day). Just because another nation offered more at first means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!! Get it? Do I have to paint a picture for you with lots of pretty colors? Stop this "making issues out of non-issues" crap.
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!

Quote:
 
No, I think you are being PETTY. PETTY! Move the f*** on and get over this. We live in the greatest nation on Earth and you lefties can only bitch and moan about how the end of the world is coming. IT ISN'T! Just cut it out.  :angry:
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 »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus