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 (1,039 Views)
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dandandat
Jan 20 2005, 03:34 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 20 2005, 04:26 PM
I didn't, and neither did the rest of the country, except for the ABB crowd. What did he do that was embarrassing? Not hand over the keys to the Treasury and say "help yourself"? Bull. YOU DO NOT KNOW what the plan was to deal with the disaster. 

I've noticed this behavior before... someone in the MSM creates a Bush "controversy" and you jump all over it without bothering to check the facts.

I thought the same thing when this made up issue first started to make the rounds. I believe 100% that if Bush did give a lot at the beginning we would have heard people complain that Bush was giving to much and how it was going to negatively effect our economy and how we where going to make our children pay for our generosity. If you look hard enough for anything you will find it – that includes fault.

The problem is, to the left, George Bush can do nothing right. He was selected but not elected, he's a moron, he's a liar, he's devious, he's Hitler, and the root of all evil.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Your not supposed to work against the policies of Government in the United States? Thats a basic freedom, to oppose Government not just in word but also in action.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
To SOME of the left you mean.

You really have to work on your overgeneralizing there.

"The left" has offered several solutions to many different problems, but many on "your side" don't think anything can be done to solve certain problems, and we shouldn't bother trying.

Look, not everyone on "the left" is as polarized as you think. There are some things that GWB has done that people on "the left" have supported believe it or not.

Personally, I support GWB's proposal regarding illegal aliens and work visas. Remember?

Don't say we ALWAYS criticize and NEVER offer solutions because you know that's not true.

And as far as working against the administrations policies, every administration has to deal with the other side of the political fence working against their policies. Ever wonder why it takes years to pass legislation?

And don't say it's only the Democrats that obstruct things, you know that's not true. If you must make such broad and generalizing statements, at least show something to back it up instead of making several vague references that may or may not be understood even IF they were true.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
The Sisko
Jan 20 2005, 04:54 PM
And as far as working against the administrations policies, every administration has to deal with the other side of the political fence working against their policies. Ever wonder why it takes years to pass legislation?

and you are ok with that or not ok with it?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
That's not the point. The point is, some people are making claims that only one side of the political fence is guilty of things both sides do. I wish someone other than me would call them on that.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 20 2005, 04:45 PM
The Sisko
Jan 20 2005, 03:30 PM

Contrary to your opinion, my opposition to the president's policies does not make me a danger to the country. 

If you work in opposition to those policies it sure is!!!

AB, will you clarify the statement you just made? People work in opposition to established polices on a daily basis. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean they or their opposition techniques are “a danger to the country.” (last part a sisko quote)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
ds9074
Jan 20 2005, 04:43 PM
Quote:
 
Don't these words bring a proud tear to your eye?


QUOTE ( Article. II. Section. 1. Clause 8)
Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."



honestly, no :lol: ;)

LOL! Well, I wouldn’t expect it would for you. :P
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 20 2005, 04:26 PM
No, your carping and whining is petty. I've noticed this behavior before... someone in the MSM creates a Bush "controversy" and you jump all over it without bothering to check the facts. I also find that petty, but amusing, "Captain Lefty."

As for being a moderator, I do not moderate this forum. My style of commentary is quite restrained over what I'd like to say to the crowd who needs to get over themselves and start being Americans again:realmad:

Lay off the patronizing insults! Disgree with me if you want to and I'll disagree with YOU if I want to. A difference of opinion doesn't mean I don't know the facts! :angry:

As for you being a moderator, what difference does it make whether you moderate this forum? The fact that you moderate any forum behooves you to maintain a certain level of conduct IMO. That's what I meant. Of course, I don't think it should take being a moderator for ANYONE to just do so anyway...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
ds9074
Jan 20 2005, 04:54 PM
Your not supposed to work against the policies of Government in the United States? Thats a basic freedom, to oppose Government not just in word but also in action.

Work against or petition the government to address grievences and protest, picket, make political speeches, newspaper editorials.

Civil disobedience is extreme (and illegal by definition) and should only be used in extreme circumstances when all else has failed. For instance, the courage of Rosa Parks in refusing to give up her seat to a white person. The government needed a wake up call.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dandandat
Jan 20 2005, 04:34 PM
I thought the same thing when this made up issue first started to make the rounds. I believe 100% that if Bush did give a lot at the beginning we would have heard people complain that Bush was giving to much and how it was going to negatively effect our economy and how we where going to make our children pay for our generosity. If you look hard enough for anything you will find it – that includes fault.

Please clarify. You thought the same thing about me or is this a generalized comment?

I don't go looking for faults. But if they're there, I don't go overlooking them either.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Administrative Response

:realmad: He without sin, Gentlemen, is free to throw the first stone ... :realmad:

24 has been valiantly trying to foster a good discussion here. Several others have contributed as well - sometimes disagreeing, but not being disagreeable with each other.

Since President Bush borrowed from President Lincoln today, I'm going to do so as well and paraphrase it.

Quote:
 
The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."


If you dislike how the leader of your party or its members are characterized by others, don't do it yourself to them or theirs.

If you don't want someone else to control how you phrase your comments, don't demand to control how others phrase theirs.

If you don't want someone to assume they know what your leader is thinking, don't assume you know what theirs is thinking.

If you don't like implications to be made about you, don't make implications about others.

Truth be told all Democrats don't agree with each other and all Republicans don't agree with each other ... or do Jews, Mormons or Catholics .... or Texans, Floridians or Washingtonians ... or all Europeans, Americans or Asians. If one Democrat can't agree with another Democrat on everything, there's no reason to think all people from Missouri are going to agree with all people from New York on anything, let alone everything.

You have a right to think whatever you want - but so does the other guy.

I personally would like to get back to discussing the Inaguration (especially given 24's efforts to do so), but you are free to discuss whatever you want - with more civility.

End of Adminstrative Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator

It looked to me like the inaugaration went pretty well. From the tone of
Georgio's speech it sounds like he intends to be more than just a 'lame duck'
president for the next term.

I was pleased to see John Kerry in attendance, as well as other key democrats.

Although merely a symbolic ritual, an important one I suppose for the American
psyche.

And my babe Condi looked nice.... :yes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
mimi
Member Avatar
Cadet 3rd Year
Hi, this post motivated me to actually register..I've been lurking for a while now.

Anyway..forget the link to this, but here is information comparing Clinton & Bush's inaguration.


Quote:
 
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


Reuters news agency this week headlined a story, "Critics Say Bush Inaugural Too Lavish for Wartime," then quoted one "critic," Rep. Anthony Weiner, New York Democrat, who complained that the estimated $40 million for the Bush-Cheney inauguration is extravagant.
The Associated Press moved a story that asked, "With that kind of money, what could you buy?" The answer, the wire service said: "200 armored Humvees ... vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children ... and a down payment on the nation's deficit."


But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent.
According to the Consumer Price Index, $42 million in 1997 is the equivalent of $49.5 in 2004. .


Also, I was listening to c-span after the inauguration speech, and they were talking with the general manager for the D.C. Convention Center. He stated that the inaugeration brought in 100 million dollars in revenue for D.C., this must be taken into consideration when reviewing actual costs vs benefits.



Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
A new poster, and a Calvin fan!

Welcome to Sistertrek, Mimi!

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
mimi
Member Avatar
Cadet 3rd Year
thanks!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus