The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Discuss Presidential or Prime Minister elections for all countries here.
double helix
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by double helix »

150 thousand dollars so far. Who's footing the bill, why the American people of course. 44 thousand has been raised via donations and the rest sits squarely on the backs of the American tax payer.

On top of all that Barrak bought Michel a 33 thousand dollar ring for the Inauguration, just for helping him out with the campaign. Gee. How much does a Junior U.S Senetor make anyway.

1 billion for an economic bailout program. Who's going to pay for that? Not China, they have there own economic issues and are having difficulty buying up other nations debt. Not anyone but the American tax payer. You Bet.

Already, Obama has reneged on his most prominent campaign promises. No changes to capital gains taxes so the rich get to keep getting their tax breaks.

A continuation of Bushes tax rebate program essentially, Bushes education program essentially, Bushes bail out for big business and so forth.

Really, all Obama is doing is saying hey folks, I got into the white house and guess what, I really can't do any of what I promised so lets get government involved in your lives in a big way and everyone below $250,000 in income can be on government programs and welfare. We can build up the countries infastructure and provide jobs for the unemployed while we tax the employed middle class TO DEATH to pay for it. Yeah! and when the middle class falls into the unemployed ranks we can open soup kitchens with the rotting food the farmers can't sell and pay the unemployed to dole it out while we tax the upper middle class TO DEATH to pay for it. Yeah. Sounds good to me and Michel, but we'll as her mama just to be on the safe side.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not an Obama hater. I hope he does raise this country out of the slump we are in and restore our nation to the status it once had in this world. I just can't imagin how he's going to do that TAXING the very people he promised not to tax while favoring the very people he promised to tax while instituing programs that enable the poor to stay poor and the middle class to get poorer while we all have to live off of the government.

And another thing, whats he going to do with all the solders coming back from Iraq when shuts down the war? What's he going to do with alll the insergents he releases from Guantanamo when they start blowing up dignitaries in Iraq and the U.S.?

33 thousand dollars could go a long way towords boosting some small local enconomic areas. Sitting on his wifes finger it ain't doing a whole lot of good for anyone.

150 thousand could do even more.

Pehaps he plans of building the economy by training and employing more personal secuity personel. 50 thousand proly ain't enough.
Mustang
Posts: 23031
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:39 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Mustang »

33 thousand dollars could go a long way towords boosting some small local enconomic areas. Sitting on his wifes finger it ain't doing a whole lot of good for anyone


The heck it isn't. It's a gift to his wife which most likely came out of his own salary. It's making her happy that he thinks so much of her and the support that she has shown him.

I'd do the same thing, in a heartbeat, for my wife too! Would you?
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by chonsigirl »

I thought the same thing-nice of him to give her a pretty ring. She deserves it. It will come out of his pocket, not ours.

Inaugurations alwas cost money, that is part of the deal. And since he was elected, he deserves it. (and yes, I didn't vote for him, but he was elected, so he needs to be sworn in properly, it always costs money!)

Seems to me I read somewhere he was going to ride in a used carriage-that must save the taxpayers some loot......(I heard he was going to ride in the Lincoln carriage, is that true?)
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Same beef here. 'Prescott' buys a 2nd jaguar car..... press report it...... country up in arms it's coming out of their taxs.

Good luck to all the Obama family.

Our schools are getting all the kids to watch. It's the nearest thing America is going to get to a Royal Family since the Kennedy's.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
double helix
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by double helix »

Mustang;1113765 wrote: The heck it isn't. It's a gift to his wife which most likely came out of his own salary. It's making her happy that he thinks so much of her and the support that she has shown him.

I'd do the same thing, in a heartbeat, for my wife too! Would you? Good lord man, I barely make fortythou a year. Besides, uhem, I'm female and personally I think jewelry is a misselaneous expense. I would much rather invest that kind of money in my home or family not on a rock on my finger that most likely depreciated as soon as I bought it.
double helix
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by double helix »

chonsigirl;1113770 wrote: I thought the same thing-nice of him to give her a pretty ring. She deserves it. It will come out of his pocket, not ours.

Inaugurations alwas cost money, that is part of the deal. And since he was elected, he deserves it. (and yes, I didn't vote for him, but he was elected, so he needs to be sworn in properly, it always costs money!)

Seems to me I read somewhere he was going to ride in a used carriage-that must save the taxpayers some loot......(I heard he was going to ride in the Lincoln carriage, is that true?) Yes, a priceless antique carriage used by Lincoln which had to be RESTORED at a cost of 30 or 40 thousand dollars just so he could ride in it.

Jeez louise, I'm gald all of you are doing so well financially that you and poo poo this extravigance when a full half of the country or better are struggling to get by.

How much does a Jounior Senetor make, I ask once again? NOT THAT FREAKING MUCH FOLKS. Nor does a President make that much, maybe 150 thou a year.
User avatar
chonsigirl
Posts: 33631
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by chonsigirl »

I think a President makes $400,000 a year, but it might be higher.

As a historian, I am glad the carriage was refurbished. Otherwise, it might have slowly fallen apart over the years.

Maybe he will pay for it, out of the money HBO paid him for the concert. I wonder where that money will end up.........

Oh, I struggle too, with two jobs and I don't know how I will pay the electric bill next month. It is bad times, and we shall just do our best to get through it.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Oscar Namechange »

double helix;1113807 wrote: Yes, a priceless antique carriage used by Lincoln which had to be RESTORED at a cost of 30 or 40 thousand dollars just so he could ride in it.

Jeez louise, I'm gald all of you are doing so well financially that you and poo poo this extravigance when a full half of the country or better are struggling to get by.

How much does a Jounior Senetor make, I ask once again? NOT THAT FREAKING MUCH FOLKS. Nor does a President make that much, maybe 150 thou a year.


Darling..... If your man put a ring like that on your finger and could afford to do so you'd be telling folk to mind their own business.

Sour grapes perhaps??
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
double helix
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by double helix »

oscar;1113786 wrote: Same beef here. 'Prescott' buys a 2nd jaguar car..... press report it...... country up in arms it's coming out of their taxs.

Good luck to all the Obama family.

Our schools are getting all the kids to watch. It's the nearest thing America is going to get to a Royal Family since the Kennedy's.
It is a momentous event. And how fitting the it is Martin Luther Kings day today. He had a dream that one day the black man would stand side by side with the white man. As far as I knew that has been happening for the last forty years of so, at least in my neck of the woods.

Good lord. And years after Kennedy was assassinated it came out that he was loaded on speed and pain shots most of the time he was in office. He had sex parties in the freaking white house while in office and nearly pushed this country into war while on a three day amphetamine bender.

Yeah, He was a great president as long as we didn't know what was really going on. He was a great leader him and Jackie, the king and queen of America.

None of you find a stark contrast in what Obama campagned on, HELPING THE LITTLE PEOPLE of the country, and the extravigance of his office even before he is installed in it? I can't beleive that no one can see past this wonderful imiage of Obama the Savior to the self-rightousness in the man. Are you telling me that he is entitled to spend laveshly while another 3000 people have just lost their jobs, on top of the 7000 that lost their jobs last week and the ones on the verge of loosing theirs next week?

What would Martin Luther King say to all of this spending on the Obamanator.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Oscar Namechange »

double helix;1113822 wrote: It is a momentous event. And how fitting the it is Martin Luther Kings day today. He had a dream that one day the black man would stand side by side with the white man. As far as I knew that has been happening for the last forty years of so, at least in my neck of the woods.

Good lord. And years after Kennedy was assassinated it came out that he was loaded on speed and pain shots most of the time he was in office. He had sex parties in the freaking white house while in office and nearly pushed this country into war while on a three day amphetamine bender.

Yeah, He was a great president as long as we didn't know what was really going on. He was a great leader him and Jackie, the king and queen of America.

None of you find a stark contrast in what Obama campagned on, HELPING THE LITTLE PEOPLE of the country, and the extravigance of his office even before he is installed in it? I can't beleive that no one can see past this wonderful imiage of Obama the Savior to the self-rightousness in the man. Are you telling me that he is entitled to spend laveshly while another 3000 people have just lost their jobs, on top of the 7000 that lost their jobs last week and the ones on the verge of loosing theirs next week?

What would Martin Luther King say to all of this spending on the Obamanator.


I actually think Obama is the worst thing that has ever happened to America and the world. His pledge to forge 'special relationships' with Iran and mostly muslim countries is going to put the entire West at risk. However, this is not a political thread.

Dispite the fact that i believe there is going to be many dissapointed Americans when 'The Dream' does not come to fruition, I don't begrudge him putting a ring on the finger of his lovely wife.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Mustang
Posts: 23031
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:39 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Mustang »

double helix;1113798 wrote: Good lord man, I barely make fortythou a year. Besides, uhem, I'm female and personally I think jewelry is a misselaneous expense. I would much rather invest that kind of money in my home or family not on a rock on my finger that most likely depreciated as soon as I bought it.


Sorry about mistaking you for a male, double helix.

But I still stand by what I said....in a heartbeat, my wife would be wearing a rock on her finger. She's worth every penny of it!
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Mustang;1113830 wrote: Sorry about mistaking you for a male, double helix.

But I still stand by what I said....in a heartbeat, my wife would be wearing a rock on her finger. She's worth every penny of it!


So would any man Mustang. Nice to see Obama doing that and not caring who be-grudged him or her the ability to do it.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Mustang
Posts: 23031
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:39 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Mustang »

oscar;1113834 wrote: So would any man Mustang. Nice to see Obama doing that and not caring who be-grudged him or her the ability to do it.


Oscar, his personal salary afforded him the ability of such a luxury item for his wife. It's no different then a person going out and buying a new vehicle and paying cash for it.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Mustang;1113835 wrote: Oscar, his personal salary afforded him the ability of such a luxury item for his wife. It's no different then a person going out and buying a new vehicle and paying cash for it.


That's exactly why in an earlier post i mentioned one of our politicians, John Prescott' who dared buy himself a 2nd Jaguar car out of his salery. The countries tax payers come out in force to protest and the guy gets slated in the press.

I don't care if Obama buys half the gold reserve for Michelle. if it's out of his salery.... good luck to them.

here we have the Royal family kept at the expense of the tax payer and it becomes an equally sore point if one member is seen sporting a new rolex for eg. Out come the tax payers with their venom.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
double helix
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by double helix »

JAB;1113843 wrote: Try $150 million; not thousand.

Inauguration cost could top $150 million - Jan. 16, 2009 You know I started to write million but didn't want to be called on it later and be wrong. Thanks Jab.
User avatar
Lon
Posts: 9476
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 11:38 pm

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Lon »

double helix;1113753 wrote: 150 thousand dollars so far. Who's footing the bill, why the American people of course. 44 thousand has been raised via donations and the rest sits squarely on the backs of the American tax payer.



On top of all that Barrak bought Michel a 33 thousand dollar ring for the Inauguration, just for helping him out with the campaign. Gee. How much does a Junior U.S Senetor make anyway.



1 billion for an economic bailout program. Who's going to pay for that? Not China, they have there own economic issues and are having difficulty buying up other nations debt. Not anyone but the American tax payer. You Bet.



Already, Obama has reneged on his most prominent campaign promises. No changes to capital gains taxes so the rich get to keep getting their tax breaks.

A continuation of Bushes tax rebate program essentially, Bushes education program essentially, Bushes bail out for big business and so forth.



Really, all Obama is doing is saying hey folks, I got into the white house and guess what, I really can't do any of what I promised so lets get government involved in your lives in a big way and everyone below $250,000 in income can be on government programs and welfare. We can build up the countries infastructure and provide jobs for the unemployed while we tax the employed middle class TO DEATH to pay for it. Yeah! and when the middle class falls into the unemployed ranks we can open soup kitchens with the rotting food the farmers can't sell and pay the unemployed to dole it out while we tax the upper middle class TO DEATH to pay for it. Yeah. Sounds good to me and Michel, but we'll as her mama just to be on the safe side.



Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not an Obama hater. I hope he does raise this country out of the slump we are in and restore our nation to the status it once had in this world. I just can't imagin how he's going to do that TAXING the very people he promised not to tax while favoring the very people he promised to tax while instituing programs that enable the poor to stay poor and the middle class to get poorer while we all have to live off of the government.



And another thing, whats he going to do with all the solders coming back from Iraq when shuts down the war? What's he going to do with alll the insergents he releases from Guantanamo when they start blowing up dignitaries in Iraq and the U.S.?



33 thousand dollars could go a long way towords boosting some small local enconomic areas. Sitting on his wifes finger it ain't doing a whole lot of good for anyone.



150 thousand could do even more.



Pehaps he plans of building the economy by training and employing more personal secuity personel. 50 thousand proly ain't enough.


Your critisisms are a bit petty and premature at this point in time.
double helix
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by double helix »

oscar;1113837 wrote: That's exactly why in an earlier post i mentioned one of our politicians, John Prescott' who dared buy himself a 2nd Jaguar car out of his salery. The countries tax payers come out in force to protest and the guy gets slated in the press.

I don't care if Obama buys half the gold reserve for Michelle. if it's out of his salery.... good luck to them.

here we have the Royal family kept at the expense of the tax payer and it becomes an equally sore point if one member is seen sporting a new rolex for eg. Out come the tax payers with their venom.


How do you know it was out of his salary Oscar? If Obama has that kind of money to spend AFTER waging the most expensive political campaign in history on a Junior Senators income then there truly is something wrong with this picture.

This man doesn't live in a tiny little house in some middle class suburb. He has expenses and his wife quit working over a year ago so WHERE did he get that kind of money to by that big of a rock for his wife?

Not from his salary. Jounior Senators don't make that kind of money.

Most likely he used some of the money the citizens of the U.S. DONATED for his political ambitions. Most likely this will come out sometime after his first term of last term as president. Worst, he got the money from the people who bought him the white house. Worst, he bought the ring on the sly and it wasn't supposed to become open knowladge. Some reporter caught sight of it and did some investigation. Notice tomorrow, no new ring on Micheles finger.

I know, Savior Obama can do no wrong. All bow now to Obama "THE ONE" all the world has been waiting for.

And, fellas, what part of I'm a woman and I wouldn't think that highly of getting a 33 thousand dollar ring didn't you catch onto! Don't you boys know its not how much you spend on us that shows how much you love us. That, boys , is the easy way out of your obligations. No effort there. Not much meaning either.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Lon;1113846 wrote: Your critisisms are a bit petty and premature at this point in time.


Well said as usual Lon.

If anyone has a beef about the cost of Obama's Inaugaration, they should look to Britain and The Royal Family. We have coronations, state funerals, opening of Parliment etc etc regually. Even when Her Maj goes to the races, she arrives in a horse drawn carraige with all the regalia. It is heritage.

Obama is setting a standard for heritage. The whole world will be watching him give his Inaguaration speech. That is something for America to be proud of and for the children of America to look back on.

This is not your run of the mill Inaugaration. If it were Bush taking the 2nd office, there would be no interest in what it costs. Obama has made history by becoming the first black man in the white house and he rightly deserves a ceromony that will befit that momentuous occassion in the world not just America. It is a one off that is hardly likely to be repeated in decades, so why begrudge the cost?

We have enough problems here funding the 2012 Olympics. Any idea of how much that one's costing the British Tax Payer?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Oscar Namechange »

double helix;1113852 wrote: How do you know it was out of his salary Oscar? If Obama has that kind of money to spend AFTER waging the most expensive political campaign in history on a Junior Senators income then there truly is something wrong with this picture.

This man doesn't live in a tiny little house in some middle class suburb. He has expenses and his wife quit working over a year ago so WHERE did he get that kind of money to by that big of a rock for his wife?

Not from his salary. Jounior Senators don't make that kind of money.

Most likely he used some of the money the citizens of the U.S. DONATED for his political ambitions. Most likely this will come out sometime after his first term of last term as president. Worst, he got the money from the people who bought him the white house. Worst, he bought the ring on the sly and it wasn't supposed to become open knowladge. Some reporter caught sight of it and did some investigation. Notice tomorrow, no new ring on Micheles finger.

I know, Savior Obama can do no wrong. All bow now to Obama "THE ONE" all the world has been waiting for.

Do you actually read all the posts? If you go back, you will see that i have said i personally think Obama is the worst thing to happen to America and the world.

However. Obama has not been working as a Senator on thin air. he would have had a salary the same as any politician has a salery.

Saviour Obama can do plenty wrong and i'm waiting for the bubble to burst. It's actually the first time to my knowledge that the British Foriegn Office has had urgent talks on the incoming President-Elect so please don't assume we think he can do no wrong.

I too became hacked off during the campaign trail to hear the Obama slogan of 'We are the one's we have been waiting for'.

And, fellas, what part of I'm a woman and I wouldn't think that highly of getting a 33 thousand dollar ring didn't you catch onto! Don't you boys know its not how much you spend on us that shows how much you love us. That, boys , is the easy way out of your obligations. No effort there. Not much meaning either.


Do you actually read all the posts? If you go back, you will see that i have said i personally think Obama is the worst thing to happen to America and the world.

However. Obama has not been working as a Senator on thin air. he would have had a salary the same as any politician has a salery.

Saviour Obama can do plenty wrong and i'm waiting for the bubble to burst. It's actually the first time to my knowledge that the British Foriegn Office has had urgent talks on the incoming President-Elect so please don't assume we think he can do no wrong.

I too became hacked off during the campaign trail to hear the Obama slogan of 'We are the one's we have been waiting for'.

If any man has the salary to warrant it, they will put a rock on their wife's finger. You only have to look at up and coming football stars to see the first thing they buy when they make the big time.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
double helix
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by double helix »

oscar;1113855 wrote: Well said as usual Lon.

If anyone has a beef about the cost of Obama's Inaugaration, they should look to Britain and The Royal Family. We have coronations, state funerals, opening of Parliment etc etc regually. Even when Her Maj goes to the races, she arrives in a horse drawn carraige with all the regalia. It is heritage.

Obama is setting a standard for heritage. The whole world will be watching him give his Inaguaration speech. That is something for America to be proud of and for the children of America to look back on.

This is not your run of the mill Inaugaration. If it were Bush taking the 2nd office, there would be no interest in what it costs. Obama has made history by becoming the first black man in the white house and he rightly deserves a ceromony that will befit that momentuous occassion in the world not just America. It is a one off that is hardly likely to be repeated in decades, so why begrudge the cost?

We have enough problems here funding the 2012 Olympics. Any idea of how much that one's costing the British Tax Payer?


Look, Bush didn't spend a quarter of what Obama is. Not on his first, nor his second inaguation. And Bush did pretty much what he promised despite having 911 to deal with. He made mistakes which he admits to.

I don't know how your folk deal with the Royal family spending such money when your own countrymen are economically strapped. Over here ELECTED officials are supposed to be WORKING for the people not showing off how much they can spend on themselves. Thats why its such an outrage. People are living on the street, starving, children are starving and this man feels its ok to spend OUR money on himself. History making or no, its an outrage.

As for my criticisms being premature, we'll see. So far Obama has been disdainfully extravagant and presumptuous in the face of our economic melt down.

So far, he's not even officially in office and he has already gone back on nearly every primary campaign promise he made.

Leadership, there are five things a great leader must do in order to lead effectively.

Be honest, have ethics and integrity, be competent and keep his promises. So far Obama has put a question mark on everyone of these five principles.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Oscar Namechange »

double helix;1113863 wrote: Look, Bush didn't spend a quarter of what Obama is. Not on his first, nor his second inaguation. And Bush did pretty much what he promised despite having 911 to deal with. He made mistakes which he admits to.

I don't know how your folk deal with the Royal family spending such money when your own countrymen are economically strapped. Over here ELECTED officials are supposed to be WORKING for the people not showing off how much they can spend on themselves. Thats why its such an outrage. People are living on the street, starving, children are starving and this man feels its ok to spend OUR money on himself. History making or no, its an outrage.

As for my criticisms being premature, we'll see. So far Obama has been disdainfully extravagant and presumptuous in the face of our economic melt down.

So far, he's not even officially in office and he has already gone back on nearly every primary campaign promise he made.

Leadership, there are five things a great leader must do in order to lead effectively.

Be honest, have ethics and integrity, be competent and keep his promises. So far Obama has put a question mark on everyone of these five principles.Bush has wasted trillions of your tax paying citizens money funding an illegal war in Iraq and Afghaistan and funding the Israeli government and it's military.

Bush allowed The banks to totally control your country and drove your country into massive debt. The debt to China alone is trillions. You will be working for many years to come just paying that lot back and that's provided Obama doesn't have to go for bail out again to pay for the past 8 years farcical administration.

You talk of a great leader having honesty, ethics and integrity.

You have a history of womanising Presidents, crooked Presidents (Nixon) and Bush and Bush senior who have no ethics.

It ios the past 8 years of the Bush Administration you need to look to for your economic meltdown and not begrudge America one day of being in the Limelight in a favourable fashion to the rest of the world.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
double helix
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by double helix »

oscar;1113873 wrote: Bush has wasted trillions of your tax paying citizens money funding an illegal war in Iraq and Afghaistan and funding the Israeli government and it's military.

Bush allowed The banks to totally control your country and drove your country into massive debt. The debt to China alone is trillions. You will be working for many years to come just paying that lot back and that's provided Obama doesn't have to go for bail out again to pay for the past 8 years farcical administration.

You talk of a great leader having honesty, ethics and integrity.

You have a history of womanising Presidents, crooked Presidents (Nixon) and Bush and Bush senior who have no ethics.

It ios the past 8 years of the Bush Administration you need to look to for your economic meltdown and not begrudge America one day of being in the Limelight in a favourable fashion to the rest of the world.


Man, blame Bush all you want. "Past eight years of the Bush Administration " is just so much media retoric. The people wanted that war. Go back and look at the polls right after 9-11. Go back and look at Bush's approval rating. Illigal war my ass. Bad decisions were made early in the conflict, sure. Blame whoever you want.

The truth is the economy was stagnant and on the verge of spreling down when Bush took office. Why else would he campaign on TAX CUTS and why else would the feds cut the intrest rate weeks after he took office. Clinton was too busy rubbing cigars in places he shoudn't have been and didn't take care of the country. He handed off democratic bad decisions with Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac to Bush. But no one wants to look at that. Bush was hit with bigger problems the first four years and didn't pay attention to the big bankers. True. He admits that.

So do you really think Obama's plans of a seven billion dollar bail out for our economy is the way to go? Or is it just more bad money tossed after bad money?

And Oscar, 2012 is supposed to be the end of the world. Sorry bout that olympic thing.:wah:
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Oscar Namechange »

double helix;1113882 wrote: Man, blame Bush all you want. "Past eight years of the Bush Administration " is just so much media retoric. The people wanted that war. Go back and look at the polls right after 9-11. Go back and look at Bush's approval rating. Illigal war my ass. Bad decisions were made early in the conflict, sure. Blame whoever you want.

The truth is the economy was stagnant and on the verge of spreling down when Bush took office. Why else would he campaign on TAX CUTS and why else would the feds cut the intrest rate weeks after he took office. Clinton was too busy rubbing cigars in places he shoudn't have been and didn't take care of the country. He handed off democratic bad decisions with Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac to Bush. But no one wants to look at that. Bush was hit with bigger problems the first four years and didn't pay attention to the big bankers. True. He admits that.

So do you really think Obama's plans of a seven billion dollar bail out for our economy is the way to go? Or is it just more bad money tossed after bad money?

And Oscar, 2012 is supposed to be the end of the world. Sorry bout that olympic thing.:wah:


The Bush Administration and the illegal war in Iraq cost Mccain the election.

I suggest you also do some research into 9/11. The pilots in the planes were Saudi not Iraqui. There was no reason to invade Iraq other than your President carrying out un-finished business of his fathers. There was no viable means to invade Iraq. Al-Qaeda is a network of islamic extremists that exist in every Eastern Country not just in Iraq. Sadam did not have the military capability of being any threat to America. It was actually America who funded Iraq during the Iraq wars. Bush's first demand after 9/11 was to Afghanistan to hand over Bin Laden. Where does Iraq come into that?

If you research your own financial history, you will find that Clinton was the greatest economist your country ever had yet you seem to prefer to resort to tacky comments about cigars.

If Obama doesn't bail you out, your looking at the deepest depression your country has ever seen.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
double helix
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by double helix »

oscar;1113901 wrote: The Bush Administration and the illegal war in Iraq cost Mccain the election.

I suggest you also do some research into 9/11. The pilots in the planes were Saudi not Iraqui. There was no reason to invade Iraq other than your President carrying out un-finished business of his fathers. There was no viable means to invade Iraq. Al-Qaeda is a network of islamic extremists that exist in every Eastern Country not just in Iraq. Sadam did not have the military capability of being any threat to America. It was actually America who funded Iraq during the Iraq wars. Bush's first demand after 9/11 was to Afghanistan to hand over Bin Laden. Where does Iraq come into that?

If you research your own financial history, you will find that Clinton was the greatest economist your country ever had yet you seem to prefer to resort to tacky comments about cigars.

If Obama doesn't bail you out, your looking at the deepest depression your country has ever seen.
You got that right, about the depression. Clinton was an ass. He feathered his own nest. Always has, always will. Any president who sits in front of the american people and OUTRIGHT LIES about his moral behavior puts into question EVERY thing he has ever done while in service to his people. Greatest economist. :yh_rotfl Yes, he came out of his presidency very nicely well off. Lots of lucritive deals made with many foreign countires for after he left office. Go back before he took office. He had an easy ride, glided right in and sailed on the crest.

Tacky comments? The man was tacky, amoral and shameful.

Yes, lets hope Obama does better.

Bush, as bad as his run was was at the very least a good man who made the wrong decisions.

Oscar, left a message in you profile. you in box is full. later.
mikeinie
Posts: 3130
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:43 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by mikeinie »

double helix;1113753 wrote: 150 thousand dollars so far. Who's footing the bill, why the American people of course. 44 thousand has been raised via donations and the rest sits squarely on the backs of the American tax payer.

On top of all that Barrak bought Michel a 33 thousand dollar ring for the Inauguration, just for helping him out with the campaign. Gee. How much does a Junior U.S Senetor make anyway.

1 billion for an economic bailout program. Who's going to pay for that? Not China, they have there own economic issues and are having difficulty buying up other nations debt. Not anyone but the American tax payer. You Bet.

Already, Obama has reneged on his most prominent campaign promises. No changes to capital gains taxes so the rich get to keep getting their tax breaks.

A continuation of Bushes tax rebate program essentially, Bushes education program essentially, Bushes bail out for big business and so forth.

Really, all Obama is doing is saying hey folks, I got into the white house and guess what, I really can't do any of what I promised so lets get government involved in your lives in a big way and everyone below $250,000 in income can be on government programs and welfare. We can build up the countries infastructure and provide jobs for the unemployed while we tax the employed middle class TO DEATH to pay for it. Yeah! and when the middle class falls into the unemployed ranks we can open soup kitchens with the rotting food the farmers can't sell and pay the unemployed to dole it out while we tax the upper middle class TO DEATH to pay for it. Yeah. Sounds good to me and Michel, but we'll as her mama just to be on the safe side.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not an Obama hater. I hope he does raise this country out of the slump we are in and restore our nation to the status it once had in this world. I just can't imagin how he's going to do that TAXING the very people he promised not to tax while favoring the very people he promised to tax while instituing programs that enable the poor to stay poor and the middle class to get poorer while we all have to live off of the government.

And another thing, whats he going to do with all the solders coming back from Iraq when shuts down the war? What's he going to do with alll the insergents he releases from Guantanamo when they start blowing up dignitaries in Iraq and the U.S.?

33 thousand dollars could go a long way towords boosting some small local enconomic areas. Sitting on his wifes finger it ain't doing a whole lot of good for anyone.

150 thousand could do even more.

Pehaps he plans of building the economy by training and employing more personal secuity personel. 50 thousand proly ain't enough.


Come on, how much has been spent on the war? How much have the banks screwed you for? How many jobs have been lost?

Sometime you just need to party. There are about 4,000,000 people going to the inauguration, your 150,000 works out to be about 37 cents each.

America and the world, for once in a very long time, is in a good mood. Just enjoy the party. Start fighting over the politics tomorrow.
User avatar
Raven
Posts: 4069
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 5:21 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Raven »

'And another thing, whats he going to do with all the solders coming back from Iraq when shuts down the war? What's he going to do with alll the insergents he releases from Guantanamo when they start blowing up dignitaries in Iraq and the U.S.?'



He's trying to send them all here.:thinking:
~Quoth the Raven, Nevermore!~
User avatar
Kindle
Posts: 7090
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:07 pm

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Kindle »

double helix;1113753 wrote: 150 thousand dollars so far. Who's footing the bill, why the American people of course. 44 thousand has been raised via donations and the rest sits squarely on the backs of the American tax payer.

On top of all that Barrak bought Michel a 33 thousand dollar ring for the Inauguration, just for helping him out with the campaign. Gee. How much does a Junior U.S Senetor make anyway.

1 billion for an economic bailout program. Who's going to pay for that? Not China, they have there own economic issues and are having difficulty buying up other nations debt. Not anyone but the American tax payer. You Bet.

Already, Obama has reneged on his most prominent campaign promises. No changes to capital gains taxes so the rich get to keep getting their tax breaks.

A continuation of Bushes tax rebate program essentially, Bushes education program essentially, Bushes bail out for big business and so forth.

Really, all Obama is doing is saying hey folks, I got into the white house and guess what, I really can't do any of what I promised so lets get government involved in your lives in a big way and everyone below $250,000 in income can be on government programs and welfare. We can build up the countries infastructure and provide jobs for the unemployed while we tax the employed middle class TO DEATH to pay for it. Yeah! and when the middle class falls into the unemployed ranks we can open soup kitchens with the rotting food the farmers can't sell and pay the unemployed to dole it out while we tax the upper middle class TO DEATH to pay for it. Yeah. Sounds good to me and Michel, but we'll as her mama just to be on the safe side.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not an Obama hater. I hope he does raise this country out of the slump we are in and restore our nation to the status it once had in this world. I just can't imagin how he's going to do that TAXING the very people he promised not to tax while favoring the very people he promised to tax while instituing programs that enable the poor to stay poor and the middle class to get poorer while we all have to live off of the government.

And another thing, whats he going to do with all the solders coming back from Iraq when shuts down the war? What's he going to do with alll the insergents he releases from Guantanamo when they start blowing up dignitaries in Iraq and the U.S.?

33 thousand dollars could go a long way towords boosting some small local enconomic areas. Sitting on his wifes finger it ain't doing a whole lot of good for anyone.

150 thousand could do even more.

Pehaps he plans of building the economy by training and employing more personal secuity personel. 50 thousand proly ain't enough.


Why is it that you should get to decide how Obama spends his money? He has no obligation to turn his money over to bailing out, or starting up, another person's business.

How would you react if someone told you that your spending was not in keeping with what they thought was the best use of your money?




"Out, damned spot! out, I say!"

- William Shakespeare, Macbeth, 5.1
User avatar
BTS
Posts: 3202
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:47 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by BTS »

oscar;1113901 wrote: The Bush Administration and the illegal war in Iraq cost Mccain the election.

I suggest you also do some research into 9/11. The pilots in the planes were Saudi not Iraqui. There was no reason to invade Iraq other than your President carrying out un-finished business of his fathers. There was no viable means to invade Iraq. Al-Qaeda is a network of islamic extremists that exist in every Eastern Country not just in Iraq. Sadam did not have the military capability of being any threat to America. It was actually America who funded Iraq during the Iraq wars. Bush's first demand after 9/11 was to Afghanistan to hand over Bin Laden. Where does Iraq come into that?

If you research your own financial history, you will find that Clinton was the greatest economist your country ever had yet you seem to prefer to resort to tacky comments about cigars.

If Obama doesn't bail you out, your looking at the deepest depression your country has ever seen.




For the record.............this is about the third tyme I have tried to edjumacate those that call this "Bush's War"



How many of these quotes are Bush's?=0

How many are war-mongering Republicans?=0







"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998



"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998



"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998



"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998



"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998



"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998



"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999



"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002



"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002



"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002



"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002



"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002



"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002



"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002



"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002



"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003





THE REAL STORY OF 'CURVEBALL'



How German Intelligence Helped Justify the US Invasion of Iraq



By Erich Follath, John Goetz, Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark

Five years ago, the US government presented what it said was proof that Iraq harbored biological weapons. The information came from a source developed by German intelligence -- and it turned out to be disastrously wrong. But to this day, Germany denies any responsibility.





For you Britts.............



IRAQ’S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT





Among the charges listed against Saddam:






* The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but he has not accounted for them:






* 26,000 liters of anthrax—enough to kill several million people

* 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin

* 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents

* Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents

* From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs. But he has not disclosed them.

In addition, British intelligence still stands by its claim that Saddam sought to buy uranium from Nigeria.



British Intel Details Scope of Saddam's Weapons



Blair released a dossier this morning compiled by British intelligence that outlines the presumed extent of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program. He said the British intelligence agency responsible for keeping him informed believes Hussein has continued to build his chemical and biological weapons programs after more than a decade of flouting U.N. sanctions that require open access to international weapons inspectors.





"I set out the history in some detail because occasionally debate on this issue seems to treat it as if it had suddenly arisen, coming out of nowhere on a whim in the last few months of 2002," Blair said. "It is an 11-year history: a history of U.N. will flouted, lies told by Saddam about existence of his chemical biological and nuclear weapons programs, obstruction, defiance and denial."

The prime minister said the only consistent theme in Iraq's history since the Persian Gulf War is Hussein's total determination to maintain his weapons program.

In the dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, the British government maintains that in 1998 Iraq had 360 tons of bulk chemical warfare agents, including one and a half tons of VX nerve agent, and also had 3,000 tons of "precursor chemicals," which could be used to create chemical weapons. The report also says that at the same time Iraq had enough "growth media" to produce 26,000 liters of anthrax spores and tens of thousands of special munitions for the delivery of chemical and biological agents, according to Blair.





Since 1998, the report states, Iraq had rebuilt previously destroyed chemical and biological weapons facilities and has acquired large amounts of needed chemicals and equipment by purchasing and smuggling dual-use items. Britain now believes Iraq can produce many biological agents, including anthrax, botulinum toxin, aflatoxin and ricin.

Money taken illegally from the U.N. Oil for Food program has bankrolled many of these purchases. Blair alleged today that Saddam siphons $3 billion from the program every year.

Iraq's nuclear capabilities have increasingly alarmed the international community as well. Blair said Hussein has attempted to buy large amounts of uranium from sources in Africa and no one is sure if he was successful. Intelligence agencies have also shown that Iraq has bought or tried to buy equipment to produce enriched uranium needed to build nuclear weapons.

All the evidence points to one thing, Blair said. "The case for ensuring Iraqi disarmament is overwhelming," he said. "I defy anyone on the basis of this evidence to say that it is an unreasonable demand for the international community to make when, after all, it is only the same demand that we have made for 11 years and (Saddam) has rejected." Bush backed up these comments with another call for the United Nations to pass a strong resolution on Iraq. "And if they're unable to do so, the United States and our friends will act because we believe in peace," he said today. "We want to keep the peace. We don't trust this man, and that's what the Blair report showed today."

"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
User avatar
sunny104
Posts: 11986
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:25 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by sunny104 »

BTS;1114182 wrote: For the record.............this is about the third tyme I have tried to edjumacate those that call this "Bush's War"



How many of these quotes are Bush's?=0

How many are war-mongering Republicans?=0







"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998



"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998



"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998



"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998



"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998



"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998



"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999



"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002



"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002



"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002



"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002



"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002



"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002



"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002



"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002



"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003





THE REAL STORY OF 'CURVEBALL'



How German Intelligence Helped Justify the US Invasion of Iraq



By Erich Follath, John Goetz, Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark

Five years ago, the US government presented what it said was proof that Iraq harbored biological weapons. The information came from a source developed by German intelligence -- and it turned out to be disastrously wrong. But to this day, Germany denies any responsibility.





For you Britts.............



IRAQ’S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT





Among the charges listed against Saddam:






* The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but he has not accounted for them:






* 26,000 liters of anthrax—enough to kill several million people

* 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin

* 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents

* Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents

* From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs. But he has not disclosed them.

In addition, British intelligence still stands by its claim that Saddam sought to buy uranium from Nigeria.



British Intel Details Scope of Saddam's Weapons



Blair released a dossier this morning compiled by British intelligence that outlines the presumed extent of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program. He said the British intelligence agency responsible for keeping him informed believes Hussein has continued to build his chemical and biological weapons programs after more than a decade of flouting U.N. sanctions that require open access to international weapons inspectors.





"I set out the history in some detail because occasionally debate on this issue seems to treat it as if it had suddenly arisen, coming out of nowhere on a whim in the last few months of 2002," Blair said. "It is an 11-year history: a history of U.N. will flouted, lies told by Saddam about existence of his chemical biological and nuclear weapons programs, obstruction, defiance and denial."

The prime minister said the only consistent theme in Iraq's history since the Persian Gulf War is Hussein's total determination to maintain his weapons program.

In the dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, the British government maintains that in 1998 Iraq had 360 tons of bulk chemical warfare agents, including one and a half tons of VX nerve agent, and also had 3,000 tons of "precursor chemicals," which could be used to create chemical weapons. The report also says that at the same time Iraq had enough "growth media" to produce 26,000 liters of anthrax spores and tens of thousands of special munitions for the delivery of chemical and biological agents, according to Blair.





Since 1998, the report states, Iraq had rebuilt previously destroyed chemical and biological weapons facilities and has acquired large amounts of needed chemicals and equipment by purchasing and smuggling dual-use items. Britain now believes Iraq can produce many biological agents, including anthrax, botulinum toxin, aflatoxin and ricin.

Money taken illegally from the U.N. Oil for Food program has bankrolled many of these purchases. Blair alleged today that Saddam siphons $3 billion from the program every year.

Iraq's nuclear capabilities have increasingly alarmed the international community as well. Blair said Hussein has attempted to buy large amounts of uranium from sources in Africa and no one is sure if he was successful. Intelligence agencies have also shown that Iraq has bought or tried to buy equipment to produce enriched uranium needed to build nuclear weapons.

All the evidence points to one thing, Blair said. "The case for ensuring Iraqi disarmament is overwhelming," he said. "I defy anyone on the basis of this evidence to say that it is an unreasonable demand for the international community to make when, after all, it is only the same demand that we have made for 11 years and (Saddam) has rejected." Bush backed up these comments with another call for the United Nations to pass a strong resolution on Iraq. "And if they're unable to do so, the United States and our friends will act because we believe in peace," he said today. "We want to keep the peace. We don't trust this man, and that's what the Blair report showed today."




I've tried that too. But the facts always get ignored for some reason. And they say we're brainwashed?!? :wah:
User avatar
BTS
Posts: 3202
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:47 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by BTS »

sunny104;1114190 wrote: I've tried that too. But the facts always get ignored for some reason. And they say we're brainwashed?!? :wah:




Know what you mean.................

Then it sits like a 800# Gorilla on the thread.........

go figure.
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Raven;1114013 wrote: 'And another thing, whats he going to do with all the solders coming back from Iraq when shuts down the war? What's he going to do with alll the insergents he releases from Guantanamo when they start blowing up dignitaries in Iraq and the U.S.?'



He's trying to send them all here.:thinking:


Raven. alot of them are British who have been held illegally. We Want them back where they will be tried fairly in our courts of law with the evidence at hand. Going by the last one who was released and we brought home... there will be no evidence what-so-ever.

It is true that are government has been asked by Obama to take a portion of the in-mates. Other countries have been asked too. It is not a done deal yet. We will certainly bring our British home but we have to wait to see what Brown decides on the remainder.

Given our countries record of intelligence and the ability to track suspects, they are safer in our country anyway.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Clodhopper »

Those against the war are against it for good reasons - the complete lack of follow up to the initial invasion was staggering in its naivete. It seems the "brains" behind it (Rumsfield, Cheney and that other nasty goitre) really belived that all they had to do was topple Saddam Hussein and Iraq would be open for business. Frankly, I'm amazed the British (who have some experience of colonial wars) went along with it, assuming they ever got the full picture

I was foolish. I supported the removal of Saddam Hussein, believing it would be better for the Iraqis to be rid of him. I underestimated the mindboggling stupidity and arrogance of those in charge.

It would have been better for Iraq and the world if Saddam Hussein were still in charge and torturing, gassing and killing his own people. That's how bad the mess we've made of it is.
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Oscar Namechange »

BTS;1114182 wrote: For the record.............this is about the third tyme I have tried to edjumacate those that call this "Bush's War"



How many of these quotes are Bush's?=0

How many are war-mongering Republicans?=0







"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998



"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998



"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998



"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998



"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998



"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998



"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999



"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002



"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002



"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002



"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002



"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002



"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002



"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002



"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002



"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003





THE REAL STORY OF 'CURVEBALL'



How German Intelligence Helped Justify the US Invasion of Iraq



By Erich Follath, John Goetz, Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark

Five years ago, the US government presented what it said was proof that Iraq harbored biological weapons. The information came from a source developed by German intelligence -- and it turned out to be disastrously wrong. But to this day, Germany denies any responsibility.





For you Britts.............



IRAQ’S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT





Among the charges listed against Saddam:






* The U.N. and U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but he has not accounted for them:






* 26,000 liters of anthrax—enough to kill several million people

* 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin

* 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agents

* Almost 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents

* From three Iraqi defectors, we know that Iraq in the late 1990s had several mobile biological weapons labs. But he has not disclosed them.

In addition, British intelligence still stands by its claim that Saddam sought to buy uranium from Nigeria.



British Intel Details Scope of Saddam's Weapons



Blair released a dossier this morning compiled by British intelligence that outlines the presumed extent of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program. He said the British intelligence agency responsible for keeping him informed believes Hussein has continued to build his chemical and biological weapons programs after more than a decade of flouting U.N. sanctions that require open access to international weapons inspectors.





"I set out the history in some detail because occasionally debate on this issue seems to treat it as if it had suddenly arisen, coming out of nowhere on a whim in the last few months of 2002," Blair said. "It is an 11-year history: a history of U.N. will flouted, lies told by Saddam about existence of his chemical biological and nuclear weapons programs, obstruction, defiance and denial."

The prime minister said the only consistent theme in Iraq's history since the Persian Gulf War is Hussein's total determination to maintain his weapons program.

In the dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, the British government maintains that in 1998 Iraq had 360 tons of bulk chemical warfare agents, including one and a half tons of VX nerve agent, and also had 3,000 tons of "precursor chemicals," which could be used to create chemical weapons. The report also says that at the same time Iraq had enough "growth media" to produce 26,000 liters of anthrax spores and tens of thousands of special munitions for the delivery of chemical and biological agents, according to Blair.





Since 1998, the report states, Iraq had rebuilt previously destroyed chemical and biological weapons facilities and has acquired large amounts of needed chemicals and equipment by purchasing and smuggling dual-use items. Britain now believes Iraq can produce many biological agents, including anthrax, botulinum toxin, aflatoxin and ricin.

Money taken illegally from the U.N. Oil for Food program has bankrolled many of these purchases. Blair alleged today that Saddam siphons $3 billion from the program every year.

Iraq's nuclear capabilities have increasingly alarmed the international community as well. Blair said Hussein has attempted to buy large amounts of uranium from sources in Africa and no one is sure if he was successful. Intelligence agencies have also shown that Iraq has bought or tried to buy equipment to produce enriched uranium needed to build nuclear weapons.

All the evidence points to one thing, Blair said. "The case for ensuring Iraqi disarmament is overwhelming," he said. "I defy anyone on the basis of this evidence to say that it is an unreasonable demand for the international community to make when, after all, it is only the same demand that we have made for 11 years and (Saddam) has rejected." Bush backed up these comments with another call for the United Nations to pass a strong resolution on Iraq. "And if they're unable to do so, the United States and our friends will act because we believe in peace," he said today. "We want to keep the peace. We don't trust this man, and that's what the Blair report showed today."




BTL..... I have no problem with your view point.

For the record..... I was a staunch supporter of Tony Blair.. New Labour and i endorsed the war. I also endorsed Bush Senior during 'Desert Storm' and i endorsed Bush for the invasion after 9/11. We also had Al-Quaeda on our doorstep in the London Tube bombings and our country went into blind panic over 'War on Terror'.

I appreciate that your knowledge on your President is far greater than mine but like-wise our knowledge on Blair probably has the edge on yours.

Over the years, Tony Blair has been proved to have lied time and time again over Iraq and Sadam.

Blair has admited on TV that the reason we invaded Iraq was because 'At the time' he believed Sadam to have wmd's. Bush has admited in interview that 'He got it wrong'.

A very costly pair of admissions for both our countries.

I am in agreement with you over biological weapons. There is no doubt that they were used against the Kurds by Sadam and Chemical Ali.

In all the years we have been in Iraq and intensive searches, no biological weapons or wmd's have ever been found.

I have always believed that Sadam's undoing was Sadam himself. He was a self-Obssessed man who enjoyed playing games with weapons inspectors. He liked to brag that he had weapons and chemical warfare when he didn't have diddly squat. he was a foolish man who thought he could out-smart other leaders by his false claims and it led to his down-fall. However, our Government has recently publicaly come out and stated that he was never the threat Blair insisted he was.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Clodhopper;1114235 wrote: Those against the war are against it for good reasons - the complete lack of follow up to the initial invasion was staggering in its naivete. It seems the "brains" behind it (Rumsfield, Cheney and that other nasty goitre) really belived that all they had to do was topple Saddam Hussein and Iraq would be open for business. Frankly, I'm amazed the British (who have some experience of colonial wars) went along with it, assuming they ever got the full picture

I was foolish. I supported the removal of Saddam Hussein, believing it would be better for the Iraqis to be rid of him. I underestimated the mindboggling stupidity and arrogance of those in charge.

It would have been better for Iraq and the world if Saddam Hussein were still in charge and torturing, gassing and killing his own people. That's how bad the mess we've made of it is. You can not sit the blame fairly on Rumsfield and Cheney or Bush. look at your own former Prime Minister. do you really think he was so dumb that he didn't know what he was doing? Or are you one of these British who believe 'Poor little Tone, he must have followed that nasty old Bush into war because of our 'special relationship'?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Clodhopper
Posts: 5115
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Clodhopper »

You can not sit the blame fairly on Rumsfield and Cheney or Bush. look at your own former Prime Minister. do you really think he was so dumb that he didn't know what he was doing?


I do blame Rumsfield and co. They planned it, they were responsible and Britain would not have gone in alone.

I also blame Blair for letting himself get dragged in by dodgy info, and ESPECIALLY because he did not make sure the Americans had a plan for after the invasion that had a chance of working.

There's plenty of blame to go round.

Or are you one of these British who believe 'Poor little Tone, he must have followed that nasty old Bush into war because of our 'special relationship'?


What has this to do with anything? The short answer is "no".
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"

Lone voice: "I'm not."
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Clodhopper;1114272 wrote: I do blame Rumsfield and co. They planned it, they were responsible and Britain would not have gone in alone.

I also blame Blair for letting himself get dragged in by dodgy info, and ESPECIALLY because he did not make sure the Americans had a plan for after the invasion that had a chance of working.

There's plenty of blame to go round.



What has this to do with anything? The short answer is "no".


Yes, they take SOME of the blame. Again..... Look to your own former Prime Minister and his lilly livered Cabinet who knew what they were doing all along.

Then ask yourself why there was a rebellion in the Cabinet and Blair was voted out by his own Supporters to get Gordon Brown into no 10.

Then ask yourself why the moment Gordon Brown was in No 10, he set the wheels in motion to pull our troops out.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
double helix
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by double helix »

Did anybody watch the Inaguation of Obama? Even though it was the most expensive and extravigant--WASN'T IT AMAZING? All those people packed into the capital. I used to live in Vergina and traveled to DC many a time. WOW!

History in the making. I couldn't help but swell with pride, joy and yes, hope. Hope that maybe this new president can form some kind of cohesiveness in the American people.

Then reality set in. Economic hard times, bone head House and Senate members, this and that and whatever. Gloom and doom.

Still, one can only hope.
User avatar
Chookie
Posts: 1826
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:55 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Chookie »

So it was the most expensive inauguration? So was the one before that, in it's time. That's a function of inflation......
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
Queen_of_Hearts
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 3:00 pm

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Queen_of_Hearts »

I didn't like the fact that he threw a $170 million dollar inauguration when America is in a recession, then one of the first things he does when he gets into the white house is cut over 100 workers pay who make over $100,000 a year saying that "if America is tightening the belt, so should they" . Nice double standards!. I did think that, that say was "Historic" but people blew it way out of proportion IMO. I'm just waiting to see what he can do, and if he can live up to the hype people have given him.
User avatar
AussiePam
Posts: 9898
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:57 pm

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by AussiePam »

Isn:t there some theory that in hard times you need bread and circuses!??

I guess those people who lethally hate President Obama will see bad in everything he does or tries to do, while those who see in President Obama some hope for change for the better will probably see good in everything he does or tries to do. That:s politics and human nature.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"

qsducks
Posts: 29018
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:14 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by qsducks »

AussiePam;1122704 wrote: Isn:t there some theory that in hard times you need bread and circuses!??

I guess those people who lethally hate President Obama will see bad in everything he does or tries to do, while those who see in President Obama some hope for change for the better will probably see good in everything he does or tries to do. That:s politics and human nature.


I agree Pam...I voted for Obama and it gets on my nerves when peeps here constantly bash him...like Bush did nothing wrong! At least he's not a criminal.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Oscar Namechange »

As i said in earlier posts on this thread, America was in the spotlight of the world for one day. It was the nearest that the US would have to a Royal coronation. It was also history being made and i wouldn't begrude a country or Obama revelling in the day what ever my opinion was about his election.

British kids were watching it all over the country in their schools as probably the rest of the world was. It's something to be proud of and i think that given the importance of the day, the cost should not be questioned.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
LilacDragon
Posts: 1382
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:23 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by LilacDragon »

qsducks;1122707 wrote: I agree Pam...I voted for Obama and it gets on my nerves when peeps here constantly bash him...like Bush did nothing wrong! At least he's not a criminal.


I have never, ever voted for anyone named Bush and there is very little that went on in his administration that I agree with or approve of. I never, ever thought that declaring war on Iraq was a smart move to make but passionately feel that we can not destoy a country and it's government and walk away.

I didn't vote for His Highness, President Obama, either. I have seen many politicians that talk a good game but are crooked as the day is long. It seems to me that Obama has an awful lot of ties with people who are either blatantly racist or skirt the law, and yet he seems to come out looking squeaky clean. And I am really tired of hearing about his race and not his politics.

And again, today, one of his cabinet nominations admits that he "forgot" to pay taxes. Not to worry - his conformation is assured by the powers that be.

No. Obama is not a criminal. Yet. Let us revisit that subject in 4 years and see where we stand then.
Sandi



double helix
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by double helix »

qsducks;1122707 wrote: I agree Pam...I voted for Obama and it gets on my nerves when peeps here constantly bash him...like Bush did nothing wrong! At least he's not a criminal.
I voted for Bush and it gets on my nerves that people constantly bash him! So I guess we have something in common there! If 9-11 hadn't happened Bush could have accomplished some good for this country. God forbid that another 9-11 should happen during Obama's tenure.

I don't HATE Obama. I honestly hope he succeeds and gets this country back on track. I do HATE double standards which Obama, nay, liberal democrats and socialist leaning politicians like Obama and 80% of his current cabinet pics are. Whats good for the goose should be good for the gander but SELDOM is in politics in general, almost always isn't in liberal socialist democracies.

I mean, look at Tom Dashal, not paying almost 200,000 in taxes until he gets the nod from Obama and a possible cushy administrative position in the white house. Would he have paid those taxes if he didn't get the nod? And how about the others Obama picked? Lobbyist's, which Obama said during his campaign he WOULD NEVER PUT IN WHITE HOUSE POSITIONS.

See this is the difference between BUSH and OBAMA. We all knew Bush was lacking in judgement and didn't make the best informed decisions. But at least he didn't make blanket campaign promises and then blatentley disregard those promises once he won the white house job. He didn't spend lavishly on himself. He didn't bring people on board to run agencies that had blatant deficits in their own financial dealings. At least his approach was to do as much as he could to follow through on his campaign promises while dealing with mitigating circumstances, like a terrorist attack on American soil. Mind you THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA wanted retribution after those attacks, they wanted ACTION! Check the polls for yourself if you don't believe me. The action Bush took was approved by the senate and the people AT THE TIME he took it.

Where are Obama's mitigating circumstances for disregarding the promises he made on the campaign trail? How about the way he denied and denied and denied anything to do with Wright and the campaign organization that was investigated for voter fraud even after proof in the form of vids and individuals were produced to prove he was involved?

Don't tell me Obamas achilles heel is the mess Bush made of the economy. What Obama is doing isn't going to fix the economy. There is so much pork riding on that stimulus package that only a miniscule percentage of any of that money with hit the economic scales. Obama is simply going through motions to lul the people of this county into complacency.

The rest of that stimulus package is PORK BARREL spending to feather the nests of the elected democratic officials states and special interests. Welfare is what the majority of this stimulus bill is and where does the money come from? Taxpayers pockets and foreign investors. Our country will be SOLD to the highest bidder while we are bled dry to pay for condoms for the world and bridges to Podunk boondox communities that have nothing to do with any economic stimulus! Programs for the chronically poor, you know the drunks, crack addicts, social service rejects and possibly, just possibly some of the 200,000 people that have lost their jobs in the last six months. But not the WHITE CONTRACTORS OUT OF WORK mind you, not the WHITE ELECTRICIANS OR BRICK LAYERS. No, the jobs will go to the those journeymen of color or ethnicity (as stated by Igram) that have been PASSED OVER for employment. Passed over for lack of SKILL AND APTITUDE, WORK ETHICS OR COMPETENCY because if they had skill, aptitude, work ethics and competancy THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN WORKING ALL ALONG, don't ya think? What is Obama going to do when all the bridges and roads are fixed? How will he create NEW JOBS then. By instituting NEW LAWS AND ORGANIZATIONS, new rules and policys that take jobs and money away from those that have them and give them to people who don't have the skills to do them simply because those people haven't had a chance to work. What will all those soldiers returning from Iraq and Afganistan do when they hit the workforce? Has Obama talked about any kind of plan for them? Do you realize 90% percent of current soldiers in our military force have stated they would NOT REMAIN IN THE MILITARY IF RECALLED FROM THE MIDDLE EAST. Why? Because they know its going to be a disaster and they will not serve a leader who can't recongnise what a mistake it is.

So, tell yourself its all about Obama haters while in the same paragraph you spew hate for Bush. You forget that it's the loss of your welfare, your home, your jobs and your future and your childrens future your making excuses for every time you po po Obama's indiscretion's.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Oscar Namechange »

double helix;1122918 wrote: I voted for Bush and it gets on my nerves that people constantly bash him! So I guess we have something in common there! If 9-11 hadn't happened Bush could have accomplished some good for this country. God forbid that another 9-11 should happen during Obama's tenure.

I don't HATE Obama. I honestly hope he succeeds and gets this country back on track. I do HATE double standards which Obama, nay, liberal democrats and socialist leaning politicians like Obama and 80% of his current cabinet pics are. Whats good for the goose should be good for the gander but SELDOM is in politics in general, almost always isn't in liberal socialist democracies.

I mean, look at Tom Dashal, not paying almost 200,000 in taxes until he gets the nod from Obama and a possible cushy administrative position in the white house. Would he have paid those taxes if he didn't get the nod? And how about the others Obama picked? Lobbyist's, which Obama said during his campaign he WOULD NEVER PUT IN WHITE HOUSE POSITIONS.

See this is the difference between BUSH and OBAMA. We all knew Bush was lacking in judgement and didn't make the best informed decisions. But at least he didn't make blanket campaign promises and then blatentley disregard those promises once he won the white house job. He didn't spend lavishly on himself. He didn't bring people on board to run agencies that had blatant deficits in their own financial dealings. At least his approach was to do as much as he could to follow through on his campaign promises while dealing with mitigating circumstances, like a terrorist attack on American soil. Mind you THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA wanted retribution after those attacks, they wanted ACTION! Check the polls for yourself if you don't believe me. The action Bush took was approved by the senate and the people AT THE TIME he took it.

Where are Obama's mitigating circumstances for disregarding the promises he made on the campaign trail? How about the way he denied and denied and denied anything to do with Wright and the campaign organization that was investigated for voter fraud even after proof in the form of vids and individuals were produced to prove he was involved?

Don't tell me Obamas achilles heel is the mess Bush made of the economy. What Obama is doing isn't going to fix the economy. There is so much pork riding on that stimulus package that only a miniscule percentage of any of that money with hit the economic scales. Obama is simply going through motions to lul the people of this county into complacency.

The rest of that stimulus package is PORK BARREL spending to feather the nests of the elected democratic officials states and special interests. Welfare is what the majority of this stimulus bill is and where does the money come from? Taxpayers pockets and foreign investors. Our country will be SOLD to the highest bidder while we are bled dry to pay for condoms for the world and bridges to Podunk boondox communities that have nothing to do with any economic stimulus! Programs for the chronically poor, you know the drunks, crack addicts, social service rejects and possibly, just possibly some of the 200,000 people that have lost their jobs in the last six months. But not the WHITE CONTRACTORS OUT OF WORK mind you, not the WHITE ELECTRICIANS OR BRICK LAYERS. No, the jobs will go to the those journeymen of color or ethnicity (as stated by Igram) that have been PASSED OVER for employment. Passed over for lack of SKILL AND APTITUDE, WORK ETHICS OR COMPETENCY because if they had skill, aptitude, work ethics and competancy THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN WORKING ALL ALONG, don't ya think?

So, tell yourself its all about Obama haters while in the same paragraph you spew hate for Bush. You forget that it's the loss of your welfare, your home, your jobs and your future your making excuses for every time you po po Obama's indiscretion's.


:wah: Give Obama a chance.

I don't see Obama costing any-one their home, job and future just yet. Under Bush, American capitalism died. Under Tony Blair, British Capitalism died. You can not argue that in the past 8 years, the like's of 'Fanny Mae' have been getting rich while Wall Street crashed along with your economy, jobs and homes. It happened under the Bush administration.

Bush went on TV and admited, he had 'Got it wrong' over Iraq. So did our spineless former Prime Minister Tony B Liar. The difference with us, is our government recognised what Blair was doing to our country and they rebelled, voted him out to get Gordon Brown to take over No 10. That almost never happens in British Politics, an internal usurping.

How many US lives and British lives did Bush and Blair's 'mistakes' over Iraq that they now admit, cost our countries? The pilots in those planes on 9/11 were Saudi.... not Iraqi. Why did Bush not invade Saudi? Why Iraq? The premise of Bush's invasion was the demand that Afghanistan handed over Bin Laden. What had Iraq got to do with Bin Laden allegedly being hidden in Afghanistan?

Do you not think that if Bush had invested the money into intelligence resources, and better air-port security, 9/11 would never have happened.

Do you know anything of the death and destruction brought to Britain by the IRA? (Irish Republican Army). If you did, you would know how much death and destruction you can bring by one simple road-side car bomb. Al-Quaeda terrorists were already in your country in a training camp in Oregan being trained to bomb America. Not by flying into the Twin Towers but by simple road-side bombs as used by the IRA. 9/11 occurred because security was lax. If Al-quaeda wanted maximum carnage, it would have just needed a few car bombs outside schools. They didn't. 9/11 was a one off and i don't believe any administration would ever risk another 9/11 for lack of security and intelligence.

I was in my house 2 to 3 miles away when the IRA bombed our Prime Minister and her Cabinet in my home town.

Please watch this link. We know all about terrorism.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Lets try some more if you have time:

YouTube - IRA atrocities - The Birmingham Pub Bombings

YouTube - Manchester bomb going off

BBC ON THIS DAY | 20 | 1982: IRA bombs cause carnage in London

YouTube - Irish Republican Army Car Bombing

This is probably the best...enjoy

At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
double helix
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:32 pm

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by double helix »

oscar;1122926 wrote: :wah: Give Obama a chance.

I don't see Obama costing any-one their home, job and future just yet. Under Bush, American capitalism died. Under Tony Blair, British Capitalism died. You can not argue that in the past 8 years, the like's of 'Fanny Mae' have been getting rich while Wall Street crashed along with your economy, jobs and homes. It happened under the Bush administration.

Bush went on TV and admited, he had 'Got it wrong' over Iraq. So did our spineless former Prime Minister Tony B Liar. The difference with us, is our government recognised what Blair was doing to our country and they rebelled, voted him out to get Gordon Brown to take over No 10. That almost never happens in British Politics, an internal usurping.

How many US lives and British lives did Bush and Blair's 'mistakes' over Iraq that they now admit, cost our countries? The pilots in those planes on 9/11 were Saudi.... not Iraqi. Why did Bush not invade Saudi? Why Iraq? The premise of Bush's invasion was the demand that Afghanistan handed over Bin Laden. What had Iraq got to do with Bin Laden allegedly being hidden in Afghanistan?

Do you not think that if Bush had invested the money into intelligence resources, and better air-port security, 9/11 would never have happened.

Do you know anything of the death and destruction brought to Britain by the IRA? (Irish Republican Army). If you did, you would know how much death and destruction you can bring by one simple road-side car bomb. Al-Quaeda terrorists were already in your country in a training camp in Oregan being trained to bomb America. Not by flying into the Twin Towers but by simple road-side bombs as used by the IRA. 9/11 occurred because security was lax. If Al-quaeda wanted maximum carnage, it would have just needed a few car bombs outside schools. They didn't. 9/11 was a one off and i don't believe any administration would ever risk another 9/11 for lack of security and intelligence.

I was in my house 2 to 3 miles away when the IRA bombed our Prime Minister and her Cabinet in my home town.

Please watch this link. We know all about terrorism.

YouTube - the ira brighton bomb


Do you honestly think a president or prime minister has that much power that they, single handedly, can change a countries economy. In two, six, eight years? It takes a decade, two or three to bring the finacial world to its knees.

I know our president does not have that much power without sympathetic congress to support him.

Simply put, this country and many others, have been living high off the hog for decades. It had to end sometime. The worlds markets just cannot sustain the massive credit consumption the people are putting on it so they can have MORE STUFF.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

The Most Expensive U.S. Inaguation in History

Post by Oscar Namechange »

double helix;1124020 wrote: Do you honestly think a president or prime minister has that much power that they, single handedly, can change a countries economy. In two, six, eight years? It takes a decade, two or three to bring the finacial world to its knees.

I know our president does not have that much power without sympathetic congress to support him.

Simply put, this country and many others, have been living high off the hog for decades. It had to end sometime. The worlds markets just cannot sustain the massive credit consumption the people are putting on it so they can have MORE STUFF.


Your absolutely correct. However i do believe Clinton has gone down in history as your greatest economist ever and he preceeded Bush. At the moment i am going purely by memory of some of the statistics of the economy growth under Clinton.

We had argued long and hard when the economies collapsed all over the West in other threads and it was wholly agreed by most that greedy banks lend to greedy people on the 'buy now pay later promise.

Have you looked at what bonuses your bank fat cats were taking in the last eight years? Who allowed them to take those bonuses? Who failed to cap them?

Have you considered what the Iraq and Afghanistan war has cost your government in the past few years.

Are you aware that your government has given an average of three billion dollars to the Israeli govermnet in military funding since 1972?

Are you aware of how much your missile shield in Poland, Eastern Europe has cost? Which by the way, Obama is tearing down to appease Russia.

Are you aware of your national debt to China, japan and the Arab money men through London? Your debt to China alone is in the trillions. Obama is set to provide your economic fiscal injection with more borrowed money from China.

Don't take me wrong... we have our problems as well. :)
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon

Return to “Presidential Elections Campaigns”