• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

FOX News meltdown when criticism by guest leveled against the extravagant inauguration

😀:thumbsup:

Nice!

That faux news anchor was totally caught off guard and offered absolutely no defense to that woman's completely valid points.

Yeah Bush really did enough for the troops recently with that prayer service!

Thanks for the link, that made my morning
 
using this logic then why were the dems allowed such a lavish convention here in beantown, that money could have been better served armoring vehicles and all....
 
Originally posted by: bozack
using this logic then why were the dems allowed such a lavish convention here in beantown, that money could have been better served armoring vehicles and all....
Click to expand...
They were trying to get elected. I think she makes a valid point.
 
Originally posted by: bozack
using this logic then why were the dems allowed such a lavish convention here in beantown, that money could have been better served armoring vehicles and all....
Click to expand...

1. A campaign to get elected is completely different from an inaguration "party". Both political parties have to advertise themselves!

2. The hum vees lacking armor story appeared after the democratic convention

 
Originally posted by: bozack
using this logic then why were the dems allowed such a lavish convention here in beantown, that money could have been better served armoring vehicles and all....
Click to expand...
Were they in charge of any branch of the government? And, btw, are you equally upset at the RNC?
 
Originally posted by: daniel1113
The majority is paid for by private donations made for this event only.
Click to expand...
Private campaign contributions, you mean.

Well...all except the ~$19 million that D.C. has to spend on security. That comes from their Homeland Security budget. How nice.
 
I wonder if this lady was so up in arms when Clinton spent 30 million on his innaguration?

I find it a bit hypocritical and baseless for liberals to be complaining about a 40 million dollar pricetag if they cant apply it to their own. She actually said they spent 40 million too much. Does she think inagurations are free?

The only gripe they can lay here is on the cost of security. Sticking DC with the 12 million in estimated security costs is a bit cheap and wrong.

Inagurations have typically been paid for by donors to the party. So it is privately raised money which the GOP can spend whichever way they like.

 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: daniel1113
The majority is paid for by private donations made for this event only.
Click to expand...
Private campaign contributions, you mean.

Well...all except the ~$19 million that D.C. has to spend on security. That comes from their Homeland Security budget. How nice.
Click to expand...

That's what it's there for. Always has been, always will.
 
Originally posted by: bozack
using this logic then why were the dems allowed such a lavish convention here in beantown, that money could have been better served armoring vehicles and all....
Click to expand...

Are you incapable of seeing the difference between conventions held by politicians trying to get elected and a party to celebrate the actual president remaining in office?

I honestly don't get the people who still watch Fox News and think they are getting a fair and balanced view of the world. If you're looking for slanted faux journalism, fine by me, whatever floats your boat. But calling it unbiased news seems a little "innacurate" to me.
 
The inauguration has a lot of costs indirectly too. They shut down the business areas of DC. It's all so absurd and expensive.

Especially since he's already been in office!

They really need to cut out inaugurations for second terms.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: bozack
using this logic then why were the dems allowed such a lavish convention here in beantown, that money could have been better served armoring vehicles and all....
Click to expand...
Were they in charge of any branch of the government? And, btw, are you equally upset at the RNC?
Click to expand...

Yes conjur I am upset with all of it...I mean really, if we are going to bitch about this one then why not bitch about the lavish DNC and RNCs that were going on while in Iraq, the continued monies poured into things which could be put on hold such as the big dig in boston...any and all aid that was diverted to the tsunami relief...

and I don't buy that BS about a campaign to get elected is completely different....it was still a lavish party where the money could be better spent elsewhere...

What really gets my goat are these self ritcheous know nothings such as the vanity fair contributor/editor are brought on a show to talk about their area of specialty and instead go off on some diatribe or personal crusade...if I had been the anchor I would have dropped that interview in no time and moved on to something else.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: daniel1113
The majority is paid for by private donations made for this event only.
Click to expand...
Private campaign contributions, you mean.

Well...all except the ~$19 million that D.C. has to spend on security. That comes from their Homeland Security budget. How nice.
Click to expand...

and back into the pockets of the americans who will be providing said security...
 
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: daniel1113
The majority is paid for by private donations made for this event only.
Click to expand...
Private campaign contributions, you mean.

Well...all except the ~$19 million that D.C. has to spend on security. That comes from their Homeland Security budget. How nice.
Click to expand...

and back into the pockets of the americans who will be providing said security...
Click to expand...

Unless security was outsourced to China... 😉
 
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: bozack
f I had been the anchor I would have dropped that interview in no time and moved on to something else.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
That sounds about right.

"Fair and Balanced As Long As It's Not Something We Don't Agree With"

😛

 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Are you incapable of seeing the difference between conventions held by politicians trying to get elected and a party to celebrate the actual president remaining in office?

I honestly don't get the people who still watch Fox News and think they are getting a fair and balanced view of the world. If you're looking for slanted faux journalism, fine by me, whatever floats your boat. But calling it unbiased news seems a little "innacurate" to me.
Click to expand...

We were at a time of war with troops that were insufficiently funded....I don't care what the event was, if you are going to use the logic as presented by this person then all un-necessary expenses should take a back seat to supporting the troops...the conventions were not vital and could have been scaled down.
 
Originally posted by: Fausto
Originally posted by: daniel1113
Originally posted by: bozack
f I had been the anchor I would have dropped that interview in no time and moved on to something else.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
That sounds about right.

"Fair and Balanced As Long As It's Not Something We Don't Agree With"

😛
Click to expand...

No... for being an idiot.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
I wonder if this lady was so up in arms when Clinton spent 30 million on his innaguration?

I find it a bit hypocritical and baseless for liberals to be complaining about a 40 million dollar pricetag if they cant apply it to their own. She actually said they spent 40 million too much. Does she think inagurations are free?

The only gripe they can lay here is on the cost of security. Sticking DC with the 12 million in estimated security costs is a bit cheap and wrong.

Inagurations have typically been paid for by donors to the party. So it is privately raised money which the GOP can spend whichever way they like.
Click to expand...

Please get your facts right.

Clinton's 2nd was about 23 million which is almost half of of Bush's 2nd.

 
Originally posted by: Genx87
I wonder if this lady was so up in arms when Clinton spent 30 million on his innaguration?

I find it a bit hypocritical and baseless for liberals to be complaining about a 40 million dollar pricetag if they cant apply it to their own. She actually said they spent 40 million too much. Does she think inagurations are free?

The only gripe they can lay here is on the cost of security. Sticking DC with the 12 million in estimated security costs is a bit cheap and wrong.

Inagurations have typically been paid for by donors to the party. So it is privately raised money which the GOP can spend whichever way they like.
Click to expand...

Aren't you just making assumptions about what she did and did not do, or what liberals as a whole did or did not complain about. Maybe it would be worth finding out before whining, eh? In any case, her point was that during war time, tradition has the inauguration being a small one, not a record breaking one. Clinton's wasn't during a major war, now was it?

Actually, I don't really understand why a ton of money needs to be spent for a party to welcome to office a president who is already the president. What's the big deal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top