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....
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....
Were they in charge of any branch of the government? And, btw, are you equally upset at the RNC?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....
Private campaign contributions, you mean.Originally posted by: daniel1113
The majority is paid for by private donations made for this event only.
Originally posted by: conjur
Private campaign contributions, you mean.Originally posted by: daniel1113
The majority is paid for by private donations made for this event only.
Well...all except the ~$19 million that D.C. has to spend on security. That comes from their Homeland Security budget. How nice.
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....
Originally posted by: conjur
Were they in charge of any branch of the government? And, btw, are you equally upset at the RNC?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....
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.
Originally posted by: conjur
Private campaign contributions, you mean.Originally posted by: daniel1113
The majority is paid for by private donations made for this event only.
Well...all except the ~$19 million that D.C. has to spend on security. That comes from their Homeland Security budget. How nice.
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: conjur
Private campaign contributions, you mean.Originally posted by: daniel1113
The majority is paid for by private donations made for this event only.
Well...all except the ~$19 million that D.C. has to spend on security. That comes from their Homeland Security budget. How nice.
and back into the pockets of the americans who will be providing said security...
That sounds about right.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.
:thumbsup:
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.
Originally posted by: Fausto
That sounds about right.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.
:thumbsup:
"Fair and Balanced As Long As It's Not Something We Don't Agree With"
![]()
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.
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.
Unless security was outsourced to China
Originally posted by: outriding
Please get your facts right.
Clinton's 2nd was about 23 million which is almost half of of Bush's 2nd.