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

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
:D: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
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
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....
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
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....
They were trying to get elected. I think she makes a valid point.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
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....

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

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
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?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: daniel1113
The majority is paid for by private donations made for this event only.
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.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
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.

 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: daniel1113
The majority is paid for by private donations made for this event only.
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.

That's what it's there for. Always has been, always will.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
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....

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.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
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.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
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....
Were they in charge of any branch of the government? And, btw, are you equally upset at the RNC?

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.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: daniel1113
The majority is paid for by private donations made for this event only.
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.

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

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
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.
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.

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

Unless security was outsourced to China... ;)
 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
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:
That sounds about right.

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

:p

 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
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.

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.
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
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.

:thumbsup:
That sounds about right.

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

:p

No... for being an idiot.
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
4,278
3,624
136
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.

Please get your facts right.

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

 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
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.

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?
 

daniel1113

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2003
6,448
0
0
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.

Oh, well, if it was only 23 million... :roll: