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

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Fausto

That sounds about right.

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

😛

They brought this person on thinking that they would talk about whatever and instead they go off on some tangent? sorry but again if I were the anchor and the person basically lied to me to get some airtime for their personal vendetta then they would be off faster than they could blink.

 

[Engineer]

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...

So you're for spending more government money? Bigger government eh? Which is it...smaller with lower taxes or bigger with larger taxes?

(I think it's personally bigger with smaller taxes like the current group of Republicans (not conservatives, simply Republicans) do)

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: bozack

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.

Hmm, you might have a point there. I'm not a big fan of conventions, especially since they no longer provide the function they once did. Politics wastes a huge amount of money, IMHO, and I'd like to see it scaled down across the board. But the Republicans had a convention too, the Dems aren't holding an inaguration.

I guess I'd be upset about all of it, really, if I was that lady.

Edit: By the way, I find it very offensive that our troops are under funded and we're wasting TONS of money on stupid stuff here. Our government wastes tons of money, yet can never seem to find some when it's needed to help save lives. That needs to change, IMHO.

 

[daniel1113]

Why don't you all just turn on your TVs and enjoy the music? Or, we can continue to argue and get nowhere on an internet web board.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

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:

Not at time of war and again, as pointed out above, mostly private. Bush 40 million private and 20,000,000 PUBLIC TAX FUNDS. More waste in government.

Oh, and I agree that the conventions are bullsh!t too.

 

[conjur]

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...

Hunh?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Why don't you all just turn on your TVs and enjoy the music? Or, we can continue to argue and get nowhere on an internet web board.

One finger victory salute!

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: daniel1113

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:

Not at time of war and again, as pointed out above, mostly private. Bush 40 million private and 20,000,000 PUBLIC TAX FUNDS. More waste in government.

Oh, and I agree that the conventions are bullsh!t too.

That's the cost of security. If the D.C. tax payers don't like it, they can move to VA.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
That's the cost of security. If the D.C. tax payers don't like it, they can move to VA.

And it's a cost that was always reimbursed before. But not this time. Not in a day and age where we're all "safer".

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Why don't you all just turn on your TVs and enjoy the music? Or, we can continue to argue and get nowhere on an internet web board.

I'm sure you have some cars to polish and such. 😉

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

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:

So you should be almost twice as angry that bush's is almost double then right?

 

[umbrella39]

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....

Nice apples to oranges comparision. :roll: Bush apoligists come on in! That Fox beatch got pwned.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: daniel1113

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:

Not at time of war and again, as pointed out above, mostly private. Bush 40 million private and 20,000,000 PUBLIC TAX FUNDS. More waste in government.

Oh, and I agree that the conventions are bullsh!t too.

That's the cost of security. If the D.C. tax payers don't like it, they can move to VA.

FUNDED by HOMELAND SECURITY MONEY! (US TAXPAYERS)!!!

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Fausto

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Why don't you all just turn on your TVs and enjoy the music? Or, we can continue to argue and get nowhere on an internet web board.

I'm sure you have some cars to polish and such. 😉

Eh, my car is covered with snow right now... hard to polish in sub-freezing temperatures 😉

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Engineer
So you're for spending more government money? Bigger government eh? Which is it...smaller with lower taxes or bigger with larger taxes?

(I think it's personally bigger with smaller taxes like the current group of Republicans (not conservatives, simply Republicans) do)

my point was simply that you have people bitching about there not being any work and now here is something that will put people to work and get paid yet the bitching about how much govt spends goes up.....

personally I think the whole thing is a waste, as I think they all are....but to complain about this now and not complain about either the money spent on either of the conventions, or the aid which went to tsunami victims or any other thing we spend money on that we "don't" have to when at a time of war seems a bit off IMHO.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: Engineer
So you're for spending more government money? Bigger government eh? Which is it...smaller with lower taxes or bigger with larger taxes?

(I think it's personally bigger with smaller taxes like the current group of Republicans (not conservatives, simply Republicans) do)

my point was simply that you have people bitching about there not being any work and now here is something that will put people to work and get paid yet the bitching about how much govt spends goes up.....

personally I think the whole thing is a waste, as I think they all are....but to complain about this now and not complain about either the money spent on either of the conventions, or the aid which went to tsunami victims or any other thing we spend money on that we "don't" have to when at a time of war seems a bit off IMHO.

What work? This is a make-work effort. You're into social welfare now?

 

[Genx87]

Please get your facts right.

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

Clinton spent 33 million on his first inaguaration and and about 29.3 million his 2nd go around. Take inflation into account and the monetary difference probably isnt much.

Bill Clinton's first inaugural tallied $33 million in 1993, when Democrats were in a celebratory mood after being frozen out of the White House for 12 years. They cut back to about $30 million for the second Clinton inaugural go-around. There's just so much you could spend building a bridge to the 21st century.

http://www.newschief.com/stori...nion_inaguration.shtml

 

[umbrella39]

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.

Wow. More apples to oranges compressions. Tell me, did the Clinton Inauguration necessitate the need to close down 100 square blocks and cost the tax payers $19+million in security? Keep playing.

 

[daniel1113]

Was Clinton's inauguration before or after we were attacked by terrorists? I seem to have forgotten... funny how that happens, eh?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Was Clinton's inauguration before or after we were attacked by terrorists? I seem to have forgotten... funny how that happens, eh?

1st was before.

But, we weren't at war like we are now. We didn't have 150,000 troops actively engaged in theater.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Was Clinton's inauguration before or after we were attacked by terrorists? I seem to have forgotten... funny how that happens, eh?

Keep riding that 9/11 (insert excuse) train. :roll: You do Bush proud.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Please get your facts right.

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

Clinton spent 33 million on his first inaguaration and and about 29.3 million his 2nd go around. Take inflation into account and the monetary difference probably isnt much.

Bill Clinton's first inaugural tallied $33 million in 1993, when Democrats were in a celebratory mood after being frozen out of the White House for 12 years. They cut back to about $30 million for the second Clinton inaugural go-around. There's just so much you could spend building a bridge to the 21st century.

http://www.newschief.com/stori...nion_inaguration.shtml

Hmm..

I got 23 from this website...



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1298513/posts

 

[Genx87]

Wow. More apples to oranges compressions. Tell me, did the Clinton Inauguration necessitate the need to close down 100 square blocks and cost the tax payers $19+million in security? Keep playing

How is that an apples and oranges comparison?

We are comparing two inagurations?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Was Clinton's inauguration before or after we were attacked by terrorists? I seem to have forgotten... funny how that happens, eh?

1st was before.

But, we weren't at war like we are now. We didn't have 150,000 troops actively engaged in theater.

Well, I'll just call my good friend George Soros... perhaps he could donate $40 million to our troops to make up for the money wasted on this inauguration.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: daniel1113
Was Clinton's inauguration before or after we were attacked by terrorists? I seem to have forgotten... funny how that happens, eh?

Keep riding that 9/11 (insert excuse) train. :roll: You do Bush proud.

9/11 isn't an excuse to increase security? Wow.