posted
The Left will not change, they remain as gullible and emotionally driven, mostly by vanity (theirs and the vanity of others which is deemed an attractive quality by those such as yourself) as they have been in decades past.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: The Left will not change, they remain as gullible and emotionally driven, mostly by vanity (theirs and the vanity of others which is deemed an attractive quality by those such as yourself) as they have been in decades past.
Was it Ben Franklin that said it is bettrer to keep you mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and prove you are?
It can be very good advice. Also, it keeps your emotions from getting the best of you and getting you to insult people you know nothing about all the time as you have again.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are right bdgee, you are all knowing. You remind me of many congressmen. 55 year old men acting like 12 year olds.
You have the same sick mentality as liberals in Washington that think they know how to better spend American taxpayer money than the taxpayer themselves. The wolves of taxation are ready to feast.
Why is it always someone else's fault bdgee?
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: You are right bdgee, you are all knowing. You remind me of many congressmen. 55 year old men acting like 12 year olds.
You have the same sick mentality as liberals in Washington that think they know how to better spend American taxpayer money than the taxpayer themselves. The wolves of taxation are ready to feast.
Why is it always someone else's fault bdgee?
Three questions, cow.
1) Why is it always, according to you, those "liberals" fault?
2) What, exactly do you think a liberal is and what makes you think that is an adequate definition?
3) It appears that, to you, a "liberal" is simply anyone that doesn't ride astraddle the far right-wing fanatically fundamentalist cayuse and you think calling them "liberals", intending it as an insult, is proper etiquette. Why? Why is it acceptable for you to intend to insult others?
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: The Left will not change, they remain as gullible and emotionally driven, mostly by vanity (theirs and the vanity of others which is deemed an attractive quality by those such as yourself) as they have been in decades past.
That's funny, was my thoughts exact about the Right wing lol
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The right, defined over the last three or so decades to be the republican party, because they insisted on having it that way, had better change or it will die and I don't like the possibilities of a one party government.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: The right, defined over the last three or so decades to be the republican party, because they insisted on having it that way, had better change or it will die and I don't like the possibilities of a one party government.
In reality...there already is a one party government
-------------------- ***********************
It's all in the timing... Posts: 4303 | From: DSA | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In reality...there already is a one party government
it always amazes me how many people don't see this.
President-elect Obama won. The country wants to see him succeed. And I think it's important that he succeed. It's important for our country.-Rep. John Boehner House Minority Leader, R-Ohio
posted
To figure out our government, all you have to do is follow the money. When corporations are booming, they put money back into the government to ensure they get the candidates they want into office so they can make more money. In other words, they hold the government by the testicles through control of it's leaders. However, when the greed catches hold, and the people at the top of the corporate world and the government are done and have run off with the money, and have "broken" their corporations, the government prints more money steps in and throws the money at the corporations in hopes of a big return. Since the financial health of the government is dependent on Wall Street being able to do well, these corporations, again, hold the government by the testicles.
The sad part of all of this is that, even though it is the government getting "squeezed," it's the taxpayer that somehow gets neutered in the end.
-------------------- "When you're in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging." -H. Ross Perot Posts: 111 | From: Detroit | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama's inauguration is going to cost up to 160 MILLION....yeah, when Bush's cost more than half less than that the left was up in arms. Shows how much there is a double standard going on in the Democratic party.
Spend more! Spend Spend Spend!
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:President-elect Obama won. The country wants to see him succeed. And I think it's important that he succeed. It's important for our country.-Rep. John Boehner House Minority Leader, R-Ohio
After Bush, how can he fail? If you feel that the media was too hard on Bush, the very opposite could be true of Obama. Whether you like the job he does or not, the media will make him look good (except for maybe fox-in which case nothing he will ever do will be right). My worry with Obama is that he will try to come from the "center" often, be a good president, and then get beat up by his own party.
-------------------- "When you're in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging." -H. Ross Perot Posts: 111 | From: Detroit | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I noticed NBC is owned by general electric. Makes a lot of sense now these connections.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"when Bush's cost more than half less than that the left was up in arms."
Who says?
Are you sure you are not imagining things and reporting nonsense without any facts or basis.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many visitors to http://www.allpresidents.org/ have been asking this question or some variation of it. There are two primary costs of inaugurations. One is the cost of the swearing-in ceremony, which is paid for by taxpayers; the funds are appropriated by Congress; in 2001, George W. Bush's swearing-in ceremony cost $1 million. Second is the cost of the balls, the candlelight dinners, the parties, the concerts -- all the festivities that surround the swearing-in ceremony, which are paid for by private donations.
If there is criticism of how much a modern inaugural costs, it is usually directed at this latter cost, the parties and festivities, even though the burden is not borne by taxpayers. Going backward in time, from the most recent to the most distant inaugurals, here are the private-sector costs of the festivities surrounding some inaugurations:
George W. Bush's 2nd inaugural will cost in the neighborhood of $40 million. That's what the Presidential Inaugural Committee is trying to raise through private donations and ticket sales to the nine balls and three candlelight dinners.
George W. Bush's 1st inaugural in 2001 also cost nearly $40 million.
Bill Clinton's 2nd inaugural in 1997 was comparatively lean by the inaugural standards of the times, $23.6 million.
Bill Clinton's 1st inaugural in 1993 cost approximately $33 million.
George H. W. Bush's inaugural in 1989 cost approximately $30 million.
Ronald Reagan's 2nd inaugural in 1985 cost in the neighborhood of the 1981 inaugural, around $20 million.
Ronald Reagan's 1st inaugural in 1981 cost $19.4 million, significantly more than his predecessors. One reason is that inflation had been sky-high between Carter's and Reagan's inaugurations. A second reason is that several balls were added to the festivities. A third is that the swearing-in ceremony was moved to the west front of the Capitol. Because of topography, that aspect of the building is much more dramatic than the east front; it was also symbolic of Ronald Reagan's western roots.
Jimmy Carter's inaugural in 1977 cost $3.5 million. Elected in the wake of the Watergate scandal, he deliberately downplayed anything that appeared to aggrandize the presidency.
Richard Nixon's 2nd inaugural in 1973 cost $4 million. Bob Hope, a Nixon supporter, joked that the three-day extravaganza commemorated "the time when Richard I becomes Richard II."
Lyndon Johnson's inaugural in 1965 cost $1.5 million.
Woodrow Wilson's inaugural was relatively lean since on his orders there would be no ball. He disliked dances. Congress appropriated $30,000 for the event.
James Madison's inaugural ceremony in 1809 cost more than previous inaugurals in part because it was the first to include a ball. Dolley Madison, the federalist era's social maven, had also served as hostess for President Jefferson.
posted
Ladies and gentlemen if you raise 750 million dollars in a race then you too can be president!
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
