Tuxedo fitting and --

cin said:
I bet a canera could be an explosive device. That is if you were Get smart. Gee I wonder what that woman was thinking having that in her purse. Maybe she thought George was hot.
Click to expand...

Somebody waved a box of Altoids at Clinton when he was here. Smiling, busty woman. Uh...yeah...
 
cin said:
I bet a canera could be an explosive device. That is if you were Get smart. Gee I wonder what that woman was thinking having that in her purse. Maybe she thought George was hot.
Click to expand...

I guess if she used the vibrator she wouldnt' have to say "missed it by that much" huh? :scratch:

:laughing: :laughing:
 
d_asian_guy said:
cin said:
:laughing: so you think they would actually have to say no firearms. I guess so.
Click to expand...

Michael just walked by and said "they do"

Some guy had a LOADED gun on him during a ball for one of Bush's balls. He went through security, it went off. He pulled out the gun from the holster on his belt. The FBI tackled the guy.

He got up and was screaming that he had every right to carry a gun. He had a consealed weapons permit for VA and DC and he could not understand why they were 'mauling' him.

Later, Michael found out he was a Assistant for a Senator who had worked in the Senate for about 12 years. Hello? You don't know WHY?
Click to expand...

HMMM Bush's balls funny. Get Michael on line and tell him he's republican not a dem LOL.
 
cin said:
HMMM Bush's balls funny. Get Michael on line and tell him he's republican not a dem LOL.
Click to expand...

Weirdo. That's the same thing Michael read and laughed about in what he said :nono: :laughing:

There was a Senators son who tried to come back with 10 pounds of cocaine from a junket to South America once. :nono:
 
I just read an editorial that named 10 mistakes Bush made, with the punchline being he didn't do ENOUGH - which is totally ironic, since his detractors seem to think he went overboard.

But I digress...

Whether or not I agree with the politics, if they DON'T go big on this, they will be slammed - one of those you're d-d if you do, and d-d if you don't dealios.

As to nutjobs? Yep. LOTS of those still around {contrary to belief, they are not party specific, lol} BUT, I don't fear any reprisals from these folks.

Go, have fun, and enjoy being a part of history!!! :headbang:
 
:sunny: How exciting for the you, Michael and the kids. Have a wonderful time. Be careful about not eating or might pass out at the ball and miss the whole thing!
 
I don't have a problem with a party but this is a little much considering the economic crisis we are in and considering President Bush was encouraged to not have a big party and to spend the money on the war.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/barack-obama-inauguration-cost

President Barack Obama's inauguration next week is set to be the most expensive ever, predicted to reach over $150m (£102m). This dwarfs the $42.3m spent on George Bush's inauguration in 2005 and the $33m spent on Bill Clinton's in 1993.

Part of the spending includes emergency funding announced by the White House on Tuesday to help with the soaring costs. Most of this new federal funding will be to deal with the huge influx of people, estimated 1.5 million to 2 million.

A White House statement said that President Bush "declared an emergency exists in the District of Columbia".
Click to expand...
 
They are expecting the largest crowds to ever be in Washington and there has to be an amount to cover the expenses of providing what the people are expecting. I don't necessarily agree that it is the best way to spend money, but this is a historic occasion in American history and will be celebrated as such. The world will be watching this one to see what happens in Washington in a couple of day and they are expecting America as usual.

Let them party then get down to business!
 
So true the world is watching and I guess if it is necessary to pay for all the party goers why not. The economy can wait another day. Sorry another few days.
 
It would be crazy if those numbers were accurate.. plenty of US sources to use.. even Faux news. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479955,00.html

It is believed President-elect Obama's inauguration will be the costliest in history — around $50 million
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06donors.html

The $24 million puts Mr. Obama more than halfway toward the goal of raising $40 million to $45 million for what could be the most expensive inauguration ever, topping the $42.3 million that President Bush spent in 2005.
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090113/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_inauguration_money_2

Bush said that an emergency exists and ordered federal aid to supplement the $15 million in federal funds already appropriated for the event.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said District of Columbia Mayor Adrian M. Fenty requested the emergency declaration on Jan. 7 because he decided that the crowds expected for the nation's 56th presidential inauguration would exceed the city's ability to protect the public.
Click to expand...

I can see that a few extra million compared to what bush spent is just... crazy.. :crazytongue:

And while I wouldnt spend that kind of money even if I had it what people do with their money is their business. food banks would be a better idea. :laughing:
 
3mnkids1 said:
It would be crazy if those numbers were accurate.. plenty of US sources to use.. even Faux news. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479955,00.html

It is believed President-elect Obama's inauguration will be the costliest in history — around $50 million
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06donors.html

The $24 million puts Mr. Obama more than halfway toward the goal of raising $40 million to $45 million for what could be the most expensive inauguration ever, topping the $42.3 million that President Bush spent in 2005.
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090113/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_inauguration_money_2

Bush said that an emergency exists and ordered federal aid to supplement the $15 million in federal funds already appropriated for the event.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said District of Columbia Mayor Adrian M. Fenty requested the emergency declaration on Jan. 7 because he decided that the crowds expected for the nation's 56th presidential inauguration would exceed the city's ability to protect the public.
Click to expand...

I can see that a few extra million compared to what bush spent is just... crazy.. :crazytongue:

And while I wouldnt spend that kind of money even if I had it what people do with their money is their business. food banks would be a better idea. :laughing:
Click to expand...

Wow thank you so much Tracey. I sure would hate to have those figures wrong. I knew you would come through with the correct information. So true about spending your own money the way you see fit. I don't want to be giving my pie away anyways.
 
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003?f=h_top

It also highlighted the type of news you can generate when making blatantly false comparisons. In this case, it was the cost of the Obama and Bush inaugurations. The connection was unfair because the Obama figure of $160 million that got repeated in the press included security costs associated with the massive event. But the Bush tab of $42 million left out those enormous costs. Talk about stacking the deck.
Click to expand...

However, buried in a recent New York Times article published one week before the controversy erupted over the cost of Obama's inauguration, the newspaper reported that in 2005, "the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers" [emphasis added].

You read that correctly. The federal government spent $115 million dollars for the 2005 inauguration. Keep in mind, that $115 million price tag was separate from the money Bush backers bundled to put on the inauguration festivities. For that, they raised $42 million. So the bottom line for Bush's 2005 inauguration, including the cost of security? That's right, $157 million.

Unless the Obama inauguration tab (including security) ends up costing $630 million, we can safely say it certainly won't cost four times what the Bush bash did in 2005. And unless the Obama inauguration tab (including security) runs to $257 million, we can safely say the event won't cost $100 million more than Bush's, as Fox & Friends claimed.

So, for now, can the press and partisans please stop peddling this malignant myth?
Click to expand...
 
This is from Fox, but if its correct I know everybody will be happy to be getting the extra pay/overtime for a happy (but stressful) occasion
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/16/washington-assembles-largest-inauguration-security-force/

The U.S. Secret Service is overseeing a security force of more than 40,000 people, including 7,500 active duty soldiers, 10,000 National Guard troops and 25,000 law-enforcement officers.

That surpasses the 31,000 troops serving in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

I bet it does a lot for the DC economy!
 
I guess all this proves is we just can't trust the media because someone is getting the numbers wrong.

Red I saw that story and I hope some of those troops may go over and help our guys fighting the war.
 
tharedhead said:
This is from Fox, but if its correct I know everybody will be happy to be getting the extra pay/overtime for a happy (but stressful) occasion
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/16/washington-assembles-largest-inauguration-security-force/

The U.S. Secret Service is overseeing a security force of more than 40,000 people, including 7,500 active duty soldiers, 10,000 National Guard troops and 25,000 law-enforcement officers.

That surpasses the 31,000 troops serving in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

I bet it does a lot for the DC economy!
Click to expand...


I hope it helps a lot of small business. you know the hotels are doing great. :laughing:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top