NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush's vow:

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world," he said after being sworn in as 43rd president of the United States by Justice William Rehnquist.

The paradox:

At $40 million US, it is the most expensive -- and heavily-guarded -- inauguration in history.

"The size and scope of security here is absolutely unprecedented in American history," said Clark.

"There are 13,000 security personnel that we know of. There's anti-aircraft batteries hidden behind trees, combat air patrols by F-18s and F-16s over the city, they're even jamming cell phones because they have been used by terrorists to set off bombs before."

From the skies, satellites that can read a car's licence plate will watch over Washington.

There will be combat air patrols over the city and anti-aircraft batteries hidden behind trees.

Manholes have been welded shut, traffic has been barred from a 100-block area and various barriers restrict pedestrians from some areas.

Perhaps he meant to say feardumb instead of freedom?

More likely he was just lying again. That dang darn Bush.

Anyone can say they love freedom and shit. Take for example, me. I believe in privacy. but do I really? what if I really didn't and just wanted you to like me because I had no friends after I went AWOL and snorted crack? you just don't know.

Would you rather have them do nothing ? would you rather have them let the millions of people who live in washington DC be in immenant danger because terrorist may want to kill a single man. Think about it, the more tempting a target them more you have to defend it. The same ammount of security if not more will be required from now until the end of history.

Why the hell would the terrorists attack at the most suspected time?

Bush's vow:

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world," he said after being sworn in as 43rd president of the United States by Justice William Rehnquist.

The paradox:

At $40 million US, it is the most expensive -- and heavily-guarded -- inauguration in history.

"The size and scope of security here is absolutely unprecedented in American history," said Clark.

"There are 13,000 security personnel that we know of. There's anti-aircraft batteries hidden behind trees, combat air patrols by F-18s and F-16s over the city, they're even jamming cell phones because they have been used by terrorists to set off bombs before."

From the skies, satellites that can read a car's licence plate will watch over Washington.

There will be combat air patrols over the city and anti-aircraft batteries hidden behind trees.

Manholes have been welded shut, traffic has been barred from a 100-block area and various barriers restrict pedestrians from some areas.

Perhaps he meant to say feardumb instead of freedom?
I don't get why you people are so obsessed with symbolism in details.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for temporary securities deserve neither liberty nor security." - Thomas Jefferson

I think that pretty much sums up the United States today.

Would you rather have them do nothing ? would you rather have them let the millions of people who live in washington DC be in immenant danger because terrorist may want to kill a single man. Think about it, the more tempting a target them more you have to defend it. The same ammount of security if not more will be required from now until the end of history.
So now they have the freedom to be afraid.......very afraid?

Would you rather have them do nothing ? would you rather have them let the millions of people who live in washington DC be in immenant danger because terrorist may want to kill a single man.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for temporary securities deserve neither liberty nor security." - Thomas Jefferson

I think that pretty much sums up the United States today.

Actually, that was Benjamin Franklin.

And the quote is: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." Notice the absence of the word "temporary." Not that it has any significance, except for the fact that you misquoted and mis-attributed.

Actually, that was Benjamin Franklin.

And the quote is: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." Notice the absence of the word "temporary." Not that it has any significance, except for the fact that you misquoted and mis-attributed.

Beat me to the correction.

Temporary is a significant point, however when is the forseeable end of the "war on terror?"

I don't get why you people are so obsessed with symbolism in details.
Well Bush wants the US to be symbolic of "world" freedom? Tough to do that when freedoms are being restricted in his own country?

Well Bush wants the US to be symbolic of "world" freedom? Tough to do that when freedoms are being restricted in his own country?
I can argue otherwise, but I won't. Why? Because you refuse to budge nary an inch, so what's the point in doing so?

I can argue otherwise, but I won't. Why? Because you refuse to budge nary an inch, so what's the point in doing so?
I can be persuaded to move but only when given logic and fact.

At $40 million US, it is the most expensive -- and heavily-guarded -- inauguration in history.
Wrong. Bill Clinton's 1997 inauguration was more expensive than this one at $42 million ($50 million in today's money).

Well Bush wants the US to be symbolic of "world" freedom? Tough to do that when freedoms are being restricted in his own country?

Yes, because it's not like you can do anything you want in the U.S. :rolleyes:

Wrong. Bill Clinton's 1997 inauguration was more expensive than this one at $42 million ($50 million in today's money).
At $40 million US, it is the most expensive -- and heavily-guarded -- inauguration in history.

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1106235831389_101645031?hub=topstories

Take it up with the reporters?

Bush's vow:

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world," he said after being sworn in as 43rd president of the United States by Justice William Rehnquist.

The paradox:

At $40 million US, it is the most expensive -- and heavily-guarded -- inauguration in history.

"The size and scope of security here is absolutely unprecedented in American history," said Clark.

"There are 13,000 security personnel that we know of. There's anti-aircraft batteries hidden behind trees, combat air patrols by F-18s and F-16s over the city, they're even jamming cell phones because they have been used by terrorists to set off bombs before."

From the skies, satellites that can read a car's licence plate will watch over Washington.

There will be combat air patrols over the city and anti-aircraft batteries hidden behind trees.

Manholes have been welded shut, traffic has been barred from a 100-block area and various barriers restrict pedestrians from some areas.

Perhaps he meant to say feardumb instead of freedom?


Only comment: Perhaps, he should have stayed true to his party (that's so off course), and made a speech telling us about how he'll focus on minimizing government.

Then, (aside from the quasisocialists), he would've been placed next to his fellow Republican in history, Lincoln.
But no, war is far more fun.

Only comment: Perhaps, he should have stayed true to his party (that's so off course), and made a speech telling us about how he'll focus on minimizing government.

Then, (aside from the quasisocialists), he would've been placed next to his fellow Republican in history, Lincoln.
But no, war is far more fun.
Oh? I thought Republican = BIG government? :D

Would you rather have them do nothing ? would you rather have them let the millions of people who live in washington DC be in immenant danger because terrorist may want to kill a single man. Think about it, the more tempting a target them more you have to defend it. The same ammount of security if not more will be required from now until the end of history.I would have preferred there to have been MUCH less hooplah in acknowledgement that there's a war on (and heaven forfend, a nod to the narrow margin of victory). Instead the Bushies felt the need to parade around like Caesar.

Wrong. Bill Clinton's 1997 inauguration was more expensive than this one at $42 million ($50 million in today's money).
Even if Clinton's was more expensive (which it wasn't) America actually had money to spend in 1997 because of the surplus. Here in 2005, America is in a ****load of debt. It's not really worth the money.

God damnit! I friggin' demand to know what friggin' freedoms anyone in the entire friggin' Country has lost! I hear this friggin' shit from friggin' idiots on this friggin' board all the friggin' time, but they never, ever answer this friggin' question![/TIRADE]
When one lives in fear, they give up their freedom?

Well, the cost matters little, since IT IS NOT PUBLIC MONEY. I repeat, NOT PUBLIC MONEY. It is all from private donations. Of course that opens a whole 'nother can of worms...Anyway, how is having extra security limiting freedom? So we have more cops and more armaments. Big whoop.

Even if Clinton's was more expensive (which it wasn't) America actually had money to spend in 1997 because of the surplus. Here in 2005, America is in a ****load of debt. It's not really worth the money.
So Clinton should only have had his 2nd inauguration, right? (We had a deficit and it increased for the first two years of Clinton's administration, until the Republican Revolution of '94).

Even if Clinton's was more expensive (which it wasn't) America actually had money to spend in 1997 because of the surplus. Here in 2005, America is in a ****load of debt. It's not really worth the money.
And America's debt increased every year under the Clinton administration. But you probably meant deficit.

And America's debt increased every year under the Clinton administration. But you probably meant deficit.
You still attacking Clinton? This is about Bush's inauguration and his call for world "freedom", while hiding behind massive military protections.

You still attacking Clinton? This is about Bush's inauguration and his call for world "freedom", while hiding behind massive military protections.
Apparently you're incapable of the text in the quote box.

Edit :I should explain this. I didn't bring up the original Clinton point at all (Gactimus). I was merely addressing the factual inaccuracy presented in the thread. I had no desire to bring Clinton into this thread and attack him, merely to set the record straight. If one had read the chain of posts leading up to mine, it would be easy to deduce that I didn't start the sub-topic of Clinton.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
So you agree that protecting the area is what is good for the many as well as the few or one.

So now they have the freedom to be afraid.......very afraid?

So you move the inaguration somewhere that they can secure with less resourses, and you don't risk the lives of bystandars....but wait, that sends a message that we are afraid.....so yes, they do have the right to be afraid, but they also have the choice to not be afraid.

So you agree that protecting the area is what is good for the many as well as the few or one.
No. Of course not. Cause it's Bush we're talking about. If someone was trying to take him out there would be most likely some collatoral damage. But it would be for the greater good.

I'm not exactly seeing the point you're trying to make about restricting freedom here...I mean, it's common practice to shut down DC during an inauguration, I don't see why you're so damn angsty about it.

I would have preferred there to have been MUCH less hooplah in acknowledgement that there's a war on (and heaven forfend, a nod to the narrow margin of victory). Instead the Bushies felt the need to parade around like Caesar.

Well hes the president, what do you expect him to do, bow to the 49% of people who didn't vote for him? Its his job to represent everyone in the United States now, including democrats. A president is a head of state, like the Queen, or the govoner general, or the emporer, like ceaser, everything he sends is a message, and he chooses to be larger than life, rather than humble caretaker.

Even if Clinton's was more expensive (which it wasn't) America actually had money to spend in 1997 because of the surplus. Here in 2005, America is in a ****load of debt. It's not really worth the money.

Um... you are aware that the surplus didn't mean that we had no debt, but that we just happened to run a surplus that year?

The last time the US was debt-free was one particular day in 1958.

Perhaps he meant to say feardumb instead of freedom?
You seem to be projecting your qualitites onto our president. Perhaps you should stop sitting in the snow when you crap, you may be freezing your brain.

No. Of course not. Cause it's Bush we're talking about. If someone was trying to take him out there would be most likely some collatoral damage. But it would be for the greater good.

Wow arn't we big, you probably hate the war in IRAQ because of all the collateral damage, yet promote it against others. I think you have very few legs to stand on here.

.....

The paradox:

[i]At $40 million US, it is the most expensive -- and heavily-guarded -- inauguration in history......



Not true. Clintons 2nd inauguration was the most expensive, when you take into account the rate of inflation.

Wow arn't we big,
I'm a generouse guy.
you probably hate the war in IRAQ because of all the collateral damage, yet promote it against others. I think you have very few legs to stand on here.
I have 2. Thats enough.

.....

The paradox:

[i]At $40 million US, it is the most expensive -- and heavily-guarded -- inauguration in history......



Not true. Clintons 2nd inauguration was the most expensive, when you take into account the rate of inflation.
And Bush's was privately funded.

At $40 million US, it is the most expensive -- and heavily-guarded -- inauguration in history.

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1106235831389_101645031?hub=topstories

Take it up with the reporters?

Ah, but:
Bearing the costs
The Presidential Inaugural Committee has said putting on the inaugural events would cost about $40 million, which is being raised from private donors -- more than half of them corporations that gave as much as $250,000 each -- as well as sales of tickets and merchandise.

In addition, the federal government and District of Columbia will bear the costs of providing security, expected to be around $20 million.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/bush.inauguration/index.html

Wrong. Bill Clinton's 1997 inauguration was more expensive than this one at $42 million ($50 million in today's money).


Damnit, you beat me to it. Disregard my last post.

Even if Clinton's was more expensive (which it wasn't) America actually had money to spend in 1997 because of the surplus. Here in 2005, America is in a ****load of debt. It's not really worth the money.
Yes, it was.

Clinton Inaugural Cost (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050119-103531-1062r.htm)

And it's not payed for by taxpayers. It is payed for by private donations. Only the security costs for the actual inaugural ceremony are paid for by taxpayers.

Yes, it was.

Clinton Inaugural Cost (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050119-103531-1062r.htm)

And it's not payed for by taxpayers. It is payed for by private donations. Only the security costs for the actual inaugural ceremony are paid for by taxpayers.

And you didnt hear anyone in the media cry fowl over Clintons spending.

Bush's vow:

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world," he said after being sworn in as 43rd president of the United States by Justice William Rehnquist.

The paradox:

At $40 million US, it is the most expensive -- and heavily-guarded -- inauguration in history.

"The size and scope of security here is absolutely unprecedented in American history," said Clark.

"There are 13,000 security personnel that we know of. There's anti-aircraft batteries hidden behind trees, combat air patrols by F-18s and F-16s over the city, they're even jamming cell phones because they have been used by terrorists to set off bombs before."

From the skies, satellites that can read a car's licence plate will watch over Washington.

There will be combat air patrols over the city and anti-aircraft batteries hidden behind trees.

Manholes have been welded shut, traffic has been barred from a 100-block area and various barriers restrict pedestrians from some areas.

Perhaps he meant to say feardumb instead of freedom?
So, we have no freedoms in this country because:
1. We spent a lot of money on inaugurating our President.
2. We are making sure he doesn't get killed.
3. We are jamming your annoying cell phones for a few hours over a few city blocks to keep the public and the President safe.
4. Satellites are in the skies watching things - like they have been for decades, and not just in the US. How does that restrict my personal freedom?
5. We are using air patrols and anti-aircraft batteries to - PROTECT the PUBLIC and the PRESIDENT. (Don't get how that restricts anyone's freedom?)
6. I can't wander around the sewers in a 100-block radius in DC. Darn, I was so looking forward to that . . .

And look how restricted my free speech is!
And look how no protesters were allowed (oh, that's right, there WERE protesters).
Demonstrate to me how any of your points has meaningfully restricted anyone's civil rights!!

Why dont the protests save all that money they spent to go protest and send it to South Asia, and do some good?

Why the hell would the terrorists attack at the most suspected time?



Sonny-Jim, even though I'm sure this doesn't actually need explaining, I suppose I'll do it anyway. But the fact I have to explain it does not inspire confidence.


The fact that's it's obvious is the best reason to defend it, for if it weren't defended, it would be an obvious place to attack. Because it's an obvious place to attack, there is need to make such action difficult, if not nigh-impossible, to enact. Thus, the idea is to make attacking such a fortified position (even if it would be an obvious mark) impractical, ineffective, and a waste of explosives.

Besides that, attacking such an obvious place would be a distinct sign of courage and faith. These enemies of ours would be more than happy to display such characteristics in such an area, as their exploits would be televised endlessly. It would likely inspire some of their fellows to take part, ones who were, previously, unsure.


Fact of it is, the descision to NOT attack is somewhat baffling. A good thing, to be sure, but baffling none-the-less. The advantages to the enemy are blatantly obvious, and even a piss-ant attack on nothing but the security forces would be a good method of doing the above.


The latter portion of my nonsense is, to be sure, little more than wild conjecture strung together for the sake of stringing stuff together. Assumptions based on what I've seen thus far, and likely wrong, but the first part is 100% accurate. Common knowledge, and all that good stuff.

Admittedly, spending a lot of money from big companies on protection isn't restrictive of freedoms. This doesn't, however, get Bush off the hook. It is STILL scary that he thinks he needs that much protection. It is scary that he believes his environment is so out of control. Do you know why he feels that? Because he is AFRAID. Fear is a bad thing for a president to have. Healthy fear, sure. But fear like this can lead to a more destructive path, such as dictatorship. I'm not saying that is what is happening, I'm saying that a president who is afraid to walk the last blocks of his path (see the 2001 motorcade incident) is not going to encourage freedoms of any kind.

Even if Clinton's was more expensive (which it wasn't) America actually had money to spend in 1997 because of the surplus. Here in 2005, America is in a ****load of debt. It's not really worth the money.
America didn't pay for the inauguration. It was privately funded. Try to get your facts straight next time.

At $40 million US, it is the most expensive -- and heavily-guarded -- inauguration in history.

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1106235831389_101645031?hub=topstories

Take it up with the reporters?
Well, he happens to be wrong.

But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent.

According to the Consumer Price Index, $42 million in 1997 is the equivalent of $49.5 in 2004.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050119-103531-1062r.htm