NationStates Jolt Archive

Fox News Live Anchorwoman Brigitte Quinn gets a surprise when Judy Bachrach from Vanity Fair dares to question the nature of Bush's elaborate second inauguration.

Did anyone catch this live?
This is almost as great as John Stewart's appearance on Crossfire!

http://www.milkandcookies.com/links/24912/


I love the last part: "I think we've given you more than enough time..." :D

great

I'm not aware of either of these two people, but that's a refreshing change from the usual sycophancy one tends to hear from the unofficial mouth organ of the Bush administration.

whoo hoo go Vanity Fair.

Now that is the kind of questioning I like to see get out there

Fox so needed to get served.

And I loved JS on Crossfire.

Ow3nd!!!! Lolol

Heh now that is funny :p

TEH OWNORZ

That was an instant classic.

The best part for me is when the anchor answers the concern for the soldiers with, "He had a prayer breakfast."

So at least you can't say he didn't give them a prayer......





Oh man that was bad. I'm sorry.....

I'll coment in a while when my 56k sorts its shit out and buffers the thing.

She does have a point. Why ten parties, when we're in such dire straights financially? Why pomp and celebration, when we have men dying overseas? It lacks a very basic sense of decency.

Its disturbing because it smacks of a lack of understanding as to what is proper, and what is improper, in a time of war. You don't dance on your soldier's graves, right?

Corporations love to party and they'll party more when they can get more influence via these parties where normal Americans aren't invited because they don't have enough money.

And it's not like he isn't aready President.

And it's not like he isn't claiming that this term he will be reigning in the deficit. Why not make a personal example of austerity to put that point across? And more to the point, him sticking a 12 Million chunk of that bill to the citizens of DC was damn near criminal. This was an official federal event and should have been covered entirely out of federal funds.

The residents of DC should not be stuck with excessive tax burdens for events intended to be for the whole country.

And it's not like he isn't aready President.

And it's not like he isn't claiming that this term he will be reigning in the deficit. Why not make a personal example of austerity to put that point across? And more to the point, him sticking a 12 Million chunk of that bill to the citizens of DC was damn near criminal. This was an official federal event and should have been covered entirely out of federal funds.

The residents of DC should not be stuck with excessive tax burdens for events intended to be for the whole country.

You are Canadian, mind your business. Like you really care if the people of DC have to pay for this.

BTW who footed the security bill for security at past ones?

I like how that chick at Vanity Fair brought up FDR's. It was modest cause the freaking guy couldn't walk! Can't really picture him dancing around at balls with his polio legs.


Yeah she so owned FOX! :rolleyes: Give me a break.

Besides if the public wants to raise $40 million for some nice parties, then let them. If memory serves me, this is still a free country.


BTW if you are worried that much about armored hummers and our servicemen, make sure you donate all of your excess money to the government.

You are Canadian, mind your business. Like you really care if the people of DC have to pay for this.

BTW who footed the security bill for security at past ones?

The flip-side to that:


You are Amercian, mind your business. Like you really cared if the people of Iraq lived under a dictator....

oh wait - with no WMD and no links to Al Qaeda, that whole "caring about the people of Iraq" is the only justification Bush has left.

I guess, using your myopic little view of what people should care about, that there is now NO justification for that war? But yet you keep on supporting it!

Why?

The flip-side to that:


You are Amercian, mind your business. Like you really cared if the people of Iraq lived under a dictator....

oh wait - with no WMD and no links to Al Qaeda, that whole "caring about the people of Iraq" is the only justification Bush has left.

I guess, using your myopic little view of what people should care about, that there is now NO justification for that war? But yet you keep on supporting it!

pWn3d! :D



Two pWnings in a single thread! Yay! :D

The flip-side to that:


You are Amercian, mind your business. Like you really cared if the people of Iraq lived under a dictator....

oh wait - with no WMD and no links to Al Qaeda, that whole "caring about the people of Iraq" is the only justification Bush has left.

I guess, using your myopic little view of what people should care about, that there is now NO justification for that war? But yet you keep on supporting it!

Why?

I didn't care if they lived under a dictator. I just find it nice that we flex our muscles (unlike you impotent Canucks) and can lay waste to a third world nation.

WMD, Al Qaeda? Who cares? It's just a good reason to anger the muslims, draw them out into the open and kill them all. Why do we need justification? The UN is much like Canada in the fact that both are impotent, and couldn't make themselves virile, if their lives depended on it! As the lone megapower, we can do what we please. Besides it's our turn to control the world. the Europeans had centuries to do it, why can't we?


Besides, they have a resource that we need. I am willing to fight for our nations survival which includes oil!

pWn3d! :D



Two pWnings in a single thread! Yay! :D


Yeah, he so pWn3d me!


Dink!

You are Canadian, mind your business

Um, just because someone is Canadian doesn't mean they can't have an opinion.

You are exactly the American I fear from my own country - the xenophobic one.

Zepp! Shouldn't you rather worry about the state of your softwood lumber, beef industries? I guess not. You are so concerned about a war in a middle eastern nation, which really has no direct effect on your daily life. Why??

Go slaughter some baby harp seals, you'll stop being so concerned about what the big, bad, evil USA is doing. Just be careful not to choke on that fabulous Canadian cuisine (whatever the heck that means). Listen to Canadian radio with it's content laws, and relax.

Um, just because someone is Canadian doesn't mean they can't have an opinion.

You are exactly the American I fear from my own country - the xenophobic one.

Yes, I am totally nationalistic and xenophobic.


Opinions are like cowboy hats, pretty soon every asshole has one!

We've always carried on inaugural balls as normal, even during war.. Security costs have sharply increased, but that's to be expected nowadays.

I think we can agree that this year's election was particularly brutal on both sides, and that a whole lot of people put their souls into the race - the parties are to reward them for their dedication to the cause, as usual.

If anyone really thought that Bush's dancing for 3 hours (he goes to sleep at 9 p.m., 10 on inauguration day) was a distraction from the war or disrespectful, the average person would've complained.. I guess we'll see. ;)

I can't load video; however, I do love to see these big network anchors get nailed in any case, so I'll have to get it at work. :)

You are Canadian, mind your business. Like you really care if the people of DC have to pay for this.

BTW who footed the security bill for security at past ones?
Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63896-2005Jan10.html)
"This is the first time there hasn't been a direct appropriation for the inauguration."
I'm american. Do I get to care?

And to suggest that FDRs war time inauguration was modest because he couldn't dance is just silly.

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63896-2005Jan10.html)

I'm american. Do I get to care?

And to suggest that FDRs war time inauguration was modest because he couldn't dance is just silly.

Yes you get to care. But I don't care about you.

No it's not silly. Remember that he hid exactly how ill he was. Wouldn't be much of a ball if the President just sat their with gimp legs!

And to suggest that FDRs war time inauguration was modest because he couldn't dance is just silly.

Exactly. Especially since FDR didn't spare expense.. if the pundit said he did, she must be confused. Not only that, but FDR's first inaugural was at the height of the depression..

Yes you get to care. But I don't care about you.

No it's not silly. Remember that he hid exactly how ill he was. Wouldn't be much of a ball if the President just sat their with gimp legs!
An inauguration ball isn't a rave, it's not all about dancing so if you can't you don't have a lavish one. If you have respect for the sacrafices that you are asking others to make, you demonstrate that. Especially if you are the president. If you do not, you open yourself up for criticism.

I'm sorry we are not so careless with the lives of the men and women who risk thier lives for the country. I'm sorry they are risking them to protect people like you.

Zepp! Shouldn't you rather worry about the state of your softwood lumber, beef industries? I guess not. You are so concerned about a war in a middle eastern nation, which really has no direct effect on your daily life. Why??

Go slaughter some baby harp seals, you'll stop being so concerned about what the big, bad, evil USA is doing. Just be careful not to choke on that fabulous Canadian cuisine (whatever the heck that means). Listen to Canadian radio with it's content laws, and relax.


lmfao!

I love it when people try to make things personal in a misguided intent to get under my skin.

Ah well, childish antics for childish people I guess.

The flip-side to that:


You are Amercian, mind your business. Like you really cared if the people of Iraq lived under a dictator....

oh wait - with no WMD and no links to Al Qaeda, that whole "caring about the people of Iraq" is the only justification Bush has left.

I guess, using your myopic little view of what people should care about, that there is now NO justification for that war? But yet you keep on supporting it!

Why?

Althought this was not directly at myself I will respond. I AM an American, and in fact I DO care that the people of Traq lived under a dictator. To want other people to be free from opression and to have freedom really should come with the package if you are an American (and really most everyone else too I guess). And don't stry to tell me that Saddam was not killing his people, he was. Also, just because we have not found WMD's does not mean that they were not there, I know that if I was Saddam and I knew the U.S. was going to invade that I would move my WMD's really fast. I will have to to give you the point on Al Qaeda though, but everyone makes mistakes. As for the "Careing about the Iraqi People" that is NOT an excuse. I bet you are one of the people that only watches the Commie News Network (if you even get that or any other news program in Canada) and thus only sees the bad things about Iraq and the United States. Do some reserach for yourself, don't just trust the news, we are doing so much good over there. Remember, the only reason the reason the news pusblshes negative stuff is because they are liberal hippes and because bllod, death, and sadness draw viewers. But back to the main point, freeing the Iraqi's and free elections is more than justification for war.

And remember kids, canada is like the United States, without all the good stuff.

What an ass. Bachrach was given an opportunity to join in the inaugural celebration, and instead she used it to stump for the pro-Saddam Left.

You're right, it is a bit like Jon Stewart. He was a comedian speaking out for the abolition of public political forums he didn't like (because they "hurt America"), and now Bachrach is speaking out against inaugural festivities that celebrate the very freedoms that our soldiers are fighting for.

The Washington press corps is beside itself because President Bush will celebrate his second inauguration with $40 million worth of festivities - at a time when the nation is at war and the tragedy of the tsunami disaster is still fresh.

Instead, they say, Bush should do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did for his third inauguration on the eve of World War II, and pull the plug on all the ostentatious presidential partying.

There's a reason, however, that the press cites Roosevelt's 1941 inauguration instead of, say, his first in 1933 - which was the Great Depression's worst year.

That's because - with the nation facing economic ruin, bread lines stretching around every other city corner, millions of Americans on the verge of losing their homes and a worldwide banking collapse looking imminent - the Democrats' man of the people threw a party that rivaled Hollywood's biggest and best.

In fact, Hollywood's stars turned out in droves to party with the new president - as Stephen Talbott, son of then-Warner Brother's actor Lyle Talbott, recalled in a 2001 Washington Post article.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/15/143939.shtml

The Left appears to love "ambushing" people who can't answer back, or shouting down people who can. The poster in this thread and a number of his allies seem to be quite proud of this tactic. Perhaps it's high publicity stunts like this, however, that are in part responsible for the steadily dismal showing of the Left in the US election booth - rather than, say, some grand right-wing conspiracy against them.

Not that there shouldn't be one, mind.

An inauguration ball isn't a rave, it's not all about dancing so if you can't you don't have a lavish one. If you have respect for the sacrafices that you are asking others to make, you demonstrate that. Especially if you are the president. If you do not, you open yourself up for criticism.

I'm sorry we are not so careless with the lives of the men and women who risk thier lives for the country. I'm sorry they are risking them to protect people like you.

You know we had balls at the height of the great depression, Korean War, Vietnam. Will you call those Presidents uncaring for having them as well?

What about Clintons' 97 gala which cost more then this one?

It's funny though. You liberals piss and moan how the social scene in DC is dead because the President and his wife don't host state dinners, big parties, and are boring people. Now they have some big parties and you guys still piss and moan. Sort of just like how Clinton was saying for years that SS needed reform and that it was headed for trouble. Now that Bush says it, it is wrong?

WTF?

No it's not silly. Remember that he hid exactly how ill he was. Wouldn't be much of a ball if the President just sat their with gimp legs!

Hm.. I guess I shoulda looked it up, rather than relying on memory.. I was right that FDR had a massive inaugural, and I knew he had polio, but I thought he attended the parties. I was wrong about that - he didn't, in any of his election win years. The parties went on just the same, but without FDR... poor guy. :(

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63896-2005Jan10.html)

I'm american. Do I get to care?

And to suggest that FDRs war time inauguration was modest because he couldn't dance is just silly.

How is that silly? The guy was in a wheelchair man, at least they held it, if I was him I wouldn't even have done that, if I couldn't dance and I was getting inagurated I would skip the ball and save the tax payers some money(of course FDR should have gone with my idea instead, but oh well).

And remember kids, canada is like the United States, without all the good stuff.

What "good stuff" would that be, now?

An inauguration ball isn't a rave, it's not all about dancing so if you can't you don't have a lavish one. If you have respect for the sacrafices that you are asking others to make, you demonstrate that. Especially if you are the president. If you do not, you open yourself up for criticism.

I'm sorry we are not so careless with the lives of the men and women who risk thier lives for the country. I'm sorry they are risking them to protect people like you.

Can I beat you with my BAT OF COMMON SENSE? I think you need it.

What "good stuff" would that be, now?

Well...there is so much of it I really wouldn't know where to start. Maybe we should start with having you gfo hear and read this.
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
and this.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
and this.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Personally I think thats all our "good stuff" wrapped up very nicely. You guys have what....moose, ice, more ice, and the french (ick).

Well...there is so much of it I really wouldn't know where to start. Maybe we should start with having you gfo hear and read this.
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
and this.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
and this.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Personally I think thats all our "good stuff" wrapped up very nicely. You guys have what....moose, ice, more ice, and the french (ick).

Plus an ever increasing obesity rate. They will soon catch up to the good ole US of A. Also they have massive seal killing with clubs.

lmfao!

I love it when people try to make things personal in a misguided intent to get under my skin.

Ah well, childish antics for childish people I guess.


Yeah Zepp, such a mature retort. I guess you learned that in your fabulous Canadian education system (??). :rolleyes:

Instead, they say, Bush should do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did for his third inauguration on the eve of World War II, and pull the plug on all the ostentatious presidential partying.



On the EVE of World War II??? A little bit off topic, and just a general point but I find it very interesting that Americans think World War II started in 1941.

Well...there is so much of it I really wouldn't know where to start. Maybe we should start with having you gfo hear and read this.
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
and this.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
and this.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Personally I think thats all our "good stuff" wrapped up very nicely. You guys have what....moose, ice, more ice, and the french (ick).

Don't forget Disneyland, orange groves and Tex-Mex food! And cheaper healthcare, along with a more accomodating business environment. I mean, not everyone starts or acquires a business, but if you do, don't do it up north! :eek:

Can I beat you with my BAT OF COMMON SENSE? I think you need it.
Wow. Zing. You have me. With that well thought out argument I have no choice but to go worship at the alter of St. George the Second. You right, with the biggest dick we don't have to be responsable-we can just do what we want because history has shown that that never comes back to haunt anybody. And principles we where founded on, HA! who needs those now? We got the big dick.

And since a president in peace time during an economic boom had parties that only cost slightly less and still reimbursed the city for security it totally justifies a war time gala and not reimbursing the city. Why, it's common sense-I can see it all now through your well thought out argument. You have me sir. I shall dispense with any concern I might have. What a fool I was to question the government. I must have misunderstood our founding principals, they clearly indicate that I should cheerlead and celibrate the president.

On the EVE of World War II??? A little bit off topic, and just a general point but I find it very interesting that Americans think World War II started in 1941.

Most don't...

On the EVE of World War II??? A little bit off topic, and just a general point but I find it very interesting that Americans think World War II started in 1941.
It did for us, which is where the relivance comes in.

And since a president in peace time during an economic boom had parties that only cost slightly less and still reimbursed the city for security it totally justifies a war time gala and not reimbursing the city. Why, it's common sense-I can see it all now through your well thought out argument. You have me sir. I shall dispense with any concern I might have. What a fool I was to question the government. I must have misunderstood our founding principals, they clearly indicate that I should cheerlead and celibrate the president.

Aw, come on... D.C. went 91% for Kerry.. you know you'd stick 'em if you were W. ;)

Ha! Well done to whoever she is.

Aw, come on... D.C. went 91% for Kerry.. you know you'd stick 'em if you were W. ;)
Because he's a uniter, not a divider, right?

Well...there is so much of it I really wouldn't know where to start. Maybe we should start with having you gfo hear and read this.
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
and this.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
and this.
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Personally I think thats all our "good stuff" wrapped up very nicely. You guys have what....moose, ice, more ice, and the french (ick).

Your view of Canadian culture is comical at best. Independence and Constitutions are all well and good, provided they don't get abused. I count myself very, very fortunate to live in a country in which I have little fear of being shot (either in war or public), having what I can watch and listen to dictated for me, being prevented from maintaining a relationship with whomever I care about, or bearing the brunt of the international community's disdain.

Because he's a uniter, not a divider, right?

I'd stick it to them just for the fact that they re-elected a crackhead mayor. I guess when crackheads make up most of a cities population, it is inevitable.

What an ass. Bachrach was given an opportunity to join in the inaugural celebration, and instead she used it to stump for the pro-Saddam Left..

Wow.. I never knew the US soldiers risking their lives in Iraq were pro-Saddam lefties...

Your view of Canadian culture is comical at best. Independence and Constitutions are all well and good, provided they don't get abused. I count myself very, very fortunate to live in a country in which I have little fear of being shot (either in war or public), having what I can watch and listen to dictated for me, being prevented from maintaining a relationship with whomever I care about, or bearing the brunt of the international community's disdain.

you can't watch or listen to whatever you want on the Canadian airwaves. Ever hear about Candian Content Laws?

If you want to have gay sex, be my guest.

The international communities disdain? Who cares?

The international communities disdain? Who cares?

If you're going to involve yourselves in international conflicts and affairs, the you really should care.

Last I checked, Canadians have the same rights and freedoms as you do from what I can tell. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms spring to mind....

I don't see why spending tax payers money on a celebration when you don't actually have the money to do it makes any sense. Why not put that money into education or something that helps everyone instead of a few rich people? Use your personal money to do that stuff.

If you're going to involve yourselves in international conflicts and affairs, the you really should care.

If "peace at any price" needs to be our motto to be popular, the value of popularity is called into question, to say the least.

If "peace at any price" needs to be our motto to be popular, the value of popularity is called into question, to say the least.

Yes, exactly, whats the point of being popular if we are not doing what is right? I would very much rather do the right thing that be popular. My view on canadians is comical because they are comical (but don't worry, there are worse people in the world than the candians).

Yes, exactly, whats the point of being popular if we are not doing what is right? I would very much rather do the right thing that be popular. My view on canadians is comical because they are comical (but don't worry, there are worse people in the world than the candians).
Very well then, what is right? Now we're stepping into the realm of subjective morals.

Wow. This thread absolutely disgusts me. It reminds me of all the reasons I think the United States is heading down a very dangerous path. Some reactions:

1) The lady taking exception to the lavishness of Bush's inaugural was dead-on. What, exactly, happened to those "economically responsible" Republicans, who spent only on what absolutely *needed* funding? Why are we not funnelling this money to more deserving projects?

2) Canada, if anything, has more freedoms and rights than we as Americans do. Or, at the very least, they take them more seriously than Americans do. To paraphrase, any person who is willing to trade their basic human rights and freedoms for security deserves neither.

3) To those of you who claim this is another example of how left-wingers like to shout down people who can't respond, I kindly point you to the countless examples of Bill O'Reilly, for instance, yelling at guests on his show to "shut up" and requesting that his studio technicians turn off guests' mics when they say something for which he doesn't have a response. This was a situation where the Fox reporter knew she was beaten, knew she had no logical backing for the point she was supposed to be defending, and could only muster a sort of silly-sounding indignation.

4) Fox News absolutely is the mouthpiece of the Bush administration. Fair and balanced? That's the biggest, worst joke I've heard in years.

Very well then, what is right? Now we're stepping into the realm of subjective morals.

I am not sure if I want to discuss that with you, usually people like you think killing childern and gay people marrying is o.k. Both of those this is something I would never agree with anyone on.

Yes, exactly, whats the point of being popular if we are not doing what is right? I would very much rather do the right thing that be popular. My view on canadians is comical because they are comical (but don't worry, there are worse people in the world than the candians).

That's what separates us, and especially this Bush Administration, from the rest of the world: we reject ethical consequentialism more often than not.. an increasingly rare tradition I guess.

Wow. This thread absolutely disgusts me. It reminds me of all the reasons I think the United States is heading down a very dangerous path. Some reactions:

1) The lady taking exception to the lavishness of Bush's inaugural was dead-on. What, exactly, happened to those "economically responsible" Republicans, who spent only on what absolutely *needed* funding? Why are we not funnelling this money to more deserving projects?

2) Canada, if anything, has more freedoms and rights than we as Americans do. Or, at the very least, they take them more seriously than Americans do. To paraphrase, any person who is willing to trade their basic human rights and freedoms for security deserves neither.

3) To those of you who claim this is another example of how left-wingers like to shout down people who can't respond, I kindly point you to the countless examples of Bill O'Reilly, for instance, yelling at guests on his show to "shut up" and requesting that his studio technicians turn off guests' mics when they say something for which he doesn't have a response. This was a situation where the Fox reporter knew she was beaten, knew she had no logical backing for the point she was supposed to be defending, and could only muster a sort of silly-sounding indignation.

4) Fox News absolutely is the mouthpiece of the Bush administration. Fair and balanced? That's the biggest, worst joke I've heard in years.


If this thread disgusts you please save us the pain of gouging out our eyes after having to look at you posts by not posting.

That's what separates us, and especially this Bush Administration, from the rest of the world: we reject ethical consequentialism more often than not.. an increasingly rare tradition I guess.

The world is going down hill, I do not think we can avoid falling with the rest, but maybe at least we can slow our descent.

Manstrom

If this thread disgusts you please save us the pain of gouging out our eyes after having to look at you posts by not posting.

This is another tactic of the right--if you don't like what's going on here, leave. It is my responsibility as a citizen of the United States to point out when something the government does disgusts me, and to try to effect change. That's why it's a democracy, sir.

Wow. This thread absolutely disgusts me. It reminds me of all the reasons I think the United States is heading down a very dangerous path. Some reactions:

1) The lady taking exception to the lavishness of Bush's inaugural was dead-on. What, exactly, happened to those "economically responsible" Republicans, who spent only on what absolutely *needed* funding? Why are we not funnelling this money to more deserving projects?

2) Canada, if anything, has more freedoms and rights than we as Americans do. Or, at the very least, they take them more seriously than Americans do. To paraphrase, any person who is willing to trade their basic human rights and freedoms for security deserves neither.

3) To those of you who claim this is another example of how left-wingers like to shout down people who can't respond, I kindly point you to the countless examples of Bill O'Reilly, for instance, yelling at guests on his show to "shut up" and requesting that his studio technicians turn off guests' mics when they say something for which he doesn't have a response. This was a situation where the Fox reporter knew she was beaten, knew she had no logical backing for the point she was supposed to be defending, and could only muster a sort of silly-sounding indignation.

4) Fox News absolutely is the mouthpiece of the Bush administration. Fair and balanced? That's the biggest, worst joke I've heard in years.

Wow.. talk about a run of tired, recycled, partisan slurry..

Also, "To paraphrase, any person who is willing to trade their basic human rights and freedoms for security deserves neither." Do you remember who you're paraphrasing here? Hint: not a canadian.

Also, "To paraphrase, any person who is willing to trade their basic human rights and freedoms for security deserves neither." Do you remember who you're paraphrasing here? Hint: not a canadian.

Yes, I do. Benjamin Franklin. Do you think we're following his lead in this respect?

I don't think we are either.

I am not sure if I want to discuss that with you, usually people like you think killing childern and gay people marrying is o.k. Both of those this is something I would never agree with anyone on.

Killing babies? The heck you get that idea from?

Manstrom

If this thread disgusts you please save us the pain of gouging out our eyes after having to look at you posts by not posting.

This is another tactic of the right--if you don't like what's going on here, leave. It is my responsibility as a citizen of the United States to point out when something the government does disgusts me, and to try to effect change. That's why it's a democracy, sir.

Yes, it is your duty to try to effect change, but kicking and whining and screaming does not effect change, it makes us wish you would just leave so we don't have to listen to you. It gets annoying when you cry all the time and and refuse to cede to people who make smart, reasonable points.

Wow.. talk about a run of tired, recycled, partisan slurry..

Also--is it tired slurry if it's true? Refute my points, sir, and you might gain a foothold in this conversation. Attack it simply as tired, and I will continue to chuckle at you.

Manstrom

So, like I said, refute my points. Prove that they're not "smart and reasonable." At this point, it sounds like you're the one kicking, screaming, and trying to avoid an honest debate.

40 million is chump change compared to the 120 million spent on Clinton's inauguration.

I like how that chick at Vanity Fair brought up FDR's. It was modest cause the freaking guy couldn't walk! Can't really picture him dancing around at balls with his polio legs.


Yeah she so owned FOX! :rolleyes: Give me a break.
Yeah, she sure did...because Faux news is nothing but an echo chamber for the Bush administration's corporate sponsors and their skank-ho spokesmodel gets all flummoxed when she's faced with anything real.

The best part is, apart from their tongue in cheek "fair and balanced" motto, Faux don't even PRETEND to be objective or factual, but the 'tards who believe them insist that they are!

More and more it's coming down to: are you on Faux and Bush's side, or on the side of our soldiers and traditions?

40 million is chump change compared to the 120 million spent on Clinton's inauguration.

Yea and he shouldn't have spent that much either. Tax money =/= for government parties me thinks.

40 million is chump change compared to the 120 million spent on Clinton's inauguration.
And where do you get these numbers, when even Faux news says this is the most expensive inaugural ever?

Clinton's 1997 inaugural, just for comparison, did cost $42 million. And I agree, it should have cost less. But that doesn't excuse this administration's $40 million, either. Both inaugurations should have been cheaper.

Manstrom

So, like I said, refute my points. Prove that they're not "smart and reasonable." At this point, it sounds like you're the one kicking, screaming, and trying to avoid an honest debate.

I just realized something. There is no good reason for me to debate you, this is the internet, there is no point. If you really want me to refute your piints could you please post them in numerical order from the one that you think is the most reasonable to the one that you think is the least reasonable and have it in this forum by 1:45pm CST. Thank you, have a nice day.

Wow--you really are trying to avoid a debate!

Try the four I posted earlier, numbered 1-4. I don't think any of them are any more or less reasonable than the others, so feel free to take them in any order you wish.

1) Don't feed the trolls. Teenage boys are grumpy in the morning.

2) The balls and the parades are not funded by tax dollars. The balls in fact, are paid for by donation from corporate sponsors and private individuals. You can get lists of these individuals on a few sites. Here's one: http://www.inaugural05.com/donors/.

3)Of course the fox gal looked stupid. she went on air with notes to discuss one thing (and told the VF gal the same thing), then was hit with humvees and FDR. Th VF gal ambushed her. Since I know all of you would be fully ready for such a thing, I guess it's ok to say she was owned (however stupid this tag is).

4)The Humvee armor story was made up. The soldier who asked the question admitted that it was fed to him by the media. The Soldiers on the ground in Iraq are not telling this same tale.

I'll take a stab here:

1) The lady taking exception to the lavishness of Bush's inaugural was dead-on. What, exactly, happened to those "economically responsible" Republicans, who spent only on what absolutely *needed* funding? Why are we not funnelling this money to more deserving projects?
1) See donation list.

2) Canada, if anything, has more freedoms and rights than we as Americans do. Or, at the very least, they take them more seriously than Americans do. To paraphrase, any person who is willing to trade their basic human rights and freedoms for security deserves neither.

2) Tell this to the native american tribes living in absolute sqaulor in Ontario and Quebec. Tell it to the mohawks who were beseiged in Quebec when they wanted to exercise their rights and freedoms. Many NA tribes live and second class citizens in Canada. Your country ignores them largely, but I have seen them, spoken with them and witnessed this. You have no moral high ground there.

3) To those of you who claim this is another example of how left-wingers like to shout down people who can't respond, I kindly point you to the countless examples of Bill O'Reilly, for instance, yelling at guests on his show to "shut up" and requesting that his studio technicians turn off guests' mics when they say something for which he doesn't have a response. This was a situation where the Fox reporter knew she was beaten, knew she had no logical backing for the point she was supposed to be defending, and could only muster a sort of silly-sounding indignation.

3) This isn't an example of anything of the sort. The anchor contacted the VF editor to speak on one subject and was surprised (pissed, actually) when she chose to speak on another. Suppose you won an major award and when you went to receive it, decided to take your time to talk off topic. Even those who agree with you migh boo you. Or imagine studying for one test and showing up to another. That's all that happened, besides propaganda spewing by the VF editor. Nothing new there.

4) Fox News absolutely is the mouthpiece of the Bush administration. Fair and balanced? That's the biggest, worst joke I've heard in years.

4) The media works for itself, not the people. The big three networks spent the entire campaign trying to influence voters. CBS released stories it knew to be untrue and put one of Kerry's biggest donors on air as an expert! ABC held a audio taped warning OBL from the public view so it wouldn't affect the vote, then released it on a saturday so it would be buried. If you can admit that the big three and CNN tend to work for the left, I'll concede that Fox works from the right. (Of course I also think they all work for themselves. The Media is the 5th column.)

At any rate. I happen to love Canada, but don't assume all US citizens know so little about your politics. Most don't, but having spent a great deal of time in Ontario, I have seen some of the bad part as well as the good.

I have to go to church. I'll check your replies later.

On the EVE of World War II??? A little bit off topic, and just a general point but I find it very interesting that Americans think World War II started in 1941.
It's quite a coincidence, but there was an attack, followed by a declaration of war, all on December 7, 1941. That kind of fixes our official entry into the war.

It's quite a coincidence, but there was an attack, followed by a declaration of war, all on December 7, 1941. That kind of fixes our official entry into the war.

But it wasn't when WW2 started.

Fox News Live Anchorwoman Brigitte Quinn gets a surprise when Judy Bachrach from Vanity Fair dares to question the nature of Bush's elaborate second inauguration.

Did anyone catch this live?
This is almost as great as John Stewart's appearance on Crossfire!

http://www.milkandcookies.com/links/24912/


I love the last part: "I think we've given you more than enough time..." :D
As opposed to a certain CBS anchor that got owned for perpetrating false information based on no factual evidence and in a last-ditch attempt to preserve his dignity, 'resigned' on 'his own accord.'
People like you won't let it go, so they think they're being clever by making additional Bush jokes. It's over, and no matter how many jokes you make, he has triumphed over the opposition and adversity to earn four more years; you lost.

I think the wing nuts ideas can be summed up in one phrase....

let them eat cake

I just watched the clip and I was struck by how ignorant Judy from Vanity Fair was. Her main complaint was that there wasn't enough armor on Hummers. That's old news and being dealt with.

Her secondary argument seemed to be that FDR served chicken salad at one party. If I recall, FDR dies right after his inauguration. In April, 1945, right? He was so sick that he couldn't be extravagent.

She also made the point that expensive inaugurations were only done in "bad" war years. Yet, she never gave any example of how expensive the parties were during LBJ or Nixon's inaugurations were. She never bothered to explain why Clinton's was such a bargain at what, $120 million?

She was just a hack that the network needed on to fill time. She obviously didn't have an original thought in her head and was only parroting what she read on Moveon.org. She hardly "owned" FoxNews.

Clinton's 1997 inaugural, just for comparison, did cost $42 million. And I agree, it should have cost less. But that doesn't excuse this administration's $40 million, either. Both inaugurations should have been cheaper.


Will you be as tough on Clinton for that as you are on Bush?

This is almost as great as John Stewart's appearance on Crossfire!
Granted, it was pretty damn good, but still nowhere near Stewart's Crossfire appearence, in my opinion. That might just be because Stewart is just so charismatic, however.

That might just be because Stewart is just so charismatic, however.


Sure he is??? :rolleyes:

Random thoughts:
1. Lincoln's inaugurals were both during wartime and both lavish.
2. The reason FDR didn't have a lavish inaugural wasn't because of the war, as so many would have you believe, but because of his health, he would be dead in a few short months, remember?
3. This kind of interview is an ambush, it's a very low tactic. The entire point is to make the reporter look bad.
4. The city of Washington DC has always been responsible for security at the inaugurals. They are good things for the city after all. Swarms of tourists come and rent hotel rooms, eat food, buy souveneirs. It's an economic bonanza. Not a burden.

You are Canadian, mind your business. Like you really care if the people of DC have to pay for this.

BTW who footed the security bill for security at past ones?

I have a strange feeling you wouldn't have brought up the Canadian thing if he supported Bush.

I'll give that tactic a try...

Well, you aren't a part of Bush's cabinet.. mind YOUR own business. BTW who builds your highways and keeps this nation secure? How dare anyone ever talk about something they aren't directly involved in. Next thing you know they might think they have a right to an opinion on matters of international importance..

I wouldn't bother with conservatives like Johnny Wadd. He won't get it.

I offer another reason for FDR's budget party. It's hard to serve steak and hold balls when the federal government was asking U.S. citizens to go without. (i.e. "Meatless Mondays) IMO FDR was leading by example. All of this is a matter of who you voted for, though, as the ticket is picked up by private donations, not tax dollars.

If you don't believe me, google for the numerous articles about the subject.

I wouldn't bother with conservatives like Johnny Wadd. He won't get it.

I offer another reason for FDR's budget party. It's hard to serve steak and hold balls when the federal government was asking U.S. citizens to go without. (i.e. "Meatless Mondays) IMO FDR was leading by example. All of this is a matter of who you voted for, though, as the ticket is picked up by private donations, not tax dollars.

If you don't believe me, google for the numerous articles about the subject.

The ticket, unfortunately, was not picked up for the security requirements to shut down nearly 100 square blocks of DC for the event. That was pushed onto the city at a charge of around 12 million - which was my major complaint with it.

Thomas Jefferson's inaugural consisted of a swearing in ceremony, afterwhich Jefferson walked back to the boarding house where he was staying and had lunch.

The ticket, unfortunately, was not picked up for the security requirements to shut down nearly 100 square blocks of DC for the event. That was pushed onto the city at a charge of around 12 million - which was my major complaint with it.
Well, it all depends upon how the people of DC felt, and, from what I've heard, they don't really mind for the economic benefit of the huge tourist cash influx for an inauguration.

I like how that chick at Vanity Fair brought up FDR's. It was modest cause the freaking guy couldn't walk! Can't really picture him dancing around at balls with his polio legs.

Yeah she so owned FOX! :rolleyes: Give me a break.

:rolleyes:

Yea I am in a wheelchair so I am going to throw a modest party.

Give me a break.

Besides if the public wants to raise $40 million for some nice parties, then let them. If memory serves me, this is still a free country.


BTW if you are worried that much about armored hummers and our servicemen, make sure you donate all of your excess money to the government.

Such donations usually have strings attached.

Besides, they have a resource that we need. I am willing to fight for our nations survival which includes oil!

So when are you signing up?

Thomas Jefferson's inaugural consisted of a swearing in ceremony, afterwhich Jefferson walked back to the boarding house where he was staying and had lunch.

If we had more politicians that were as reluctant as Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and the like, the country would definitely be better off.

I would far far FAR prefer to live in Canada than the US, and i've being to both places twice. In fact, if I had to move country then Canada would be the top of the list and many more countries in front of the US. Lower crime, more compassionate government, friendlier atmosphere and nicer enviroment. Woo, more taxes. I'm not scared of giving some of my money to help the greater good. In fact, i've often said that Canada is America without the BAD stuff.

Oh, and the claim that Canadians are worse people than Americans suggests that you have some pretty weird ideas Manstrom. Perhaps you believe one countries peoples lives don't matter as much as anothers?

I would far far FAR prefer to live in Canada than the US, and i've being to both places twice. In fact, if I had to move country then Canada would be the top of the list and many more countries in front of the US. Lower crime, more compassionate government, friendlier atmosphere and nicer enviroment. Woo, more taxes. I'm not scared of giving some of my money to help the greater good. In fact, i've often said that Canada is America without the BAD stuff.

Oh, and the claim that Canadians are worse people than Americans suggests that you have some pretty weird ideas Manstrom. Perhaps you believe one countries peoples lives don't matter as much as anothers?

All you Canadian wannabes, note that Johnny Wadd has busses waiting for you! Read the guide (http://www.nationallampoon.com/nl/08_features/Canada/Canada.asp) and the thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=391699). It's great!

So when are you signing up?


I served my time and lost my legs to the Vietnamese.

I served my time and lost my legs to the Vietnamese.

That's odd.

In the thread noted above where you were helping people move to Canada, you specifically stated:

Please don't taunt me, you know I don't have arms.


Now, I'm not going to call you a fibber. It just seems to me that most people would be more aware of which limbs were still attached to their torso....

That's odd.

In the thread noted above where you were helping people move to Canada, you specifically stated:




Now, I'm not going to call you a fibber. It just seems to me that most people would be more aware of which limbs were still attached to their torso....

You obviously haven't learned how to read other posts. I stated many times that I am limbless. So obviously I wouldn't have any arms.

PS-Due to my wonderful US healthcare, I will be receiving artificial limbs tomorrow to replace the ones stolen from me. Those punks ripped them off of me and beat me to a bloody pulp. I had the last laugh though as the roughians who did the deed, accidentally drove over the side of a cliff when their brakes failed. Oops!

You obviously haven't learned how to read other posts. I stated many times that I am limbless. So obviously I wouldn't have any arms.

PS-Due to my wonderful US healthcare, I will be receiving artificial limbs tomorrow to replace the ones stolen from me. Those punks ripped them off of me and beat me to a bloody pulp. I had the last laugh though as the roughians who did the deed, accidentally drove over the side of a cliff when their brakes failed. Oops!




That's quite the story.


So, have you had any good luck in your life?

40 million will not affect the national budget at all.
They have a right to celebrate his reelection just as everyadministration has the right to use taxpayers funds to hold celebrations for their man.
This goes back to Washington.
Whining about this is like whining cause you lost a penny.

That's quite the story.


So, have you had any good luck in your life?

Yes I was an adult film star, and served in a mercenary force in rhodesia.

I lost my arms to a combine, my left eye to a rose bush, and my right ear was cut off by the Vietnamese.

Yes I was an adult film star, and served in a mercenary force in rhodesia.

I lost my arms to a combine, my left eye to a rose bush, and my right ear was cut off by the Vietnamese.


O....kay.

So, you lost your legs and and ear to the vietnamese. took up farming therafter and lost your arms to a combine. Scaled back farming to gardening and were attacked by a thorny shrub. Somewhere in there you became a porn star, and also joined a mercenary force in Rhodesia - which given that it only really existed from '65 to '80 and most mercenaries were already military trained - that would mean you went trudging through the jungles of Africa AFTER the vietnamese took your legs and ear...but before you engaged in a loosing war with vegetation.

Have you ever been in a fight you DID win?



Well - Thanks for the laugh!

O....kay.

So, you lost your legs and and ear to the vietnamese. took up farming therafter and lost your arms to a combine. Scaled back farming to gardening and were attacked by a thorny shrub. Somewhere in there you became a porn star, and also joined a mercenary force in Rhodesia - which given that it only really existed from '65 to '80 and most mercenaries were already military trained - that would mean you went trudging through the jungles of Africa AFTER the vietnamese took your legs and ear...but before you engaged in a loosing war with vegetation.

Have you ever been in a fight you DID win?



Well - Thanks for the laugh!

Every single one of the VC who took me captive were exterminated with extreme prejudice.

I was in the Stag business before Nam. I made a brief comback in the late 70's. I served as a merc in Rhodesia in 76. My artificial legs worked fine in that harsh, dirty place. My farming accident was in the summer of 89.
About the rose bush, my wheelchair malfunctioned, sending me out of control into a rather large (and illegal by zoning laws, might I add) rose bush. The thorn was stuck in my cornea and other parts for over an hour until I got to the hospital. This occured in 96. My limbs were stolen by those punks 3 months ago.

I didn't care if they lived under a dictator. I just find it nice that we flex our muscles (unlike you impotent Canucks) and can lay waste to a third world nation.

WMD, Al Qaeda? Who cares? It's just a good reason to anger the muslims, draw them out into the open and kill them all. Why do we need justification? The UN is much like Canada in the fact that both are impotent, and couldn't make themselves virile, if their lives depended on it! As the lone megapower, we can do what we please. Besides it's our turn to control the world. the Europeans had centuries to do it, why can't we?


Besides, they have a resource that we need. I am willing to fight for our nations survival which includes oil!


Wow, how racist. Besides you said it, you can kick the shit out of a third world nation for oil, how chivalrous. I am a proud Canadian and the only thing that I can think of right now is how much us "impotent" Canadians can screw America over.
1. Alberta provides 50% of the US's Fuel Oil and Natural Gas
2. Canadian Power Plants provide the majority of power for the American East Coast, ala Big Ass Blackout
3. Canadian Beef is better, the world buys more of our beef even with bans and higher prices than American beef, despite American industries attempts to derail us

Yes I was an adult film star, and served in a mercenary force in rhodesia.

I lost my arms to a combine, my left eye to a rose bush, and my right ear was cut off by the Vietnamese.

Wait...how do you type then if you lost your arms?

I am a proud Canadian and the only thing that I can think of right now is how much us "impotent" Canadians can screw America over.
1. Alberta provides 50% of the US's Fuel Oil and Natural Gas
2. Canadian Power Plants provide the majority of power for the American East Coast, ala Big Ass Blackout
3. Canadian Beef is better, the world buys more of our beef even with bans and higher prices than American beef, despite American industries attempts to derail us

You really think you could screw over America?

1. Yes you provide those resources, but if you didn't we could always find alternate sources, or even take yours by force. We use yours just so we don't have to use up our own.
2. We could build our own power plants. We do have vast amounts of coal, and we could even build more nuclear ones.
3. Care to show any facts on the wonderfully successful beef industry in Canada? Wasn't America the largest purchaser of your beef. How is Canadian Beef better anyway? You have had more cases of mad cow then us recently. I've tried your beef, it tastes inferior to our free range beef, and alot less tender then that beer fed Japanese beef. Your beef industry is derailed, most of your major producers are in dire straits. Don't see the Japanese buying up too much beef.


What would you do if there was a total ban on all Canadian products? What if we brought our automotive plants back into the states? What if we stopped buying your maple syrup? What if we banned travel to Canada? As your largest trading partner, I think the upper hand is ours.


Now go club a baby harp seal!

Wait...how do you type then if you lost your arms?

I have a tool on my forehead, and also can use a voice processor!

O....kay.

So, you lost your legs and and ear to the vietnamese. took up farming therafter and lost your arms to a combine. Scaled back farming to gardening and were attacked by a thorny shrub. Somewhere in there you became a porn star, and also joined a mercenary force in Rhodesia - which given that it only really existed from '65 to '80 and most mercenaries were already military trained - that would mean you went trudging through the jungles of Africa AFTER the vietnamese took your legs and ear...but before you engaged in a loosing war with vegetation.

Have you ever been in a fight you DID win?



Well - Thanks for the laugh!

Actually I think Jonnhy is good for Hollywood, and a book.

Did anyone really take this post in?

I didn't care if they lived under a dictator. I just find it nice that we flex our muscles (unlike you impotent Canucks) and can lay waste to a third world nation.

WMD, Al Qaeda? Who cares? It's just a good reason to anger the muslims, draw them out into the open and kill them all. Why do we need justification? The UN is much like Canada in the fact that both are impotent, and couldn't make themselves virile, if their lives depended on it! As the lone megapower, we can do what we please. Besides it's our turn to control the world. the Europeans had centuries to do it, why can't we?


Besides, they have a resource that we need. I am willing to fight for our nations survival which includes oil!

So you're saying we should draw all Muslims 'out into the open' so they can be exterminated? Like in, say, concentration camps, or gas chambers? And we can do this because we are the 'lone megapower,' hmm? Does this sound familiar to anyone?

I didn't care if they lived under a dictator. I just find it nice that we flex our muscles (unlike you impotent Canucks) and can lay waste to a third world nation.

WMD, Al Qaeda? Who cares? It's just a good reason to anger the muslims, draw them out into the open and kill them all. Why do we need justification? The UN is much like Canada in the fact that both are impotent, and couldn't make themselves virile, if their lives depended on it! As the lone megapower, we can do what we please. Besides it's our turn to control the world. the Europeans had centuries to do it, why can't we?


Well, at least you're honest.

Seriously though, unless that was sarcasm... o_O

Because he's a uniter, not a divider, right?

Opinion is still divided (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/poll/index.html) on that one. ^_^

Well it was said earlier, all news agencies work for themselves and their idealogical beliefs. Fox is as guilty as any other news station is.To bash Fox for being a mouthpiece is to ignore the other news agencies all together and the times they were mouthpieces for their respective ideological standing. Blaring Fox is a bush supporter is beating a dead horse with a stick..we know it already we dont need to constantly hear it. Somehow saying it about fifty billion times wont change how the news in the U.S. operates.

It's also been said earlier than the Inauguration was entirely paid by corporations and private citizens. This is party true. Some not even most of this years cost was due to PRIVATELY thrown parties around Washington. These parties are thrown no matter who is the President. They're also done to the expense of the person wanting to do so. What does get paid for is the security. And there was A LOT of security at this inauguration. PAC-3 batteries, aircraft overhead, police overtime, etc etc etc. That took up a sizeable chunk of the expenses. It wasnt because of all the parties or lavish outlook, it was the security procedures undertaken which cost so much. If you removed the security concerns then you can bet it wouldnt have nearly reached 40 million dollars. Or even 30.

As for the cost of inaugural balls..since when has this ever been a concern? It was never ever a concern before. Wartime or not. Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesnt frankly in the eyes of most people. Lets just say the event was incredibly lowkey..then what? "Oh Bush is doing that because he doesnt want to face questions about Iraq, and he doesnt wanna..."blah blah blah blah blah...give me a break already. Some people wont be content unless they get their daily dose of Bush bashing. Sometimes for good reasons but more often than not for the most idiotic dribble on the planet. I've seen better reasons to hate Ghandi than some of the crap spewed forth by the left on why they dislike Bush.

First we need to ask ourselves this, is this conflict in Iraq truly a war?

Well, let's see, show of hands, how many people in here have been forced to ration fuel because the government needed it for the war effort? Zero. How many draftees are fighting in Iraq? Zero. Was an American ally invaded to start this shit? No. Did Congress declare war on Iraq? I don't believe so. (Bush tried to inter twine this into the war on terror and rightfully so.) Are we fighting a single organized enemy? No. How many non-white trash families are using stamps to buy food? Zero. (Sorry if that offends anyone here, but my observations have shown that kids in families dependant on welfare would be much, much better off in foster care, physically anyways. And I hate the Welfare and Social Security systems.) How many Five Star Generals of the Army do we have? None. (Five Star General of the Army is reserved strictly for use in war time.)

And about this 40 Million Dollars, big deal, like it or not but that is pocket change for the American Government, we have some people so rich in our country that they spend almost that much a year on their own parties, and this is one party, once every for years, celebrating the election of the most powerful man in the world and the leader of the free world, yeah, I think he has the right to relax once in a while, wouldn't you do it if you could? (Don't try to say no because you know you would, deep down inside you couldn't resist the urge, especially since, like I said, this is only pocket change for our Government.) Besides, who cares how much is spent, it all comes from private donations anyways. So this is really 51% of the nation celebrating their victory along with the president. Democrats can complain all they want but the most they can do is not donate or not attend, the Secret Service would gun them down if they tried to egg the president or anything, did you see how tight the security was? 12,000 people on security alone, damn!

This is as how I saw the video. You had in one corner of the ring an obviously Republican (it is Fox) reporter just trying to fill up a five minute slot of television, completely unprepared vs. an obviously up tight bitch in the other corner who is apparently disgruntled about something and went in there on a mission to just be an absolute bitch. No wonder the battle of the Who are theys? went the way it did, only one person knew there was gonna be a fight and she brought the lead pipe.

And about these HUMVEE's, Rumsfeld said it, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want." I agree, and another quote some of you may be familar with, "Each President fights with the Army built by his predessecor(sp?)." Three years was not a whole lot of time to outfit 1/3 of the US Army with unamored HUMVEE's, so Clinton, who would have built this Army, should get some of the blame, even though it is pointless to blame either President, since Congress has the final say in how the money gets spent and where, so that means if the Army does not get enough money and they have to choose between unarmored vehicles and no vehicles, I know which one I would rather they chose, and I like the thought of riding around in "unprotected" vehicles as opposed to walking in 120 degrees weather, at least I should get a nice breeze.

One thing this "storm" proves though, to any terrorist seeking to shut down the US Government, just figure out a way for 1-3" of snow to fall, that will do it for sure. Are you fucking kidding me? 1-3"? Our plows don't even bother going out if it is only that much, the grass still sticks through the snow! I can't stand how people in Washington complain about snow and their inability to handle it, in South Dakota 1-3" is what we like to call a trace.

Ha ha. Johnny so funny.

I know, I know, it's not nice to make fun of the mentally challeged. :p

Did anyone really take this post in?



So you're saying we should draw all Muslims 'out into the open' so they can be exterminated? Like in, say, concentration camps, or gas chambers? And we can do this because we are the 'lone megapower,' hmm? Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Oh gosh, I saw this in a movie once, it was the one where the girl on crack was running down this yellow road and her pimp (she thought he was a wizard) was trying to kill her, dman it! I can not remember the name of the movie!

Every single one of the VC who took me captive were exterminated with extreme prejudice.

I was in the Stag business before Nam. I made a brief comback in the late 70's. I served as a merc in Rhodesia in 76. My artificial legs worked fine in that harsh, dirty place. My farming accident was in the summer of 89.
About the rose bush, my wheelchair malfunctioned, sending me out of control into a rather large (and illegal by zoning laws, might I add) rose bush. The thorn was stuck in my cornea and other parts for over an hour until I got to the hospital. This occured in 96. My limbs were stolen by those punks 3 months ago.

You need to write a book!!!! I know some publishers......you could rival Terry Prattchet!

You need to write a book!!!! I know some publishers......you could rival Terry Prattchet!
I resist the notion of out of hand disbelieving people on the internet because as truth and lies are both as likely I just give people the benefit of the doubt. If they aren't telling the truth about who they are it's nothing to me. However, I think that this dude might just be a commited role player. He of course gets his name from the on-screen alter ego of John Holmes, and even in the "Scariest Person in NS (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8012615#post8012615)" or whatever thread posted this:
Me, circa 1978 (http://www.cinematrix.hu/fajlok/hirek/kepek/JohnHolmes.jpg)

Me, circa 1973 (http://www.cyber-surfer.de/images/img_hiv_holmes.gif)

Me, circa 1981 (http://www.laurelcanyonassoc.com/Images/20th%20History/JohnHolmes2.jpg)
passing John Holmes off as himself.

He even uses this story in the "Evil People! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8018784#post8018784)" thread:
During my cocaine days, my connection was a seriously evil man. Not to get into graphic details about the serious crimes we committed, but he used to not put toilet paper in his bathrooms. The he would give ladies coke if they would lick his butt clean!

Which is a reference to John Holmes 'partner' Eddie Nash when Holmes began to deal coke, that very story related by Holmes wife:
According to John's wife Laura: "He was an awful man... John told me he used to leave the bathrooms without toilet paper, then offer the young women cocaine if they'd lick his ass clean."
Source (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/actors/john-holmes/)

Of course, Holmes died of AIDS in 1988 with all limbs and eyes in place.

So I believe that this guy has set up a very distinct role-playing personality for himself (perhaps after watching Wonderland (http://imdb.com/title/tt0335563/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnxteD0yMHxzZz0xfGxtPTIwMHx0dD1vbnxwbj0wfHE9d29uZGVybGFuZHxodG1sPTF8bm09b24_;fc=1;ft=74; fm=1)) and has fully committed to it. That he preferentially makes contentious posts really furthers my theory.

Of course, his incredible and truly unlucky story could be true and he is using the personality of a porn idol like a marial artist on here might co-opt Bruce Lee for a nation name and persona to maintain his privacy. Life might be punishing him for being a dick.

The last, and least likely is that Holmes faked his death in '88 and has resurfaced on a political online game. Though this does not explain the limb/mercenary thing.


Though a legless porn star mercinary...that shouldn't be that hard to track down...


Last (conspiracy-esque) theory: He's really just HannibalSmith reborn. Same post style, similar stories about his vietnam past (though now with limb loss) etc. And he's the only one to mention Johnny Wadd independently. Not much to go on, but man-if I was right....

Oh gosh, I saw this in a movie once, it was the one where the girl on crack was running down this yellow road and her pimp (she thought he was a wizard) was trying to kill her, dman it! I can not remember the name of the movie!

Tremors 3

I resist the notion of out of hand disbelieving people on the internet because as truth and lies are both as likely I just give people the benefit of the doubt. If they aren't telling the truth about who they are it's nothing to me. However, I think that this dude might just be a commited role player. He of course gets his name from the on-screen alter ego of John Holmes, and even in the "Scariest Person in NS (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8012615#post8012615)" or whatever thread posted this:

passing John Holmes off as himself.

He even uses this story in the "Evil People! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8018784#post8018784)" thread:


Which is a reference to John Holmes 'partner' Eddie Nash when Holmes began to deal coke, that very story related by Holmes wife:

Source (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/actors/john-holmes/)

Of course, Holmes died of AIDS in 1988 with all limbs and eyes in place.

So I believe that this guy has set up a very distinct role-playing personality for himself (perhaps after watching Wonderland (http://imdb.com/title/tt0335563/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnxteD0yMHxzZz0xfGxtPTIwMHx0dD1vbnxwbj0wfHE9d29uZGVybGFuZHxodG1sPTF8bm09b24_;fc=1;ft=74; fm=1)) and has fully committed to it. That he preferentially makes contentious posts really furthers my theory.

Of course, his incredible and truly unlucky story could be true and he is using the personality of a porn idol like a marial artist on here might co-opt Bruce Lee for a nation name and persona to maintain his privacy. Life might be punishing him for being a dick.

The last, and least likely is that Holmes faked his death in '88 and has resurfaced on a political online game. Though this does not explain the limb/mercenary thing.


Though a legless porn star mercinary...that shouldn't be that hard to track down...


Last (conspiracy-esque) theory: He's really just HannibalSmith reborn. Same post style, similar stories about his vietnam past (though now with limb loss) etc. And he's the only one to mention Johnny Wadd independently. Not much to go on, but man-if I was right....

It is all coincidence! My birth name really is Jonathan Waddisky (Polish). I did do porn work back in my limb days. I served in Nam, lost my legs to a cannon.

Now I admit, those photos were not of me, but I only used them because I wanted to not make people sick. My story is true.

The whole Eddie Nash thing is true as I knew the guy as well. If you were doing drugs back then in the valley, you knew Nash. I helped fight in Rhodesia as well.

Rumor has it that he really did fake his own death, and is working as a carpenter in Helena, MT. But of course it is all rumor.


Now what do you mean by this HannibalSmith fellow? Who was he? I remember he was sort of crazy, and he really went off before he was banned!

And about this 40 Million Dollars, big deal, like it or not but that is pocket change for the American Government, we have some people so rich in our country that they spend almost that much a year on their own parties, and this is one party, once every for years, celebrating the election of the most powerful man in the world and the leader of the free world, yeah, I think he has the right to relax once in a while, wouldn't you do it if you could? (Don't try to say no because you know you would, deep down inside you couldn't resist the urge, especially since, like I said, this is only pocket change for our Government.) Besides, who cares how much is spent, it all comes from private donations anyways. So this is really 51% of the nation celebrating their victory along with the president. Democrats can complain all they want but the most they can do is not donate or not attend, the Secret Service would gun them down if they tried to egg the president or anything, did you see how tight the security was? 12,000 people on security alone, damn!



Oh, please. Not everyone is interested in parties, no matter where the money comes from- and even more (being true fiscal conservatives) would gasp in horror at the thought of asking anyone to waste 40 million on something that is not necessary.

I'm just taking objection to the "don't try to say no because you know you would", when I most definitely would NOT. :)

Oh, please. Not everyone is interested in parties, no matter where the money comes from- and even more (being true fiscal conservatives) would gasp in horror at the thought of asking anyone to waste 40 million on something that is not necessary.

I'm just taking objection to the "don't try to say no because you know you would", when I most definitely would NOT. :)

So if people were handing you 40 Million Dollars and saying go have a good time you would say no? Bullshit. Take into consideration the stress of fighting the war on terror, the war in Iraq (actually Iraq truly is a continuation of the War on Terror), 11 months of campaigning, having people call you a retard over and over again because when you are live on camera in front of millions of people you stutter some, hell he can do more than I would be able to do under the same circumstances, everyone deserves to let loose once in a while and this was not just a celebration of Bush's victory, it is a celebration of a peaceful election, celebrating that even though this county is supposedly so divided we still refrain from using violence, we do not poison the opposition and we do not hire assassins to gun them down, whoever loses loses with dignity, heads held high, and if the results are disputed we go to the courts and they rule. (Bush did still win by 500 votes in Florida in 2000 so the Supreme Court made the right choice.)

And of course it is not necassary, very little in this world is necassarry, like invading Iraq, was it necessary? No, did they pose a true threat to us? No. But we still did it, and why? Not because it was the right thing to do but because it was the best option we had. Or WWII, was it necessary for us to take out Germany first? No, the Brits and Soviets probably would have eventually forced a stalemate, but we did it anyways, and was it necessary for us to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki? No, but it did save millions of lives, both Japanese and Allied.

So if people were handing you 40 Million Dollars and saying go have a good time you would say no? Bullshit.If someone was handing me 40 Million Dollars, I would ask:"who do I have to kill"(or what laws do I have to change) :)

If someone was handing me 40 Million Dollars, I would ask:"who do I have to kill"(or what laws do I have to change) :)
Just to back you up, check my sig. Some people understand when they are being bought.

Now what do you mean by this HannibalSmith fellow? Who was he? I remember he was sort of crazy, and he really went off before he was banned!
I'm not super invested in this, so I decided I wouldn't comment unless it came to the front again. Especially since it is a high jack. But since my first post when this came to the first page was on topic, I'll make this observation-

HannibalSmith, as far as I can tell, was deleated months before Johnny Wadd was created, and while he was a contentious dick, he was no Beeker or Marathon and I do not remember anyone talking about him after he was 'dead'. So that comment seems suspect to me, since he was gone before you arrived it would be difficult for you to remember him.

However, I'm just fueling my own pet theory. As I said, I take people on what they say because I'm not vested. Its a greater reflection on them if they are lying about themselves on the internet than it is if I give them the benefit of the doubt.

I would like to raise a very significant point. Tax payer dollars were NOT wasted.

THE $40 MILLION WAS PRIVATE MONEY!!! NOT PUBLIC MONEY, I REPEAT: NOT PUBLIC MONEY!! That money was private money donated by private sources, not from a government budget.

All you far-lefters who hold so dear the freedom to do whatever you want, why won't you just let Bush do whatever he wants with his PRIVATELY FUNDED INAGURATION PARTY?!?!?!?!?!

gah....

I would like to raise a very significant point. Tax payer dollars were NOT wasted.

THE $40 MILLION WAS PRIVATE MONEY!!! NOT PUBLIC MONEY, I REPEAT: NOT PUBLIC MONEY!! That money was private money donated by private sources, not from a government budget.

All you far-lefters who hold so dear the freedom to do whatever you want, why won't you just let Bush do whatever he wants with his PRIVATELY FUNDED INAGURATION PARTY?!?!?!?!?!

gah....
Easy there, Napolean. The $40 mil is white noise. The actual objection is stiffing DC with the security bill when the precident is to re-imburse them.

Understood. That was aimed more at the uninformed people who unreasonably bash Bush because it's trendy and cool. Informed arguments are welcome and appreciated.

The cost of the security for the city was 17.3 million. Money was diverted from a fund set up by the federal government to cover DC security in the amount of 5.4 million. D.C. was asked to divert 11.9 million from the 240 million in Homeland security grants it got this year. Though the mayor has said he earmarked the fund for other projects, he did not state what these were.

The Feds already granted DC 240 Million for homeland security. The bill won't raise area DC tax-payers dollars a dime.

I agree that the feds should appropriate the cost of the security, I just don't think this is a real hardship.

(source) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63896-2005Jan10.html

You are Canadian, mind your business. Like you really care if the people of DC have to pay for this.

Hey, he has as much say as the residents of DC have--none. (The District of Columbia has no voting representation in Congress.)

By my power I stab the necromancer!

*Stab stab stab*