That took place in 1993, six years before the first iboats post!<br /><br />
I agree, and furthermore, I don't think it matters who won. <br /><br />And I take back my implication that it's not good business to contribute - that was just stupid. Of course it makes business sense to have the good will of your government. Sometimes influence is the best investment you can make.<br /><br />The company I work for spreads its PAC money around to all the politicians; we didn't contribute to the inauguration because given our current financial distress it would have ticked off too many shareholders.<br /><br />Lot of discussion here about the parties, but I'm really wondering: does anybody else think that administering the oath of office a second time to a sitting president might be an insult to his integrity, like maybe he didn't really mean it the first time? Wouldn't it be cool if W just said, "I already said I would do that! Didn't you believe me the first time? Jeeeez, I can't believe you guys! C'mon, let's get this party started!"
<br />Days of our lives. <br />Passions <br /><br />Need I go on? 
I agree it is a troll.<br />You are correct. Actually, Clinton spent 42million in 1997. Add 8 years of inflation, and the total would've been 49.7Million for Clinton's ceremonies!! That comes to 22% more than Bush's!<br />Bush won, is having his day in the sun, and there is nothing they can do about it. They are trying protesting, and the medcia has claimed the world is full of anxiety of this day. I am glad for them.
Strange...
I was just flippin thru the channels a bit ago and saw Al Roker (sp?) and the rest of the "ultra liberal NBC media" crew sayin there are no protestors and everything is just grand, glorious, and wonderful at todays inaguration... <br /><br />To what media source do you refer to, 12'r?....
You guys need to turn down the gain on your troll detectors!<br /><br />A. I never complained about Bush re-taking the oath of office, just asked why.<br /><br />B. I never complained about the amount being spent on the presidential balls, just pointed out the potential for influence peddling. Did you forget that the government is chock full of politicians and beaurocrats who aren't George W. Bush, and some of them aren't even Repulican,
gasp .<br /><br />C. You have no idea whether I complained about Clinton's re-inauguration. I didn't, but I might have if I'd thought about it!<br /><br />D. I admire 12Footer's use of numbers. No, really, that's not sarcasm. Promise.<br /><br />E. I bet no other world leader out there has nine balls! Not even close!<br /><br />F. Party on, dudes!!!
Well,I'll break it down, and staple my sources to this (sigh) because I haven't yet. I was just repeating what I heard on the radio today ,which was reported to be 22%.<br />"Clinton's inaug cost 22% more than Bush's". <br />Your media could not wait for solid numbers. But the consensus of "best-guesses" have come-in at ;<br />( IOW, it aint over yet)<br /><br />40million for Bush<br />42.7million for you Clinton in 1997<br />Now....Is that 22%? <br />Erum...no. It is 2.7%.<br />AVERAGE Inflation for years 1990-1999= 2.21% per annum.<br />Of which, three count (1997,1998,1999 for those of you in Bawston mass).<br /> 2.21<br /> 2.21<br /> +2.21<br />-------<br /> 6.63%<br />With me so far?<br />yes you are. so far, we have 9.33% thru Clinton's pres.<br /><br />(I feel like I'm doin my frinkin TAXES HERE!!<br />Anyhoo, lettuce procede;<br />AVERAGE Inflation rates per annum from 2000-2003 was 1.57%. Well ,wadeeyaknow...<br />That's LESS than Clinton's riegn, aint it?<br />Ok back to werk;<br />2000 thru 2003<br />1.57% + 1.57% + 1.57% + 1.57% = 6.28%<br />2.7% more initially, plus 6.63% averaged inflation for Clinton's years, plus 6.28% for the<br />4 of Bush's years, equals 15.6%...15.6%????<br />Hey...you're correct! It's not 22%!! My estimate was off by a whopping 6.4% !! Unless my Jethro Bodine 6th grade cypherin is off.<br />Hey---Does anyone want to do my taxes this year for 3% of return?<br /><br /> Sources for figures. Best I could find after being challenged like that. (click this)
<br />LOL And they all be brass...Shiny brass!
Yeah, CS, I saw that too. FOX picked it up, and CBS radio news reported it too (ratting-out thier own brother, man).<br />What bugs me is, they do not even ATTEMPT to conceal thier hatered for bush,or the railroad-job they are pulling on him.<br />Amazing!<br />As for my fuzzy-math... It's all seafoam-inducedOriginally posted by carrotsnapper:<br /> I heard on the radio tonight that ABC news had posted on it's website that they were looking for a funeral that was being held on the 20th, of a soldier that was killed in Iraq. I guess they wanted to augment their coverage of the inaugration with a funeral procession. Talk about a troll
I guess the radio was closer to right,than the figures I came-up with. But the fact remains, they make hey of Bush's donations, but very little was said of Clinton's...The same media that tries to find funerals on innaugeration day, right? Nuff said because I'm getting angry...You wouldn't want to see me angry on this Seafoam stuff. I'm glowing in the dark, and it's a lovely shade of green.<br /> 
