Overindulgence as a security threat. by Bytemite

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Overindulgence as a security threat.

POSTED BY: BYTEMITE
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 16:53
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 937
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 5:31 AM

Inauguration Day. Now, it's important that we swear in our new President and Vice President, and see off the former President, but all the rest of the pomp and circumstance seems not only unnecessary, but I'm thinking it could be dangerous too.

Holding Inauguration Balls until 2:35 AM may be traditional, but it's also completely ridiculous. It's not the smartest idea for our New President to be dead on his feet his very first day of office. They gather the leaders of our country together so that a bomb could easily take them out; I know the Secret Service does a good job, but people aren't perfect, and something could slip by them. What's more, those parties are expensive, and the American people pay for them.

Thoughts?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 6:54 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

The only threat there seems to have been was to those there at the Inauguration. Some 250 folks needed medical attention, from 1 report given. One lady had a heart attack, but thankfully help was able to get to her in time. No terrorist attacks, and W's record after 9-11 remained spotless.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 8:07 AM

DREAMTROVE

Mass meetings seem to cause this sort of problem, but in reality, if you take a million people statistically, in a day, they will have a similar amount of health problems.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 8:07 AM

BYTEMITE

The $150 million price tag just doesn't sit well with me.

Liberals (of whom I sometimes consider myself among) gave Palin all kinds of crap about spending taxpayer dollars on clothing. How exactly is a big old day long pat on the back any better?

But I still think it could be a security issue too. Would be a good target for terrorism if they ever decided to try it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 8:18 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The $150 million price tag just doesn't sit well with me.

Liberals (of whom I sometimes consider myself among) gave Palin all kinds of crap about spending taxpayer dollars on clothing. How exactly is a big old day long pat on the back any better?

But I still think it could be a security issue too. Would be a good target for terrorism if they ever decided to try it.

Not to say that's not an astornomical fee, but 2/3rds of that bill did come from contributions, so it's not all from the taxpayer coffers.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:11 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

Liberals (of whom I sometimes consider myself among) gave Palin all kinds of crap about spending taxpayer dollars on clothing. How exactly is a big old day long pat on the back any better?

Palin spent none of the taxpayer's $$ on clothing. She used $$ from the GOP, which got it via contributions from folks like me, and not some general fund from taxpayers. Also, many of those dresses were duplicates, bought in varying sizes, and might have been worn ONCE, to see if they even fit. All those clothes were then donated, and I doubt Gov. Palin ketp any of those clothes for herself.

So simmer down about that point.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 11:45 AM

DREAMTROVE

Rap is right, and the GOP made the decision. Anti-Palinism was not only heavy on media bias, but it was steeped in bigotry. It was as bad as Obama is a secret muslim, only worse, because they were slamming Palin for who she really was. The absolute low point came, as I think it usually does, from Bill Maher, correct me if I'm wrong, who made fun of Eskimoes. Todd being part Yupik, it was straight unmitigated bigotry.

But what I really wanted to say is that at first all I heard from the media was how Obama's stimulus package was going to inject liquidity into the economy (an actual headline) and now all I'm hearing about is the fantastic size of his balls.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 1:22 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

There is literally no basis for the $160M figure (or any number of figures in fact) floated around. DC and surrounding areas submitted a $75M bill to the Federal government for costs.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003?f=h_top

"The closest the Daily News came to explaining the $160 million was its noting that the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland had submitted a $75 million request to the federal government to cover inauguration costs, including security and transportation. Bottom line: The Daily News provided no facts -- no evidence -- to support its what-if $160 million price tag for the inauguration, a price tag the newspaper declared as fact in its attention-grabbing headline.

The unsubstantiated $160 million figure was also picked up and repeated on MSNBC, where news anchors spent all of January 14 announcing Obama's inauguration was going to cost "$160 million." The eye-popping dollar figure was accepted as fact, even though nobody in the press could actually explain where that number had come from. Plus, MSNBC suggested the $160 million tab just covered parties and activities, not the larger security costs.

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

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 1:54 PM

BYTEMITE

Oops! Serves me right for listening through the grapevine with a Canadian.

>_>

I still think $75 million is a lot of money of a party. And one third of that, 25 million... Well, it's STILL a lot of money for a party, but now I'm going to have to go grieve over my dead arguments.

Oh well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 21, 2009 4:53 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
(For Bush's second inauguration) ... The federal government spent $115 million dollars for the 2005 inauguration. Keep in mind, that $115 million price tag was separate from the money Bush backers bundled to put on the inauguration festivities. For that, they raised $42 million. So the bottom line for Bush's 2005 inauguration, including the cost of security? That's right, $157 million."

But, but, Bush...
Just curious Rue, How was the economy doing back in 2005?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE