Find somebody else to insult, Clyde. I am finished debating this issue with you. My numbers came from the AP, a source normally trusted by liberals. Apparently liberals no longer trust the AP and I just did not get the memo. My mistake.

 

If the liberals normally trust the AP, does that mean conservatives usually do not trust the AP? Has that changed too? I'd say both trust the AP when the numbers support their claim.

Maybe I missed something, what's funny math about $40 million as opposed to $160 million, other than the obvious $120 million difference which makes me question why the hell tax payers dollars are being spent this way?

 

Have you not read any of the links provided by Clyde or me?

Have you not read any of the links provided by Clyde or me?

 

Yup. Read ALL OF THEM:deadhorse:

Here is the problem. You posted one set of figures and called them fact. Hoot posted a different set and called it fact. What makes your figures more of a "fact" then what he posted?

 

And I honestly don't know which is correct. I do however have a hard time believing that Bush had 1 1/2 million less people then is expected for Obama yet the security costs are almost the same.

 

We're talking about President Bush aren't we? The President who has never had a problem spending money? :lol:

Yup. Read ALL OF THEM:deadhorse:

 

Just now making my way through the thread, sorry if I rehash an old post.

If the liberals normally trust the AP, does that mean conservatives usually do not trust the AP? Has that changed too? I'd say both trust the AP when the numbers support their claim.

I can't speak for all conservatives, but IMO most conservatives view all media reports with a well deserved and healthy dose of skepticism. If the AP could have spiced up its criticism of President Bush with even higher cost estimates in 2005, it would have done so. Conversely, if the media could downplay the cost of Obama's inauguration and cited lower estimates of that cost, then that would also have been done. There is no question that Obama's inauguration will be a much more audacious and costly series of events.

Just now making my way through the thread, sorry if I rehash an old post.

 

I just wanted to use the new smiley.:lol:

I can't speak for all conservatives, but IMO most conservatives view all media reports with a well deserved and healthy dose of skepticism. If the AP could have spiced up its criticism of President Bush with even higher cost estimates in 2005, it would have done so. Conversely, if the media could downplay the cost of Obama's inauguration and cited lower estimates of that cost, then that would also have been done. There is no question that Obama's inauguration will be a much more audacious and costly series of events.

 

According to your sources.

 

According to other ones that I've read, Bush's inauguration was quite costly as well.

According to your sources.

 

According to other ones that I've read, Bush's inauguration was quite costly as well.

I do not claim the AP as "my" source. I always assume that it sheds the worst possible light on George W. Bush and the best possible spin on its Obama stories.

Now, I'm detecting 4 issues:

 

1) Cost of Obama's inauguration vs. Cost of Bush's (what's covered in each total)

2) Media coverage of Obama's vs. Bush's

3) Whether it's appropriate for Obama to have such a large inauguration

4) Who's paying for the tab vs. who paid for the tab when Bush was inaugurated.

I don't know about the numbers, but I am curious to see who pays the bills for it.

 

On one hand, I thought the entire ceremony was like a coronation. On the other hand, the few minutes I watched were basically talking about Lincoln, MLK Jr., and even a Reagan quote, so at least it wasn't all about Obama.

Now, I'm detecting 4 issues:

 

1) Cost of Obama's inauguration vs. Cost of Bush's (what's covered in each total)

2) Media coverage of Obama's vs. Bush's

3) Whether it's appropriate for Obama to have such a large inauguration

4) Who's paying for the tab vs. who paid for the tab when Bush was inaugurated.

 

 

 

Close this one and I'll fix it for you.

 

Maybe we can get some answers?

Edited January 19, 200917 yr by JD If U Please

I don't know about the numbers, but I am curious to see who pays the bills for it.

 

On one hand, I thought the entire ceremony was like a coronation. On the other hand, the few minutes I watched were basically talking about Lincoln, MLK Jr., and even a Reagan quote, so at least it wasn't all about Obama.

 

Which ceremony are you talking about? Weren't today's festivities MLK Day related?

You know I think some on here lose the fact that for a big part of our country, this is historical and "a long time coming."

 

http://martinsvillebulletin.com/article.cfm?ID=17391&back=archives

 

The best part of this article is the interview with Thurman Echols. I know Thurmon and he is a colleague of mine. His thought:

 

“Martin Luther King Jr. once said he had a dream that one day his four children would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” Echols said. “I think we have seen that coming full circle with (Barack) Obama being elected.

 

Is enough for me to ponder how someone else views this inaugauration, whether you agree or disagree with the president being sworn in.

I don't care how historical it is, the cost in this economy is excessive. Could you imagine if this was a Republican? Oh, my Lord!!

Yes, YOU the American citizen aren't allowed to attend the inauguration for the first time in history. Not a positive way to start out his term.

 

I can't fault people for rather being part of history rather than simply watch it.

 

Also, you can't watch HBO for free.

Excuses for excess in this economy doesn't get it for me, TB&G.