OnTheRocks Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Although I don't care for this guy Michael Newdow and disagree with his position, I understand he has rights like anyone. ...does anyone really think that this case constitutes the need for an "emergency" filing? I understand he is looking to change something that will take place in two days....but, can't it wait until the next election? I guess my question is, what requirements have to be met in order to get the Supreme Court to hear this case on such short notice? Supreme Court Appeal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB27 Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 I think the wait till the last minute approach is so that perhaps the court will issue an order not allowing it until it decides. Essentially making it not happen, clearly the inaguration will happen irregardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 I'm more disturbed by the $50 million price tag on the inauguration rather than by the suit... OUTRAGEOUS!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 I'm more disturbed by the $50 million price tag on the inauguration rather than by the suit... OUTRAGEOUS!!!!! 210203[/snapback] How much of that $50MM is being funded by taxpayers v. private contributions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted January 18, 2005 Author Share Posted January 18, 2005 I'm more disturbed by the $50 million price tag on the inauguration rather than by the suit... OUTRAGEOUS!!!!! 210203[/snapback] i think the suit is more outrageous...but, i agree that the cost for the inauguration...whether it is paid by private or public funds is ridiculous. and to be perfectly honest......if it was a democrat...i would be even more pissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 i think the suit is more outrageous...but, i agree that the cost for the inauguration...whether it is paid by private or public funds is ridiculous. and to be perfectly honest......if it was a democrat...i would be even more pissed. 210247[/snapback] If it's $50M in private contributions...I really don't care. If it's $50M of public taxpayer money...I'm pissed as hell. Friggin' bread and circuses... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 If it's $50M in private contributions...I really don't care. If it's $50M of public taxpayer money...I'm pissed as hell. Friggin' bread and circuses... 210250[/snapback] Were the people that are PO'd about the cost of Bush's inaugration PO'd about the cost of Clinton's? The amount of security is at an all time high. I loathe Clinton, but I didn't give two stevestojans about how much it cost. The dems could throw their money away. And before any dims bring up how subdued FDR's inaug. in 1945 was, he was pretty sick already (he died 2 months later). His first inaugration in 1933 (the depths of the depression) was as lavish as any of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 Were the people that are PO'd about the cost of Bush's inaugration PO'd about the cost of Clinton's?The amount of security is at an all time high. I loathe Clinton, but I didn't give two stevestojans about how much it cost. The dems could throw their money away. And before any dims bring up how subdued FDR's inaug. in 1945 was, he was pretty sick already (he died 2 months later). His first inaugration in 1933 (the depths of the depression) was as lavish as any of them 210355[/snapback] Yes I was - I think the excesses send a bad message. They're generally in poor taste with the performers reminder me of trained monkeys. It would be nice if just once a leader would tell the companies and individuals who donate all that money (in return for ...?) to instead donate to [some worthy cause here]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted January 18, 2005 Share Posted January 18, 2005 If it's $50M in private contributions...I really don't care. If it's $50M of public taxpayer money...I'm pissed as hell. Friggin' bread and circuses... 210250[/snapback] I believe it is $50M in private contributions. They're sticking D.C. with about $20M in security costs that are going to come out of their Homeland Sec. funds. So a few hundred people can do the macarena in ten-gallon hats. This is almost as good a buy as the RVs the Texas HS office bought exclusively to haul around demolition-derby lawn mowers. Hey guys, how's 'bout inspecting a few more cargo containers? Whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I believe it is $50M in private contributions. They're sticking D.C. with about $20M in security costs that are going to come out of their Homeland Sec. funds. So a few hundred people can do the macarena in ten-gallon hats. This is almost as good a buy as the RVs the Texas HS office bought exclusively to haul around demolition-derby lawn mowers. Hey guys, how's 'bout inspecting a few more cargo containers? Whatever. 210428[/snapback] So, which is it? We're not supposed to have an inaugration at all or we're just not supposed to bother securing the city for it? I'm sure the incremental cost of securing a few cocktail parties that no one important will attend anyway isn't making up a big chunk of the $20MM. Great idea. So much for not letting the terrorists change how we live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I believe it is $50M in private contributions. They're sticking D.C. with about $20M in security costs that are going to come out of their Homeland Sec. funds. So a few hundred people can do the macarena in ten-gallon hats. This is almost as good a buy as the RVs the Texas HS office bought exclusively to haul around demolition-derby lawn mowers. Hey guys, how's 'bout inspecting a few more cargo containers? Whatever. 210428[/snapback] What do you expect? You give the government alot of money to spend, they're going to waste a good portion of it. That's why the only answer is to give them ALOT less and narrow their scope. Neither party (nor apparently their constituants) seem the least bit interested in that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 What I fail to see in this thread, is how the costs of this compare to other inaugurations. Clinton (1993): $33 million Bush (2000): $40 million Bush (2004): $50 million These are not adjusted for inflation. It does not seem out of line. Of course, who am I to rain on the latest DNC talking point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I'm more disturbed by the $50 million price tag on the inauguration rather than by the suit... OUTRAGEOUS!!!!! 210203[/snapback] Yeah, outrageous. Unless it was a Democrat, in which case it'd be just fine. Gotta love the "faux" anger that's the result of too much media coverage. This just in: Because the Democrats are no longer in charge of anything, Social Security is in good shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 The $50 million price tag for any inaguration is stupid, I agree. However, this suit is freaking ridiculous as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I have no problem with the inauguration. While Im sure it can be scaled back, pomp and circumstance has its rightful place in politics and government. Has since the beginning of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I have no problem with the inauguration. While Im sure it can be scaled back, pomp and circumstance has its rightful place in politics and government. Has since the beginning of time. 210713[/snapback] Just because its been there since the beginning of time doesn't mean it can't be improved on. Is it REALLY necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Were the people that are PO'd about the cost of Bush's inaugration PO'd about the cost of Clinton's?The amount of security is at an all time high. I loathe Clinton, but I didn't give two stevestojans about how much it cost. The dems could throw their money away. And before any dims bring up how subdued FDR's inaug. in 1945 was, he was pretty sick already (he died 2 months later). His first inaugration in 1933 (the depths of the depression) was as lavish as any of them 210355[/snapback] Actually, He died THREE months later. FDR's 1933 inauguration wasn't 'lavish' by any means(expensive)... Hollywood provided most of the cash. READ this story... Presidents did this many times over the course of our history, and there was NO time during peace when this kind of uplifting expression of change was needed. Hoover had almost led the country into the midst of revolution from within, and FDR's election was HUGE. I DOUBT it was even CLOSE to being like this in 1937!! You people can attack Clinton all you want, but FDR is the epitome of greatness. FDR in 1933 Still, 50 million is a heck of a lot of money just for the swearing-in of someone who is already President...whether Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green, Yellow, Red, Blue, etc..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Just because its been there since the beginning of time doesn't mean it can't be improved on. Is it REALLY necessary? 210722[/snapback] We are swearing in the President of our Country. Yeah...its necessary. Maybe not as extravigant. But necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Just because its been there since the beginning of time doesn't mean it can't be improved on. Is it REALLY necessary? 210722[/snapback] How much DHS money is spent to secure the Super Bowl site? Is it REALLY necessary to waste all that money for a silly football game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts