Artful Dodger: You're far too diplomatic in your opinions

I don't know if I agree with being lumped into your "anti-Fox" gang.I often watch Fox,now and again I'm on board with their slant,(such as the present war in Gaza)but I've rarely come across anyone who isn't aware of the "slant" liberal or republican.I suppose I'm a "tweener" these days,so save the Coulter shtick for a hardcore lib

I don't think libs are the only ones underwhelmed by GW''s act

Artful Dodger: Rather blew it,it was sad to see,but it shouldn't diminish his entire career.Yes Rather didn't have the proper airtight background when he went out on a limb,but I don't think anyone doubts Bush was a weekend warrior with very little interest in serving in the military.

Artful Dodger: Yes,I intended to say counter balance to Hannity.It seems to me that the only reason people get worked up about Fox News is due their need to deny their right wing leanings.Who cares? do they think it somehow discredits their opinions?

It eems to drive both them (and you) nuts

Artful Dodger: Colmes is also gone now from prime time,they didn't replace him with a liberal counter balance.You can find studies till the cows come home,any intelligent individual who has watched both MSNBC and Fox(for a fair amount of time) can sense their leanings,it's not even subtle

Artful Dodger: it is sad,you're right...this is the stuff that pisses me off,the spending like this....HOW tho,can we,as citizens be heard to tell them STOP SPENDING...we can't...
what kind of cookies???

Artful Dodger: I don't think it is EVER ok to spend that much on something like this...we have people straving,kids getting sick...not so much a homeless issue here,they are all frauds....people loosing jobs left and right...to ME anyhow...this,and I dont care Dem OR Rep...this kind of...again IMO is a slap in the face to the people.
What I was origanally wondering tho...how much of this price tag is security on him?? does anyone know...have there been any numbers or breakdowns of WHERE the moneys are going??

anastasia:

and if they slobbered all over Bush you would be all in favor of them

I dont think that is the point...if they didnt care about one inauguration price tag, then no complaints on this one either.... its about them not being biased... if I am a reporter, and I didnt make any reports about Bush spending too much, then i woulod be off the hook here too, but there are some reporters who made a stink about Bush at the time, who have all of a sudden lost their passion for frugal spending??????


Point is, they were Bush bashing, pure and simple, they didnt care about spending, it was just an excuse to bash.. they still dont give a crap about spending, and since there is no one they want to bash right now... there is no story.

Artful Dodger: Fox/MSNBC can be tossed out as a wash,concerning left/right leanings

Czuch: I saw him discuss,and make the same points on air at around 5pm est.I searched CNN to find the The McCafferty File section and he discusses it on his blog also

ABC has this report

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Inauguration/story?id=6665946&page=1

Artful Dodger: and if they slobbered all over Bush you would be all in favor of them

anastasia: yes it isd more expensive than Bushs, by 4 times, hardly the cost of inflation or security, yes half is paid from private donations, but if this really is the start of a new day, why not just have an 80 million dollar ball and not use any tax payers money?

Jim Dandy:

Well thanks for that blog, and it is nice to see... I dont know if that stuff made it to air or was just part of his blog..... the thing is, when it was Bush, it was the AP circulating this stuff...there is not one news room in the US (radio, tv, news paper etc) that does not subscribe to the AP news wires... not this time though, and to read some of the reader comments after the blog, it seems just the same ol same ol... if its Bush its bad, if its Obama its just money well spent on a mental health day required from the last 8 years!

Czuch: what is it excatly that all the money is being spent on for the event?? I heard that is was more expensive then Bush's BUT I honestly didn't hear what they said after that,I was just passing through...is it security??? just bells and whistles?? or both?? I dont feel ANY president incoming deserves to have THAT much money spent on one event.
I also don't feel that every first lady should go through and COMPLETELY redecorate at the tax payers expense..thats just my opionion :)

Tuesday:

Everything costs more since Bush has been in office. I wonder how much is security. Obama has a mess to clean up. He deserves a huge party. ;)


I know some of that was tongue in cheek, and you do empathize with what i am trying to point out...

But its really true, we like Obama so he gets a pass and we dont like Bush so he gets screwed... but in all truth and honesty, is that really what you want from your media outlets????

Jim Dandy: ah ha........another CCP king ROFLMBO

Czuch: Your post was almost a direct quote from The McCafferty File on CNN tonite.Do you consider CNN right wing?


here's the link

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/

Tuesday: But its the government giving a license!!! Who else should decide then????

Should we get to write our own definition when it comes to drivers licenses too??? I dont like the definition of "speeding" , should that make it okay for the definition of speeding to be changed as well?

4 years ago the media were up in arms about Bush spending 40 million on his inauguration, listed all the better ways to spend the cash instead, this while the economy was doing well....


Anyone heard anything about that now when Obama is going to spend twice that amount, 80 million plus another 80 million in private funds, making the total 160 million dollar party????


Not a word (except for some pointing out the bias on conservative talk radio) but nobody is complaining, or even mentioning, in fact the media is falling all over itself, like proud parents!


No..... no , the main stream media has no left wing bias or agenda.... no, not at all....

anastasia: Marriage to me is a religious institution, anyone can have a religious based marriage ceremony, swap rings, do whatever they want to, the government doesnt really care.

But if the government is giving a legal document,IE a license to get married in the eyes of the government, of course they have the right to give rules and such.

There are some people who marry multiple partners, but the government will not sanction it. The government has always defined marriage as a whatever between 1 man and 1 woman, thats what marriage is, if its between 2 men or 2 women then it is not really marriage!

Then, you start to make changes to the actual definition of marriage, and you probably get into something more than you bargained for? If the courts rule that the definition can be changed to make same sex okay, then what would be your argument that the definition cannot be changed to make more than 2 people involved?????? What would stop the definition from including a woman and a dog? You think that is silly, but is silly a reason to not allow something???? You see where this is going, right?

Tuesday: ohh,hun...it takes TWO gazillion to get any point across here ;) and then still...ehhhh

Tuesday: I was a bit confussed too..when he said that the government doesn't stop anyone from geting married

Tuesday:

Do you think the government should determine who marries as long as they are of legal age and consenting?

Well, the government doesnt stop anyone from getting married.... but if you want a marriage sponsored by the government, well then they have to regulate it somehow, dont they? I mean, what about making it between two people only? That is a restriction, isnt it?

Tuesday: "...so called freedom of expression we have supposedly given them."

I believe the "freedom of expression" would be more of freedom to think and speak what they wanted.

Throwing items at someone is a form of assault, which I believe is not even allowed in the US. (Even throwing something that will do no harm can still be considered an assault.)

Tuesday: Freedom of expression doesnt give you the right to violate my rights, or to attack me....



..anyway, so as long as it is consenting adults, the federal government should not regulate it with laws?

Tuesday:

Is murder a moral issue or personal choice?

Artful Dodger: once you begin to alter your lifestyle due to fear, the terrorists will have won.

Artful Dodger: hmmm,they should get a goldfish....10 bucks says the thing would be dead in a week from the girls neglecting it.....and make the relationship with the boyfriend stronger...ROTFLMAO! alot of marriages with ADULTS don't survive a baby...oiy! right then,they need to have an implant of birth control.....no wonder I only have dogs!!

Artful Dodger: yeah,but I don't really thnk it matters WHO is president....we will be attacked again

Artful Dodger: and look at these young girls having babies.....when I was in high school (I am 36 now) I was in....8th grade..one of my friends was pregnant with her first,another girl in my class pregnant with her SECOND and a girl that was an underclassman got pregnant at the age of 12 and delivered the baby right after she turned 13...
I heard stories...back from the 60's ???? where if a teen got pregnant they sent her away to have the baby...maybe that was not such a bad thing,why shouldn't a 12 year old have some shame in getting pregnant...and the parents should REALLY have some shame.Everyone blew a head gasket when that Jamie Lynn Spears got pregnant,but come on now,really,lol...look how accepting our society is now of under age girls having kids and kids being born out of wedlock....is it THAT big a surprise she got pregnant?? she is a celeb,thats why EVERYONE knew about it

Artful Dodger: re: "We as a society want to protects our personal lives so much that we are willing to allow for bad things to happen, to protect individual lives"

but is life worth living in a cage?

Artful Dodger: yeah,because Bush has never told a lie in his life...he's awesome,truly da man!!

Artful Dodger: hmmm,THAT is not such a bad idea,the license thing,lol...
Ya know...ya hear people..and I have said it myself,I will admit it...when ya hear of these people on wlefare,addicted to drugs that just keep having baby after baby,and the system keeps supporting them.....people will say...well,they should be fixed so that can't have anymore kids.....I will put MONEY on a bet that almost everyone that reads this board has either said OR knows someone with that opinion.......A local judge here in the city I live,oh,maybe 10 years ago now,sentanced a woman to just that,she had,I think it was her 8th or 9th kid and she was addicted to crack...ALL,not one or two,but ALL her babies were born addicted and where now suffering health problems,all in foster care...the judge said,thats it...your being sterilized,jail,and then rehab.....OMG the people went CRAZY,he CAN'T take away her right to have another baby if thats what SHE wants....well,what about those poor kids born addicted to crack...I absolutly think they SHOULD be made to be sterilzed....even if it is just something like an implanted birth control....SOMETHING! anywho...thats just my 2 cents,for what its worth.

Artful Dodger: but Clinton was impeached for the whole Monica thing?? that was such non-sense too....If Bush isn't worried then he should say investigate away...have at it,have fun!!

Artful Dodger: I don't believe I ever called Bush a war criminal