"JimH" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

JimH wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

JimH wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

P.Fritz wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

JimH wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message

ups.com...

JimH wrote:
How much did the opening of the Clinton Library cost us
Bassy?

Not as much as the George W. Bush library, and the annual
upkeep
cost
is less, too!


Really? Where is the GW Bush library located?
sorry, George H.W. Bush, College Station, TX


Can you post some figures to support your claim?

Our resident "King of the NG idiots" apparently is quite math
impaired.

"Brian Blake, public relations specialist at the Bush Library,
said
the
total cost of the library was $83 million, less than half of
what
SMU
may
have access to.
Blake said the library museum cost $43 million, with private
funds
from the
Bush Foundation, while the library conference center and the
Bush
School of
Government and Public Service cost $40 million. The funding, he
said,
came
from state and A&M money."




http://www.thebatt.com/news/2002/12/...y-515078.shtml


"Mr. Clinton's cost $165 million,"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Nov17.html

Oh, contrai
"Over the years, presidential libraries have evolved into
multi-purpose
institutes that, in addition to housing the official papers of a
former
President, can include museums, conference facilities, and
classrooms.
The cost of these facilities can be substantial. According to
the
George Bush Presidential Library Center Construction and Fact
Sheet,
the George Bush Presidential Library Center honoring President
George
H.W. Bush cost approximately $83 million to construct; roughly
half
of
that cost was defrayed by private contributions to the George
Bush
Presidential Library Foundation, with the remainder funded by
Texas
A&M
University. A December 6, 2001 article in The Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette
reports that construction of the Clinton Presidential Center is
expected to cost $104 million. The Clinton Presidential Library
cost
has been defrayed by private contributions in excess of $70
million,
bringing it's total taxpayer cost of only $34 million."

As you can see, it cost the taxpayer's more for Bush's legacy,
than
for
Clinton's. By the way, the costliest to run and maintain?
Reagan's.


Not so fast. This site shows the cost of Clintons library to be
$165

million. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6521909/

Regardless, you can see that public funds often go in to pay for
political
events and structures. So why are your shorts in a knot over the
cost of
security for today's inauguration?

I said it before, but perhaps it just didn't hit your brain. Do you
recall when Bush was on the mat for not pledging enough to the
Tsunami
victims? HE said that the public should donate, not the government.
IF
he were a man of honor, he would now say to those donating, instead
of
$40 million dollars being spent to honor ME, please send that money
to
the victims. But, alas, he didn't do that, because he, and his
followers, see him as larger than life. Add to that the HUGE
deficit
he's rung up in the name of BushCo War, Inc., and one could only
come
to the conclusion that he doesn't give a damned about anybody but
himself and his mega-rich cronies.


Get a life.

As expected from you.


Yes, a momentary slip that I gracefully recovered from.

I see you have started the morning calling people idiots already. As
expected.

The funny thing is all the whining and nashing of teeth the liebrals did
about the inaugural balls........they were not about Bush himself, rather a
celebration for the many who supported his campaign......Bush spent all of
nine minutes 'dancing' and was back at the WH at 10pm... The poor liebrals
like asslick still don't get it.

I really don't understand why this inauguration is bother you like it
is.
Get over it already.

I've listed the reasons above. If you don't understand, you never will.
I love the "get over it already" comment. Hell, you STILL interject
something about Clinton in just about ANY political conversation you
get involved in here. One could say the same to you.


You are right. I should not have brought up the cost of Clinton's 1997
inaugural event and compared it the this recent one. 9-11 had not yet
happened in January 1997 and thus no need for high security and tremendous
security costs. Therefore it is not fair to compare the two.

Sorry. My mistake.

JimH wrote:

I really don't understand why this inauguration is bother you like
it
is.
Get over it already.

I've listed the reasons above. If you don't understand, you never
will.
I love the "get over it already" comment. Hell, you STILL interject
something about Clinton in just about ANY political conversation
you
get involved in here. One could say the same to you.


You are right. I should not have brought up the cost of Clinton's
1997
inaugural event and compared it the this recent one. 9-11 had not
yet
happened in January 1997 and thus no need for high security and
tremendous
security costs. Therefore it is not fair to compare the two.

Sorry. My mistake.

911 has nothing to do with it. There was, during Clinton's term, just
as much a chance that THAT could happen, as there is now. What IS
different, is that BushCo has succeeded in dividing the U.S. into a
lone entity, essentially ****ing off the rest of the world.

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

JimH wrote:

I really don't understand why this inauguration is bother you like
it
is.
Get over it already.

I've listed the reasons above. If you don't understand, you never
will.
I love the "get over it already" comment. Hell, you STILL interject
something about Clinton in just about ANY political conversation
you
get involved in here. One could say the same to you.


You are right. I should not have brought up the cost of Clinton's
1997
inaugural event and compared it the this recent one. 9-11 had not
yet
happened in January 1997 and thus no need for high security and
tremendous
security costs. Therefore it is not fair to compare the two.

Sorry. My mistake.

911 has nothing to do with it. There was, during Clinton's term, just
as much a chance that THAT could happen, as there is now.

You obviously cannot discuss the facts and therefore there is no reason to
continue this discussion with you.

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

JimH wrote:

I really don't understand why this inauguration is bother you like
it
is.
Get over it already.

I've listed the reasons above. If you don't understand, you never
will.
I love the "get over it already" comment. Hell, you STILL interject
something about Clinton in just about ANY political conversation
you
get involved in here. One could say the same to you.


You are right. I should not have brought up the cost of Clinton's
1997
inaugural event and compared it the this recent one. 9-11 had not
yet
happened in January 1997 and thus no need for high security and
tremendous
security costs. Therefore it is not fair to compare the two.

Sorry. My mistake.

911 has nothing to do with it. There was, during Clinton's term, just
as much a chance that THAT could happen, as there is now.

You obviously cannot discuss the facts and therefore there is no reason to
continue this discussion with you.

Asslicker is too busy trying to figure out what that whoooshing sound he
keeps hearing over his head.

JimH wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

JimH wrote:

I really don't understand why this inauguration is bother you
like
it
is.
Get over it already.

I've listed the reasons above. If you don't understand, you
never
will.
I love the "get over it already" comment. Hell, you STILL
interject
something about Clinton in just about ANY political conversation
you
get involved in here. One could say the same to you.


You are right. I should not have brought up the cost of Clinton's
1997
inaugural event and compared it the this recent one. 9-11 had not
yet
happened in January 1997 and thus no need for high security and
tremendous
security costs. Therefore it is not fair to compare the two.

Sorry. My mistake.

911 has nothing to do with it. There was, during Clinton's term,
just
as much a chance that THAT could happen, as there is now.

You obviously cannot discuss the facts and therefore there is no
reason to
continue this discussion with you.

I told you all of the "facts". Perhaps they didn't hit your gray
matter.

P.Fritz wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

JimH wrote:

I really don't understand why this inauguration is bother you
like
it
is.
Get over it already.

I've listed the reasons above. If you don't understand, you
never
will.
I love the "get over it already" comment. Hell, you STILL
interject
something about Clinton in just about ANY political
conversation
you
get involved in here. One could say the same to you.


You are right. I should not have brought up the cost of
Clinton's
1997
inaugural event and compared it the this recent one. 9-11 had
not
yet
happened in January 1997 and thus no need for high security and
tremendous
security costs. Therefore it is not fair to compare the two.

Sorry. My mistake.

911 has nothing to do with it. There was, during Clinton's term,
just
as much a chance that THAT could happen, as there is now.

You obviously cannot discuss the facts and therefore there is no
reason to
continue this discussion with you.

Asslicker is too busy trying to figure out what that whoooshing sound
he
keeps hearing over his head.

Paul, I see that you still can't act like an adult, and must resort to
petty childish name calling in lieu of actually debating a subject.
How's the child rearing coming along? Has alt.support.parenting gotten
you on track yet, so that you can actually perform the function of
parent, or do you still need help? It's pretty pathetic that people
like you breed, and then don't have the very basic skills required to
raise what they've spawned.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
P.Fritz wrote:
Ilove the way the liebral pull in the FDR one......he was at death's door
at the time.

"Death's door at the time" ...really? I guess you're an expert medical
historian and have reviewed FDR's health files?

And how is this relevant to the cost of his 4th inauguration? It was
wartime, this is wartime... at least, the Bush Administration often
proclaims it to be.



The 17 mil from DC is from federal dollars.

Really? Are you sure?


The 40 mil is from private contributions

Actually, it isn't. It is wholly funded by your tax dollars, and mine. The
Republican Party *hopes* to raise private donations to offset a large
percent of this expense, but they don't have the money in hand yet and
don't claim to.

Of course, when you've spent $80 million investigating a blow job, maybe
$40 mill for a coronation is just chickenfeed.

Chuck, are you going to talk to DSK about his fixation with Clinton's sex
life?