JimH wrote:


Sorry for losing it with you but discussing things with you is like
talking
to a brick wall sometimes.

Let me try again, this time with questions:

Now where did this $40 million figure come from?

It's the estimated cost of the whole event. Most comes from private
donations that could be used for better purposes at this time, if Bush
would make a stand to do so. Armor for the soldier's vehicles. Directly
related to Bush, he sent them there. Flak jackets for same. Food,
medical support, etc. for Tsunami victims.

I thought you were upset
about the $17 million.

I am. That portion is directly related to you and I, the taxpayers. I
thought you righties were for lower taxes?

What was the cost of the Clinton inaugurations? How much public and
private
money? Were there not disaster relief funds then that the money
could have
gone to?

$30 million, and that INCLUDED security. Clinton didn't need as much
security, of course, because he didn't **** off the whole world. I'm
sure there are disasters that could have used the money, BUT, what you
are failing to grasp here, is the fact that Bush actually SAID that the
private sector should be the ones donating relief to the Tsunami
victims. IF he was a man of honor, he'd have used this time to show how
that could be done.

And just how much money has the US given and pledged to the Tsunami
victims?

$350 million, a virtual drop in the bucket.

How much in private donations?

Estimated to be $322 from the U.S. alone. This does NOT count for any
private donations outside of the U.S.

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.

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

JimH wrote:


Sorry for losing it with you but discussing things with you is like
talking
to a brick wall sometimes.

Let me try again, this time with questions:

Now where did this $40 million figure come from?

It's the estimated cost of the whole event. Most comes from private
donations that could be used for better purposes at this time, if Bush
would make a stand to do so. Armor for the soldier's vehicles. Directly
related to Bush, he sent them there. Flak jackets for same. Food,
medical support, etc. for Tsunami victims.

I thought you were upset
about the $17 million.

I am. That portion is directly related to you and I, the taxpayers. I
thought you righties were for lower taxes?

What was the cost of the Clinton inaugurations? How much public and
private
money? Were there not disaster relief funds then that the money
could have
gone to?

$30 million, and that INCLUDED security. Clinton didn't need as much
security, of course, because he didn't **** off the whole world. I'm
sure there are disasters that could have used the money, BUT, what you
are failing to grasp here, is the fact that Bush actually SAID that the
private sector should be the ones donating relief to the Tsunami
victims. IF he was a man of honor, he'd have used this time to show how
that could be done.

And just how much money has the US given and pledged to the Tsunami
victims?

$350 million, a virtual drop in the bucket.

How much in private donations?

Estimated to be $322 from the U.S. alone. This does NOT count for any
private donations outside of the U.S.

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.


I interject Clinton only as a comparison. You find that unfair? How so?

Here is a nice news story for you on US emergency relief donations:

"....foreign assistance for development and emergency relief rose from $10
billion in President Clinton's last year to $24 billion under President Bush
in 2003. Secretary of State Colin Powell said assistance for this week's
earthquake and tsunamis alone will eventually exceed $1 billion. "

Back to the discussion. You failed to answer these questions:

What was the breakdown of public and private money spent for the Clinton
inaugural in 1996?

Were there disasters in 1996 that the private money could have been donated
to instead of the inaugural?

And a new question. Of the $17 million spent on security for the GWB 2nd
inaugural, how much involved permanent security hardware and upgrades that
will continue to improve security in DC for years to come?

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.

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.

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.