What a fucking party

[Winoman]

40 000 000$ for the 3 days bush's party. :O
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4187023.stm

I m in the Twilight Zone. :freak:

[shutupandshave]

Pricey, very pricey.

The city of Washington has also been asked to pay $17m in security costs.

Ouch

[Tigre]

I was googling the cost of President Clinton's inauguration to compare and all I get is penis enlargement ads!! :lol: Anyone know or have a direct link?

[Karmashock]

He probably has a lot of left over campaign money that he doesn't know what to do with... I don't think he's allowed to give it away or spend it on anything but his political career... As he can't spend it on a third term there isn't any point in saving it.

That presidential library stuff is largely a product of that... The reps did a very good job of raising cash for him so he has money to burn.

[/<yle]

Aye, and since hes a lame duck, he dont have to save for next term.

[Foree]

OMG Bush is a frickin' faggot

40 milions spent on his own ego rather than on something much more important

US my ass

[/<yle]

its out of political contributions.... he can only SPEND it on himself, legaly.

[Karmashock]

what about the Clinton library... do you know how much that cost? Lame duck presidents always blow their campaign cash on something like this... they can't really spend it on anything else.

[Foree]

I don't believe he could not legally gift that money to some organisation like RC

[JADezimar]

Well he cannot.

[shutupandshave]

There's really a rule that stops him giving it all to charity... are we even sure it's campaign money? If so why does Washington have to pay 17 million?

[MVB]

Washington has to provide security; if it costs 17 million, it costs 17 million; it's the first post-9/11 inauguration, so everyone is wigging out around here. I live in the DC area, as do some others, and was driving around DC last night trying to get to clients; it's like 5 million chickens and 0 heads.

[shutupandshave]

So there's really a rule that stops him giving it to charity?

[Karmashock]

I'm not sure... But it tracks with the 'philosophy' of the contribution. Philosophy matches law about 80 percent of the time... so, I'd say, I’m about 80 percent sure there is...


I could look it up if you really care.

[shutupandshave]

No, I am just trying not to start a flame war by calling Bush a cunt for throwing a 40million party.

He would have gained my respect if he had given the lot to the Tsunami appeal, and had his inaugaration taped by some guy with a camera phone.

History remembers gestures like that.

[Karmashock]

ok... but I'm 80 percent sure that would be illegal. :ponder:

[JADezimar]

How many times have huge costs parties been thrown by royalty in Brittian? I am sure that the ceromonies can be quite expensive.

"I guess it is time for the whole world, Atleast the United States to stop having luxury and give it all to everyone else" I mean they did not earn there money to have luxury, cuase it is wrong. We should all just give in to communism.

[shutupandshave]

Okay JAD, seeing as you're being a dick, I will too.

NONE, there have been been huge parties that "I" know of thrown by the royalty of Brittain because there is no such country as Brittain.

The Royalty of Britain earn more money in tourism, than they cost. Their parties are part of the attraction.

[JADezimar]

What is the difference between the royals earning there money through tourism, And the Campaign money earned by the Republicans?

You should read my signature again.

[shutupandshave]

Firstly
WHEN is the last time the royals threw a 40 million dollar party?

Secondly
The difference is - It doesn't cost anything for the royals to have a party, because by having a party they're making more money than they are spending.

[JADezimar]

Thats a joke.

[shutupandshave]

What exactly is?

[JADezimar]

Either the fact that every ball or anything that the royal family does pays for there affair with state money or wherever it comes from and you are making up a blatant lie =joke. Or the fact that if the royal family does raise it by tourism, the royal family is a mere tourists attraction, Makes them a joke.

Your pick. Things of the same type should be able to mingle and discern eachother.

[Karmashock]

How much does it actually cost to keep the royals going in a year? Just total costs... not factoring in tourism money.

[shutupandshave]

there's a lot of info on this, from the republicans in the UK

(JAD, notice how I made a statement, Karma asked for some info about it, and I am going to get it. Because "I" made the statement to begin with, it is my job to find evidence to support it, although Karma is perfectly within his right to credit/discredit me himself).

The real cost of keeping the royal family is many times greater than £7.9 million. It was estimated as £55 million in 2000 but the exact amount and the way its spent is shrouded in secrecy.
This was from an anti-monarchy website.

incidently Karma - from that same website is the following quote
British monarchs do exercise political influence. Examples of monarchs acting politically are: George V's invitation to Ramsay McDonald to form a coalition government in August 1931; George VI's endorsement of Chamberlains Munich policy in 1938 by inviting him on to the balcony of Buckingham Palace to acknowledge the praise of the public and the present queens decision to invite Edward Heath to form a government in February 1974.

Every week the queen meets privately with the prime minister to give her opinion. Monarchs do play a political role, but they are not accountable to the British people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1411781.stm

This does not give any figures for tourism... which I heard was about £2 billion (About $3.7 billion dollars).

[Papa Smurf]

the queen still has the right to veto any law passed though in reality she never would, the civil list has been cut to about 4 people, the queen volentarily pays tax now even though officially she does not have to, any events held by the queen are payed for by the queen unless it is an offical state function in which case the even is held by the queen but at the request of the government.

How much does it cost to keep bush? factoring in all the fat contracts he awards his friends?

[shutupandshave]

Bush's party cost about as much as the most anti-monarchy camp thinks it takes to keep the royals going for a year.

Bush's "plane landing" stunt he pulled cost $2 million apparently.

[MVB]

It costs millions of dollars to fly planes, suas. The most anti-monarchy camp claims it takes 20 million pounds to keep the royals going for a year?

You'll also remember that Bush makes less than 200,000 dollars a year as President.


Frankly, I don't care about how much the party cost. It was a fun time had by all, it's a celebration of America -- NOT of Bush; I saw the fireworks display, and saw no "W," which people claimed the fireworks made the shape of. The fact of the matter is, Bush HAD TO HAVE an inauguration, and all the people who raised that money for him expected him to use it to make a big ole slambang fest of it. SO, knowing this, Bush's aides de camp used the money they weren't legally allowed to spend on other things to make a big ole slambang fest, as per request.

The money he used was his own money, given to him, and not taxpayer dollars (save security in DC), and I don't see what the big deal is.

Except when you do so in a forced and brief manner, to prove that you have something nice to say about America, you basically never say anything nice about America, suas. The "road from here" thread karma started has a place where you point out the opposite about the website linked. Very few people in these political forums actually are able to view institutions like America with evenhandedness, defending the good as aggressively and openly as they attack the bad.

[shutupandshave]

The most anti-monarchy camp claims it takes 20 million pounds to keep the royals going for a year?

£55 million in 2000
Please read my post before replying to it :)

I personally think it would have been nicer if he had given it to the tsunami appeal. If you disagree then fine.

It might have been too late to donate it to a tsunami appeal as most of the preperations could have been made at the end of december 2004...I really dont know.

You are just us unable to view the US with evenhandedness as I am, if not more so...

I have stated the great things that have come out of the US, however it is opinions such as the refusal of people to accept the US COULD be doing more harm than good in the world that bothers me.

Dont say things like "you basically never said anything good about the US" unless you mean it, because I'll prove you wrong...and unless you want to be Karma you'll have to admit it.

Some people make mistakes, but to have posted in the same thread as my pro-us statements and perhaps even replied to them would make you ..well what? Playing on people's patriotism to deliberately lie and deceive people into believing something about me that wasn't true at worst, or mistaken and not paying attention to what I was saying at best... which would lead me to ask why you're commenting on what I'm saying.... but there we go.

If you want to criticise me for my wish to spend 57million dollars on charity instead of having a party I think it says more about your character than mine.

If the queen did it, or Blair did it, I would be equally as scathing... but they didn't.

[Karmashock]

suas,
first, your quote about the royals actually proves the point I was making in the old thread. However, as you never ever ever bothered to understand what I was saying he don't realize it.


second, how different would tourism be without the royals? Do you honestly think you'd lose 2 billion in tourism if you turned all of their palaces into musems?

you could simulate some of what they did... still keep the beefeaters (sp) etc... just ditch the actual royals.


I doubt you'd lose any money... and likely save some.

[JADezimar]

Suas
(JAD, notice how I made a statement, Karma asked for some info about it, and I am going to get it. Because "I" made the statement to begin with, it is my job to find evidence to support it, although Karma is perfectly within his right to credit/discredit me himself).

The saying goes both ways. I remember asking for evidence about the same time. Not getting anything. Do not forget the majority of the time I will give a source.

I personally think it would have been nicer if he had given it to the tsunami appeal. If you disagree then fine.

This thread and Your posts on this thread Suas were just another way to create anti bush semetism. Just like that lasts comment, does not matter how hard you try to look neutral or even hafl way unbiased. You are still just putting on a disguise and doing your bests to slamn Bush. But despite how many times it has been repeated about U.S law stating you cannot use the campaign funs for anything else, you still carry on with the above statement. Maybe Alot of people here would give eachother alot more credit, particuliarly you saus if every statement you had was not in one way shape or form a way to bash on the united states or GWB.

Good Day continue hating, it will get you know where.

Papa Smurf, Where do you think the Royal Family Got all of its money in the firsts place? You think that money ever belonged to them?

[shutupandshave]

JAD, you back up about 1/10th of the statements I ask you too... and usually when you DO back it up - it proves you wrong anyway, because you're a dumass.

Every statement I make is not bashing the US or GWB and the fact you say that EVERY post says that, is the reason people rarely reply to your posts, except to defend against your flames.

You're a joke on this forum.

suas,
first, your quote about the royals actually proves the point I was making in the old thread. However, as you never ever ever bothered to understand what I was saying he don't realize it.
If you actually bother to start using English, I'll actually start bothering to be about to understand her.

[Karmashock]

Suas, what was the point of that post?

Stop the flames... We're all tired of them and no one is amused.

[JADezimar]

JAD, you back up about 1/10th of the statements I ask you too... and usually when you DO back it up - it proves you wrong anyway, because you're a dumass.

This is a lie.

Every statement I make is not bashing the US or GWB and the fact you say that EVERY post says that, is the reason people rarely reply to your posts, except to defend against your flames.

It is pretty close. On another point you can make up your own hypothisis about what people think about me anytime, fact is they probably would not want thrown in same boat with you anymore than me. Does not matter what you think. You do not represent anybody but yourself on these boards, and really should try to keep it that way. Who do you think you are? The new leader of anti america tlsc, the aatlsc?

If you actually bother to start using English, I'll actually start bothering to be about to understand her.

Nice way to pick a particuliar sentence or phrase and point out 1 or 2 small mistakes. Boohoo how do you get along in chat rooms? On aim or msn? You never use them? I and others have worked extremly hard in mosts cases to write proper english or come close, And my posts are alot better. For you to continue to point out simple mistakes I or anybody else skips, is you having nothing good to argue or point out. You only try to trash my persona or other peoples persona's on these boards becuase you are tired of minds that can clash with yours. You feel threatened. Now do me a favour and stop making posts that are nothing but 100% flame. Atleast I add in argument with mine. The only time I ever flat out insulted you, you already had done it to me. (You should clarify where your quotes etc come from.)

Now back on topic. Those funds cannot be used for anything else, if you do not like it, come and change our law. Until then stop whining and complaining.

[MVB]

It would have been very nice if they'd given the cash to the Tsunami appeal. A) Bush had no control over things; he could not have said "don't spend it on the inauguration;" B) you can't spend it on anything but campaign-related stuff, and the tsunami isn't covered in that.

[shutupandshave]

Suas, what was the point of that post?

Stop the flames... We're all tired of them and no one is amused.

Karma, it is very unlikely I will ever want your opinion in this kind of situation. Dont assume I do... I recall you telling celtic 2x that you dont care about his opinion... well I dont care about yours. Shut up.

JAD - if you're dyslexic, and I am beginning to think you are - I apologise profusely for my comments about your spelling and reading comprehension. Seriously.

MVB

Yes it would have been...

Bush found a way to go to war with a country based primarily on nothing, and the US citizens (such as yourself) bought it - I am sure he could have managed to give some money away to charity and got away with it too...

however, I do respect the fact he was pleased he got into office - it's more just the timing.

I mean, 40 million.... c'mon. £200,000 + security?

[Winoman]

this news is just an example of wasting. We can find this in all countries.
Any of u know where i can find the total spend for the campaign of bush and Kerry. it should be amazing. im just curious.

[JADezimar]

JAD - if you're dyslexic, and I am beginning to think you are - I apologise profusely for my comments about your spelling and reading comprehension. Seriously.

I actually enjoyed that. Was quite clever.

There are laws and loopholes that say the Pres can commit a war for a 24 hour period, I beleive is the amount of time he can do this for. Only being able to committ or use the marines also (This is why they call themselves the presidents 911 force.) Anyhow, then congress voted to go to war. I have not personally read the laws on the campaign money so have not seen how it is worded, but maybe there are no loopholes?

[Karmashock]

Karma, it is very unlikely I will ever want your opinion in this kind of situation. Dont assume I do... I recall you telling celtic 2x that you dont care about his opinion... well I dont care about yours. Shut up.
Your loss, as MVB pointed out... Bush can't spend the money on what you were saying.

Dispite what you would like to believe, I'm extremely well informed on many issues. So shutting yourself off just leads to your purpetuated ignorence. Which that being the case begs the question of why you even join the conversation if not to learn.

I come here to hear what other people's opinions are... and share my own. To say nothing of what we all know.

If you only come here to shut people up then that's just rather sad.

Oh well.
================================
this news is just an example of wasting. We can find this in all countries.
Any of u know where i can find the total spend for the campaign of bush and Kerry. it should be amazing. im just curious.
I'll look it up for you... I think google should have this pretty well indexed.
Ok... I found this... correct this if it's wrong. :)
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp
George W. Bush (R) $366,554,535
John Kerry (D) $322,574,967

That includes the 74.6 million that they both got from the federal government.
Love and peace, Karmashock.

[shutupandshave]

I know you're very well informed on many issues, but you're a lot less well informed on a lot of issues, than you like to think you are.

When you realise this, and acknowledge it, you'll be in a position to make a far larger contribution to discussion on these boards.

That's a lot of money spent. I think they should cap it?

[Karmashock]

sigh...

well, we have 300 million people... 350 (simplifying) million spent by each side is about 350/150... or about $2.3 dollars per person if you assume the nation is perfectly split.

is that a lot of money to spend on politics? I personaly gave 10 dollars to the reps... my dad gave about 2 hundred dollars... not a lot... but add that up over 150 million and that adds up real quick.

the celebation was pretty expensive... but fitting for a nation of our size.

We also consider money to be a form of speech... I certanly felt that my 10 dollars was a political statement... It's our way :)

[shutupandshave]

I can see the justifications for it I really can...

I just think it could be better spent... I guess the key thing here, is that it's pretty easy to spend someone else's money. ;)

Dont you think that the party and the election costs are prime examples of the decadence that so many people accuse the US of?

You say the money couldn't be spent on anything else but I disagree. I dont think anyone would have challenged him if he had said "I'm giving it away to the Tsunami appeal"... hell he could have put it down as election costs as it's great publicity.

[Winoman]

very interesting link.
How many will be cost the next election?
between 2000 and 2004 there is an increase of 60%.
i think u ll should increase ur contribution karma next time. lol

[JADezimar]

You say the money couldn't be spent on anything else but I disagree. I dont think anyone would have challenged him if he had said "I'm giving it away to the Tsunami appeal"... hell he could have put it down as election costs as it's great publicity.

I think you are probably right. Most people would probably not have a problem. But what about all the ones that donated? They may have wanted to see the money go elsewhere, now there is a new problem with where should the money go? If you start allowing exceptions then you have future problems, and with a subjective situation can be a huge problem in the future.

That is why Arnold will probably never get a go at president. It is a too subjective to the man involved. (I think he would be great, but I would hate to see who may get a chance a few years down the road)

[Karmashock]

"I'm giving it away to the Tsunami appeal"... hell he could have put it down as election costs as it's great publicity.
Like england there are a LOT of unwritten laws in the US... breaking one sets a precident... and that can go in bad directions...

just trust me... it isn't worth it.

Furthermore, they have enough money from what I hear... they don't know what to do with it all.


We're a nation of 300 million... let us have our fucking party.

[MightyDWC]

Yes, that money comes from contributions. It also comes fromt he people who check yes on their tax returns to contribute x amount of money from your refund to the presidential election fund. And if you compair Clintons to Bush's in TODAYS money standard, Clintons was actually about 48 million, again that's in TODAYS money.

[Karmashock]

there has been a trend to spend more on these things for... ever. I don't think they've spend less on an election from a preceeding year then a following year... but I could be wrong.