Topic: Inaugration Address

[super_sayian_spongebob]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20050120-1.html

That's the transcript, and there's a video. I wonder what do you think about it?

[IZ]

I disagree with spending 10 million of the taxpayers money to pay for a party. He's spent 45mil his first inaguration, and now 40mil for this one.

[ssj4gogita4]

I disagree with the whole innaugreaitilodsafjsdlfsdknfaslfnslkfasklf...there is use for it. They are elected in November...thats all that should happen

[GrEeNdAyFrEaK]

I disagree with spending 10 million of the taxpayers money to pay for a party. He's spent 45mil his first inaguration, and now 40mil for this one.

[snapback]145839[/snapback]

That's not his decision, that's tradition and it's always going to be that way. I disagree with it too, though, we don't need to spend that much taxpayers money so we can "officially" allow the President to come to office and hear him talk.

[Dragon Of Grief]

I have to agree on this one... Bush spent WAY to much money on this inaugaration deal.

[IZ]

I disagree with spending 10 million of the taxpayers money to pay for a party. He's spent 45mil his first inaguration, and now 40mil for this one.

[snapback]145839[/snapback]

That's not his decision, that's tradition and it's always going to be that way. I disagree with it too, though, we don't need to spend that much taxpayers money so we can "officially" allow the President to come to office and hear him talk.

[snapback]145853[/snapback]

Actually, W is going way overboard on the inaguration anyway. The only president to spend more than him on a inaguration was George H.W.

[super_sayian_spongebob]

I disagree with spending 10 million of the taxpayers money to pay for a party. He's spent 45mil his first inaguration, and now 40mil for this one.

[snapback]145839[/snapback]

That's not his decision, that's tradition and it's always going to be that way. I disagree with it too, though, we don't need to spend that much taxpayers money so we can "officially" allow the President to come to office and hear him talk.

[snapback]145853[/snapback]

Actually, W is going way overboard on the inaguration anyway. The only president to spend more than him on a inaguration was George H.W.

[snapback]145937[/snapback]

Well I guess it's because of security.

[cmonkey]

I'd rather argue about the address itself.  We had a short debate about it in history class.  My opinion is it sounded imperialistic, like a second manifest destiny.

[MiraclrPlz]

That was a great speech.  There is nothing wrong with a good war here and there.  That opens the passae to adulthood.  The war in Iraq is a splendid little war.  My theory is in order for a man to truly become a man, he must endure the pangs of war.

[AppleNick]

Splendid little war? You need to learn, you fool. Is 16,000 deaths splendid and little?

Bush blew 50 million dollars that came partly out of our pockets on his stupid inauguration. There are better things to do with TAX PAYER MONEY.

[MiraclrPlz]

Yes it's a splendid little war.  And 16,000 people did not die.  Little over 1k did.

[IZ]

Possibly 1k US Troops, what about innocent Iraqis?

[GrEeNdAyFrEaK]

Possibly 1k US Troops, what about innocent Iraqis?

[snapback]146659[/snapback]

Almost all of the innocent Iraqis were killed by either "guilty" Iraqis or other nations that Iraq is at war with, that one isnt Bush's fault. You can lay the blame on Bush for the 1000+ US soliders that died, though

[AppleNick]

Yes it's a splendid little war.  And 16,000 people did not die.  Little over 1k did.

[snapback]146658[/snapback]

Little over 1k soldiers. And studies have actually said that something like 100,000 died, excuse me. :dry:

[IZ]

I know! Those civilians who did nothing to support Saddam's regime were so guilty!