It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush Declares State Of Emergency In D.C.

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 10:22 PM

Originally posted by silent thunder
I think that in general, inaugurations should be simple affairs. For example, the new president coupld rip out the beating heart of the old president, Aztec-style, with an obsidian knife and hold it up to the sun before devouring it in ritual ecstasy.

Buyt that's just me.

I second that plan. Hell, I'd even buy a tee shirt.

posted on Jan, 13 2009 @ 10:24 PM
Well, State of Emergency allows for Military troops to "legally" be part of the protection personnel.

Maybe it is just a taste of what is to come, let us see from the very beginning that a Military presence is going to be a bigger, more common sight on US soil. Not as reservists, but as a supplement to local law enforcement.

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 03:04 AM
Do you suppose any of those private Republican donors who parted with $35 million for Bush thought they were making an investment that would generate a profit at taxpayer expense much higher than 35 million dollars?

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 03:14 AM
reply to post by Rumpelstiltskin

Not necessarily at taxpayer expense. That does not follow. But as for investing in a candidate...

Absolutely. That's why groups back candidates - they think it will further their agendas.

As it has always been...

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 04:25 AM

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by Rumpelstiltskin

Not necessarily at taxpayer expense. That does not follow. But as for investing in a candidate...


As it has always been...

What does follow if not profit at taxpayer expense? Favor in betrayal of the public interest? I guess that's what you meant, but I wonder why it doesn't seem to bother you. At least that's how it seems.

I see on the list of donors names like Dell, Sallie Mae, Exxon, Army Black Hawk helicopter manufacturer UTC, etc. Sounds like names that profit at taxpayer expense.

Thanks for the reply.

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 04:46 AM
reply to post by Rumpelstiltskin

What does follow if not profit at taxpayer expense? Maybe taxpayer benefit? Maybe there doesn't need to be a loser in every business transaction?

As an example, we all benefit from the manufacture of Blackhawks, from the workers, to the stockholders, to the citizens wo benefit from the security provided.

I don't buy into the 'business is always evil' mantra.

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 04:47 AM
reply to post by GOOLS

Originally posted by Gools
I agree this is extravagant and over the top as was pointed out four years ago:

Over $35 million for Bush Coronation - Not Counting Security!
The Inauguration - by the numbers

How much are they spending this year?

BTW I don't recall your protestations 4 years ago... In fact I remember quite the opposite:

Originally posted by jsobecky
Party on, George!

I'm guessing that the bulk of the party expenses are still privately funded and thus acceptable to you?


Yea well, that was 4 years ago, when we werent nearly in as deep of a mess as we are in right now. Its all glamour and glitz with some of you people but when it comes time to pay the bill, "give me a handout, we needed this extravegant party eventhough most ofus cant afford our house payments"

[edit on 14-1-2009 by Common Good]

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 05:47 AM
reply to post by jsobecky

I wouldn't say that business contracts always have to create a loser. But I would say that manufacture of military hardware as a way to create taxpayer benefit does not seem to have worked for America, let alone the rest of the world. And now the problems seem to be trickling up, there too.

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 07:08 AM
To me this seems like a whole lot of feigned outrage without a lot of thought behind it. It seems that the only time that the "Right-Wingers" are concerned with "fiscal conservatism," which is "their" mantra, is when "they" are not in a position of political power.

Hundreds of Billions, nay, Trillions, ploughed into the "War on Terror"...its okay, its necessary, its our patriotic duty.
Hundreds of Billions, Trillions, wasted in Tax relief and returns, only really making a real difference in the bank accounts of the top 5%...savvy fiscal policy...
Hundreds of Billions spent on no bid contracts to Administration linked corporations...nothing wrong with that.
Largest national Debt in American history...well, Reagan said that debts don't matter.
A Trillion handed out to bail out Wall street and the failing banks because of their own gambling...a slightly mixed response...

Now suddenly, 75 Million dollars is far too much to spend on the most historic, largest, and probably most looked forward to inauguration in modern history...I suppose 75 million dollars is far too much to spend on the various needs, [such as security,] of a President-Elect who was already facing plots of assassination from groups and individuals aimed at doing so if he was elected to the position of president, before the primary elections were even through; [to much for a President-Elect who still faces a nearly impossible struggle against those bigoted idiots who won't accept him as their leader because of whatever childish reason they choose.]
NOW, spending ANY money on ANY "democratic" plan to get the economy going is far too much to spend.
NOW, its time to cut spending.
NOW its time to cut programs.
And NOW will be the time for the other Mantra, of the "tax and spend Liberal", to come out of the woodwork, again and again.

I have mixed feelings about the whole "State of Emergency" thing coming from Bush...mainly because it seems that, for this historic moment in time it may actually be the responsible thing to do, just for the added security...but then again, every time I see the words "Bush" and "Emergency" in the same sentence, I get a little worried, because his Admin doesn't have a very good track record with SoE situations...[none the less, I find myself agreeing with the decision of this man, for the first, and probably last, time.]


[edit on 14/1/09 by madhatr137]

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 07:21 AM
Great post, madhatr137!
Some really good points to remember and realize. We have to look at all sides of this situation.

All this money for an inauguration IS extravagant, wasteful, a shame. I disagree that so much money should be spent for a party in these times.

BUT... it's not just another Inauguration. This is history being made. Right or wrong, most of the country is looking forward to putting the Bush years behind us and starting on a different path.

Originally posted by madhatr137
Now suddenly, 75 Million dollars is far too much to spend on the most historic, largest, and probably most looked forward to inauguration in modern history..

All I have to say is, "Party on, Barack"!

Edited to add: The declaration of a state of emergency is the right thing to do to let everyone know that security will be at an extremely heightened state. If Bush's intent is to protect the process, then it's the first time in a long time that I agree with him.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 07:40 AM
I am not surprised by the grand scale of this inauguration. The scale and grandeur of the DNC convention was the warning sign.

I am all for grand inaugural events. These events are the ultimate display of democracy in our free country. But, I have to echo others who suggested that given the current economic state of the WORLD this is a bit much. Scaling back would not be a bad idea. I just hope the hospitals are ready to deal with all of the cases of frostbite and hypothermia that night. Advice to the party goers carrying flasks, liquor only makes you feel warm and numb. You can still freeze.

Bush was wise to declare a state of emergency in D.C. There are many unknowns and even more wingnuts in our society. If this group gets as large as they think it will, anything can happen. One loose cannon can lead to a massive wave of destruction.

Better safe than sorry. Consider it good training in crowd control for our troops and police.

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 08:02 AM
Yes, I agree that this could be a huge waste of money. But, consider this. What if Obama was assassinated during the inauguration? Then people would blame Bush for this too, as he would be responsible for not assuring safety for the event.

Bush is probably ready to get out of the White House just as much as most others want him out. Maybe, just maybe, this is to re-assure Obama's safety so he can get sworn into the office. Or this could be the start of yet another conspiracy. Maybe Bush does have it out for Obama and is conveniently going to hide behind the stance of "Look I strengthened security even more by doing this, but it still happened. I tried."

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 09:52 AM
With an anticipated crowd in the millions with dignitaries, politicians, high up Military personnel and Celebrities, the Secret service was unable to handle the task at hand alone.

The local Police were completely spread thin, the National Guard does not have enough manpower, no agency alone could possibly cover all of the logistics by themselves.

This is a concerted effort by over 50 different agencies and 23 subcommittees. I personally think that covering the bases in this time of struggle is a daunting task at best.

Do you expect each agency to simply donate their time? Someone has to pay the bill and if FEMA wants to take the challenge and be responsible for how the monies are distributed then whats the problem?

I realize this is the biggest and best Conspiracy site on the WWW, however our Motto is to Deny ignorance and that is precisely what our Government is doing to insure the safety of not just The President elect, but millions of lives congregated into one area on one day.

As Secret Service Special Agent Malcolm Wiley reported in the interview I posted on page one, there have been numerous credible threats for this venue and date. It is not just about honoring the historic event and ushering in the first Black Male as Commander in Chief, and keeping him safe from the myriad of racist threats, it is about a gathering of this size and managing it successfully.

Also remember the weather is going to be freezing, so part of the call was for all hands on deck for medical teams to standby with trailers and equipment to deal with those problems as well.

I am just as concerned about our loss of rights and freedoms, however this event would only raise the red flags if we did not make the preparations to cover all bases and contingencies. Remember 4 million people having to use restrooms, eat, sit, get along...

There have been so many mistakes which took their toll on human lives with our recent debacles in Florida, New Orleans and Texas to name but a few, so do you really think that an event of this caliber needs less management?

posted on Jan, 14 2009 @ 11:12 AM
I did not mean to kill this thread, it is one of the biggest issues to face our Nation in history.

Amazing how some lame duck thread can be started and recieve tons of flags and stars and then other important issues get thrown into the basement of hot topics.

It reminds me of how entire countries and people become the forgotten in political circles, the msm steers attentions away from the real issues, and we forget that what affects one Nation in turn comes home to roost.

Until an issue affects you personally it is easy to turn your head and see it as a regional problem, it never is.

This is going to be the single focal point of all Countries and the ushering in of the real and open declaration of a NWO. Yes, it is going to be nessisary to use new and never before tried crowd control techniques, for order to prevail and a peaceful celebration to happen, yet we cannot turn our heads and stiffle our voices, or silently watch like helpless children.

We will have to watch with open eyes and a deep awareness of what is rather than preconcieved ideas of how this event empowers 'them' and breaks our civil liberties in the process.

We have the greatest power in our hands today like never before with the advancements in technology namely the internet and entire networks of independent photographers and writers.

I personally will look forward to watching this monumental event not from the stance of the msm and their directed spin surely to be placed on the inaguration, but from the private citizen watch groups who will be out in full force to keep not only a watchful eye on the the events of the day, but on the security which will need to documented as well in case of public harrasment.

My spell check is down so no corrections, sorry.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:19 AM

Originally posted by madhatr137
Now suddenly, 75 Million dollars is far too much to spend on the most historic, largest, and probably most looked forward to inauguration in modern history...

It certainly was too much for the left - 4 years ago.

Here’s a reminder from Japan Today.

And then there was this Weiner
letter here , calling for all the Bush inauguration money to be given to the troops instead.


And it is now expected to be $160 million.

Story Here

Despite the recession, Barack Obama’s inauguration will be the most expensive ever and could approach $160 million — nearly four times what George Bush’s inauguration cost four years ago.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:23 AM
Better to see money spent than "The One" die on the watch of the "Anti Christ".

Bush is just making sure that he can hand over the reins of power and then run as fast as he can.

The monetary cost may seem high; but the human cost if something went wrong would be tremendous. There would be hell to pay if Obama were taken out before being sworn in.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 07:28 AM
reply to post by jsobecky

You know the economy was already going down the hill back in 2004 while bush kept screaming with his moronic smile" that everything was OK" and the "economy was sound", he got to enjoy two coronations with not complain.

Now is OK to put a shadow to a historical event as the Obama "coronation" guess what Obama "coronation" will go into history with a lot pride for this nation.

bush as a president will be gone into history with the worst administration ever.

I said let Obama have his day he deserve it and America deserve it too.

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 08:11 AM
reply to post by marg6043

So when the economy was on it's way down in 04, it was a horrible idea to have an extravagant inauguration but now that the economy is in the tank it's perfectly acceptable and even applauded?

This wouldn't have anything to do with 1 president having a (D) after his name and the other one having an (R) would it?

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 08:17 AM
reply to post by Anjin

It doesn't matter, presidential inaugurations are part of the American misguided traditions of "democracy" and that the propaganda that Americans still "chose their government", nothing but a lot of fanfare for anybody but the regular Jose like you and me and just another way for the elite in power to have a party at the expenses of tax payer for their victory.

At least Obama is the first black president to be elected, so wanted or not is a historical event, America deserve their historical event and so the new president elect.

[edit on 16-1-2009 by marg6043]

posted on Jan, 16 2009 @ 08:18 AM
reply to post by Anjin

I think it's more about Bush being seen as somewhat responsible for the state of the nation after being in office for 4 years than the letter beside his name.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in