It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Obama hosting pricey party in a dicey economy

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Come on, guys. It's Chicago style "pay to play." You want to get next to Obama? It's going to cost some money. You want to talk to Obama? Cough up the cash.

How do you think he's come so far financially, so fast?

After all, he's never, ever had a real job even.




posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Don't you guys think we should BACK UP our Commander-In-Chief? Don't you think bashing him before he has even taken office feeds the Terrorists plans? Damn! be smart and do not let emotions overide intelligence!



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I'm not going to criticize you for bashing Obama here but do you really think that Obama would want to let his die-hard supporters down for going to DC? I'm an Obama supporter... but I imagine that if I was a hard core Obama supporter I would want to go to that party and watch Obama and Ooh and Aah at him. If he didn't do this he would be losing that crowd of people that think he's like the best thing to happen to politics! Would he want that? No, I think not.



posted on Jan, 18 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by stander
Blacks scored touchdown against Whites in the Big House Bowl, so lets have a down dance . . .



Is that how you see it, blacks vs. whites?

how sad



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Incitatus

Originally posted by stander
Blacks scored touchdown against Whites in the Big House Bowl, so lets have a down dance . . .




Is that how you see it, blacks vs. whites?

how sad

Put your emotions aside and deal with the facts. About half of the white voters voted for Obama while about 90% black voters voted for Obama. Can you explain to me the nature of this unequal preference other than that the race, not an ability to lead a nation was the criterion of choice for the black voters?



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by stander
 


Most minorities vote for Democrats, anyway. It's not like they would have voted for McCain if Hillary got the nomination.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Incitatus
reply to post by stander
 


Most minorities vote for Democrats, anyway. It's not like they would have voted for McCain if Hillary got the nomination.

The idea of black voters having on their mind the word "Democrat" rather than "the first black President" when voting for Obama is peculiar one. Is there any rational alternative?


As they ponder a political map that has spelled defeat for Democrats in the last two presidential elections, Barack Obama’s campaign strategists are quietly laying plans to draw African American voters to the polls in unprecedented numbers by capitalizing on the excitement over the prospect of electing the nation’s first black president.

Obama strategists believe they have identified a gold mine of new and potentially decisive Democratic voters in at least five battleground states – voters who failed to turn out in the past but can be mobilized this time because Obama’s candidacy is historic and his cash-rich campaign can afford the costly task of identifying and motivating such supporters.

articles.latimes.com...

Sorry for instilling another dose of sadness into your naive head.

The average private contribution to cover the high cost of the inaugural party is $50,000. Where the hell the "left-out" minorities got so much cash to buy Obama's favor?

One for the road . . .


Money raised from private donations usually helps fund most inaugural events, from portable toilets along the parade route to Inaugural Balls.

www.usatoday.com...


Who does make those special, Inauguration portable toilets? The military contractors?



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Sorry, did I hear that Caesar was returning from Gaul for his triumph?



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by stander
Put your emotions aside and deal with the facts. About half of the white voters voted for Obama while about 90% black voters voted for Obama. Can you explain to me the nature of this unequal preference other than that the race, not an ability to lead a nation was the criterion of choice for the black voters?

Here are the facts.

Percent of Black vote for Democrats
Bill Clinton's 2nd term - 84%
Gore - 92%
Kerry - 88%
Obama - 95%

Percent of White vote for Democrats
Bill Clinton's 2nd term - 43%
Gore - 46%
Kerry - 44%
Obama - 42%

If African-Americans voted by race, then lets assume Whites did also. (I know some White and Hispanic people who did) You are saying that Obama gained a 3% increase of African-Americans, but lost 4% of Whites compared against Gore due to race!? Well gosh, there are way more Whites then African-Americans. 4% is not only more then 3%, but the white 1% represents far more people then the African-American 1%. So basically, not only did Whites vote according to race more by percent then the African-Americans, but also in pure numbers.


The facts are African-Americans have a trend to vote for Democrats. The same way little more then half of Whites vote Republican. Yes, you will get people who voted upon race, Black AND White, but those numbers show that it was still well within the trend of the previous elections, and not a substantial amount to somehow have made Obama lose the election.

On Topic: Largest turnout of young voters coupled with the most people to attend an inauguration, how can you not expect an expensive party? I know I wish I were there. He is starting his presidency off with a bang. I am sure the parties have made many attending forget the rough times even if for a few days, and maybe leave with hope.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative
Does anyone else see the double standard? 4 years ago Bush was warned to tone down his Inauguration by Democrats because of the Iraq War. But now we are in the middle of a recession and I don't see the same tone I saw 4 years ago?

But if they did that, that would ruin the Cult of Personality they are trying to create for Obama.

People should not be able to get away with creating a "State of Emergency". If an event causes a State of Emergency...steps should be taken to eliminate the emergency...not shelling out taxpayer money to promote it.


I know - threads like this are hilarious. All of the Obama Defense Brigade that was here in 2004 (search for it using google) were screaming and outraged that Bush spent $40 million on his inauguration.

Obama spends $150 million, with vast amounts being paid for by tax payers (yes, democrat disinfo agents, tax payers are paying for ALL the security), hey - its the Messiah! Its OK!

No wonder they voted for Obama, they can't understand the concept of hypocrisy.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neaux

Originally posted by stander
Put your emotions aside and deal with the facts. About half of the white voters voted for Obama while about 90% black voters voted for Obama. Can you explain to me the nature of this unequal preference other than that the race, not an ability to lead a nation was the criterion of choice for the black voters?

Here are the facts.

Percent of Black vote for Democrats
Bill Clinton's 2nd term - 84%
Gore - 92%
Kerry - 88%
Obama - 95%

Percent of White vote for Democrats
Bill Clinton's 2nd term - 43%
Gore - 46%
Kerry - 44%
Obama - 42%

You call these numbers facts without letting people verify the correctness of the posted material -- no source included. Bad start . . .
However, these percantages seem to be realistic enough to be accepted without any verification.

There is the other statistic pertinent to the issue that you didn't publish. How many black voters turned out to support Obama and how many of them supported the Democrats in the past election. See, you missed the underlying point that makes the issue. A poster was "saddened" with the idea of me saying that the race was a contributing factor in Obama's victory. The poster was saddened with the fact that someone could think like that. So I do it once again and post the evidence that the idea of getting the key to the White House by using the race difference as a strategy to go by is not something that would leave the nation "saddened" by such a vulgar and primitive ways to woo voters into the game.


As they ponder a political map that has spelled defeat for Democrats in the last two presidential elections, Barack Obama’s campaign strategists are quietly laying plans to draw African American voters to the polls in unprecedented numbers by capitalizing on the excitement over the prospect of electing the nation’s first black president.

Obama strategists believe they have identified a gold mine of new and potentially decisive Democratic voters in at least five battleground states – voters who failed to turn out in the past but can be mobilized this time because Obama’s candidacy is historic and his cash-rich campaign can afford the costly task of identifying and motivating such supporters.

articles.latimes.com...

Did this racist strategy work and draw 7% more black voters to the poll? If so was it a major factor in Obama's victory?
Well, get the "fact" numbers out. Otherwise what I said stands: The election was White angainst Blacks. McCain fumbled the ball and 44-yard touch down decided the game.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by PammyK
Don't you guys think we should BACK UP our Commander-In-Chief? Don't you think bashing him before he has even taken office feeds the Terrorists plans? Damn! be smart and do not let emotions overide intelligence!


So Bush bashing before he took office in 2000 led directly to the terrorist attacts of 9/11? Talk about emotions overiding intelligence.


Terrorist will stike again for one reason....B. Hussein Obama is weak and terrorists know it. They didn't dare strike again while Bush was President because they knew the consequences. Obama is just an invitation for them to strike again. The countdown till the next terror attack starts tommorrow at noon.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
I do think it's all a bit over the top. It's an inauguration not a coronation.

I get that it's the first AA President and that's great. I get that he represents a new start and that many, including people who didn't vote for him, are hopeful for a new direction and have renewed enthusiasm for the U.S. but...times are hard for a lot of people. I think the position and the environment call for discretion.

When you don't have money to pay the rent, you don't go for a night out on the town. Unless your sugar daddy is paying for it...



[edit on 19/1/2009 by kosmicjack]



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
I do think it's all a bit over the top. It's an inauguration not a coronation.

I don't won't to (actually I do) to sound superstitious, but the full name of the new prez is Barack Hussein Obama III. If my memory serves me well, it was George III who lost the colonies.

Btw, if there were a $150 mil bash following the second inauguration of George Bush, this would have been post #278.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LowLevelMason
Obama spends $150 million, with vast amounts being paid for by tax payers (yes, democrat disinfo agents, tax payers are paying for ALL the security), hey - its the Messiah! Its OK!

No wonder they voted for Obama, they can't understand the concept of hypocrisy.


I'll show you hypocrisy. Being a crybaby over $150mil that most of is paid by private contributions and totally ignoring this expenditure by your "Messiah" GWB.

www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL

Actually I think the US taxpayers understand the concept of hypocrisy and that is precisely why McCain got a big "thumpin" as did the GOP in general.

This whining is becoming so tiresome!



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Time for a change?

2nd line Hmmm....



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Neaux
 


Wow, the fact that white and hispanic voters outnumber black voters at least 4 to 1 makes me once again ask how in the blue hell did a guy that got 4%
less of their votes than Gore not only win that election, but do so easily? That equates to a loss of 16 other than black votes for every 3 black votes gained... The math of that election doesn't compute at all.

On the OP, personally I think a more appropriate celebration for this Vegas shotgun wedding we're about to see Tuesday morning would be a bottle of Thunderbird, a bag of party blowers, and $10 worth of complimentary casino chips for the lovely couple. Seems far more fitting than this overpriced Living God Amongst Men crap they've been preparing in DC this weekend.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


"Actually what the candidates should do is consider during their campaigns the costs of winning and have that set aside for their little parties."


This would also apply to whom you choose to be in your Presidential cabinet... go figure huh. He has already lied in my book.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Sorry but its people like the OP that have this country divided and ruined.

Step aside, the rest of us want a new start----and we dont give a rats behind how much his party costs, or how much his clothes cost.

I consider this a flaming thread, looking for that bite that will turn it into a disaster.

This thread should be closed.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 

LIVING GOD AMONGST MEN???

I love the way stuff like this always rolls out of your tongue. :shk:



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join