Straight from "Idiocy: -Obama Considering Corporate Sponsorship of 2nd Inauguration

So, Breitbart.com says:

Reports suggest Barack Obama is considering laying the cost of his second inauguration at the feet of corporate sponsors rather than private donors.

Read the full article here...

Does this not sound frighteningly familiar? Something like this, perhaps...



IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

You know...in this time of national struggle and financial challenge ...to put it kindly... He could seize the moment as a leadership example and either skip the party entirely or have an austere one. He earned a big one in 2008. Some firsts were made and hope was high for major changes. This is a mid term 8 year President now though. Perhaps it's a great time to tone down the lavish spending on grand displays. It would set an example to be followed and one to lead from. Just my thoughts.

Of course, we have been down this road before...

Really want to see just how many people show up to his inauguration cause if the numbers are low that would be a tell tale sign of election stealing considering "his low" rally attendance.,

And

What was that about corporations are evil, but not if they give him money!!!

hypocrites.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
You know...in this time of national struggle and financial challenge ...to put it kindly... He could seize the moment as a leadership example....

As a what? A leadersh.... uh, what's that?

Haven't seen one of those in years, not sure I'd know one if I saw one.

reply to post by incoserv


it sounds exactly like Idiorcacy
but
Obama is not a 5 time ultimate smack down champion


when I see the tiles
for OS windows 8
the new interface
reminds me of this movie
the Hospital sequence especially


Brought to you by Carl's Jr

Originally posted by spoonbender
it sounds exactly like Idiorcacy
but
Obama is not a 5 time ultimate smack down champion...

Man, we should have put Jesse Ventura in office!

They paid for their politicians, they least they could do is throw them a party.

Does this not just mean he could then openly admit to being a corporate puppet rather than always trying to hide it?

reply to post by incoserv


it's got electrolytes



on a side note
have not drank
Gatorade since
seeing this

reply to post by incoserv


i would have impeached bush for that alone.

the presidency is not his to sell. what a way to weaken the country in the eyes of the world.

that a computer co. can make a president say whatever it wants.

reply to post by incoserv


I thought it was common knowledge that all Washington politicians were corporate sponsored. And now that corporations are people they can receive their fair share of welfare too.

Let's inject some facts in here:

In 2009 Obama banned corporate sponsorship from his inauguration, and used his own private fundraising to pay for his inauguration.

In 2005 Bush spent nearly double what Clinton did on his 2nd inauguration - and relied HEAVILY on corporate sponsorship:
Bush inauguration: corporate America throws a party (20 January 2005)

You can look up the number of corporate sponsors Bush had at both his inaugurations, Marriott and Ameriquest Financial were among the top ones. It is a little hypocritical for Republicans to be denouncing corporate sponsorship when they are it's staunchest practitioners, and were the first to use it for presidential inaugurations. (ps: the WSJ article is also based on something a campaign advisor suggested to the reporter, and not any official position made by the WH)

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


So... Bush being a complete tool and fool to the corporate world has what to do with Obama's actions and decisions 8 years later? It sounds like Clinton had some class, but that is something the man really had all around by today's standards. I kinda miss where Bush has any bearing on whether Obama has a blowout bash or something respectful of the national condition as it stands today. Hmmm..

Hopefully he does the right thing and keeps it all a bit low key. We can hope that from our leaders at this moment in time anyway, IMHO.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


And when did Bush ever deny anything ?

Or say he was against it ?

Or outright ban it like Obama ?

Look.....another red herring

This would represent a reversal of his 2005 inauguration, when he banned donations from corporations.

The ostensible reason he is reversing himself, according to Obama’s fundraisers and campaign advisers, is that donors are worn out from supporting his $1 billion reelection campaign. They also cite their perspective that inaugurations are more of a civic event than a partisan affair.

The election is over....now Obama can do whatever he wants.

No more repercussions, very little explanation necessary.

Get ready....this is only the beginning !!

Originally posted by olaru12
reply to post by incoserv

 

I thought it was common knowledge that all Washington politicians were corporate sponsored. And now that corporations are people they can receive their fair share of welfare too.

Yes, it is, olaru12. But that does not make it any less distasteful!

reply to post by incoserv


No kidding, huh? He's come to power twice now on the horse of change and hope for better tomorrows. All I hear is justifications for current conduct rooted deep in the past and how it's okay now because other guys did it or wanted to do it ..or even might have done it if given the chance.

So much for that big change stuff eh?

Originally posted by neo96
Really want to see just how many people show up to his inauguration cause if the numbers are low that would be a tell tale sign of election stealing considering "his low" rally attendance.

'People spoke. Move on, get on with it.
I want to do other things and not to be ugly.'

- Barbara Bush

Words of wisdom.

Originally posted by incoserv
OBAMA CONSIDERING CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP OF SECOND INAUGURATION

The article says there are reports that he is 'considering' doing this.
What are the sources, and are they reliable?

It's not like Brietbart is a non-partisan news site.

Even if he is considering this...what's the problem?

He's not allowed to consider this as an option?
Did he ever state that it was completely out of the question during his entire presidency?

As it was pointed out, he would not be the first President to do this.

So he didn't do it before, but is allegedly considering doing it now.

I don't get the problem here.

- Lee

Originally posted by neo96
Really want to see just how many people show up to his inauguration cause if the numbers are low that would be a tell tale sign of election stealing considering "his low" rally attendance.,

And

What was that about corporations are evil, but not if they give him money!!!

hypocrites.

You can be sure they will be bussing people in.