HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Obama inauguration will t...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:46 PM

Obama inauguration will take unlimited corporate funds

Source: NBC News.com

Obama inauguration will take unlimited corporate funds
By NBC's Ali Weinberg



President Barack Obama will accept unlimited corporate contributions to help finance his 2013 inauguration, a shift from 2009, when corporate funding was barred and per-person donations were capped at $50,000.

The president's inaugural committee made the decision, which was first reported by Politico, because, they said, contributions from individuals alone would not raise enough to cover the price tag of all the events.

"Our goal is to make sure that we will meet the fundraising requirements for this civic event after the most expensive presidential campaign in history," Addie Whisenant, spokesperson for the Presidential Inauguration Committee, said in a statement.

The inaugural committee in 2008 said that its ban on corporate funding, among other initiatives, would help "underscore their commitment to change business as usual in Washington."

Read more: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/07/15756405-obama-inauguration-will-take-unlimited-corporate-funds?lite



I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same.

68 replies, 8296 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 68 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obama inauguration will take unlimited corporate funds (Original post)
Fuddnik Dec 2012 OP
Jackpine Radical Dec 2012 #1
olddad56 Dec 2012 #5
Swede Atlanta Dec 2012 #13
kelliekat44 Dec 2012 #53
DrDan Dec 2012 #55
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #2
Fuddnik Dec 2012 #4
tarheelsunc Dec 2012 #9
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #11
limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #18
Firebrand Gary Dec 2012 #20
calimary Dec 2012 #29
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #47
TheCowsCameHome Dec 2012 #3
TheDebbieDee Dec 2012 #7
olddad56 Dec 2012 #8
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #12
bottomofthehill Dec 2012 #33
FrenchieCat Dec 2012 #34
former9thward Dec 2012 #68
GoCubsGo Dec 2012 #52
BeyondGeography Dec 2012 #6
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #48
otohara Dec 2012 #10
olddad56 Dec 2012 #16
Historic NY Dec 2012 #14
woo me with science Dec 2012 #15
limpyhobbler Dec 2012 #17
Marie Marie Dec 2012 #19
jsr Dec 2012 #21
Fuddnik Dec 2012 #22
The Second Stone Dec 2012 #23
Canuckistanian Dec 2012 #24
calimary Dec 2012 #30
Canuckistanian Dec 2012 #38
Cha Dec 2012 #25
dlwickham Dec 2012 #27
Cha Dec 2012 #31
Resonance_Chamber Dec 2012 #41
Cha Dec 2012 #60
dlwickham Dec 2012 #65
ronnie624 Dec 2012 #61
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #49
sally5050 Dec 2012 #63
bluestateguy Dec 2012 #26
dlwickham Dec 2012 #28
denvine Dec 2012 #32
Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #35
FrenchieCat Dec 2012 #36
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #50
Chef Eric Dec 2012 #51
Fuddnik Dec 2012 #57
jeff47 Dec 2012 #67
Cha Dec 2012 #62
triplepoint Dec 2012 #37
Resonance_Chamber Dec 2012 #39
blkmusclmachine Dec 2012 #40
underthematrix Dec 2012 #42
underthematrix Dec 2012 #43
GoCubsGo Dec 2012 #58
union_maid Dec 2012 #44
underthematrix Dec 2012 #45
Earth_First Dec 2012 #46
Faryn Balyncd Dec 2012 #54
lunatica Dec 2012 #56
ibegurpard Dec 2012 #59
railsback Dec 2012 #64
libdem4life Dec 2012 #66

Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:49 PM

1. This is a fucking mistake.

Better they should have a giant potluck in a park somewhere.

It sickens me to see the Dems playing Footsie with the corporations. There are some things that just should not happen, and this is one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:01 PM

5. I agree, big fucking mistake. Any time he acts like a corporate whore, it is a mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:30 PM

13. Why couldn't he have a "people's" inauguration?

 

Let people donate and have this be much more addressed to the "people" and not the wealthy.

BO, if your people are watching, stop this crap. I am not opposed to you having a classy inauguration but you need to find ways to include the people who contributed to your campaign, made telephone calls, knocked on doors, and voted.

The corporate folks may have given you some money but without the "ground game" and the voters you would see the White House turn into a Mormon temple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 08:05 AM

53. No mistake. Take their money and thumb your nose. Let them pay instead of tax-payer.

He owes them nothing in return since they oppose him on every turn. Obama will not need to please them, he's on his way out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelliekat44 (Reply #53)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 08:14 AM

55. doesn't "need to", but will he . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:51 PM

2. Unlimited funds, if not tied to conditions, can bring a hell of a lot of good will into DC.

I think it's fine.

Income and business brought into the district will help those who live there.

Washington DC:

18+% below poverty, 62 percent minority

I say bring it on.

``````

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:01 PM

4. We'll really find out where our bread is buttered.

Corporations couldn't give a damn about the citizens or workers of DC. They're trying to buy influence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:05 PM

9. How is one-time use money for an inauguration going to help the impoverished?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tarheelsunc (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:09 PM

11. Simple.

While not as good as using it for direct aid for the most needy, it brings in taxes, which are used for schools and programs and pay for streets, etc., which are jobs.

It brings up sales, if only for a few weeks, and greater need for services, which gives more work to all of these businesses, which means more work for, well, workers.

I don't know why this is hard to understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:06 PM

18. An unintended side affect at best.

This is a chance for political cronies to get a paycheck from corporate America.

Should be illegal.

Just picture it's George Bush or Mitt Romney doing the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:20 PM

20. Actually NYC, as much as I am against corporate influence, I am with you on this one.

The President has many things to do in this next four years, allowing financial assistance is fine on this one. Besides, his last inauguration should be the stuff dreams are made of.

Remember all the crap he got for the lobster in 2009? Ugh, to heck with it! Live it up, Prez! Bring the people of DC a great 2013 beginning!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firebrand Gary (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 01:53 AM

29. And maybe, seeing who won, could the fat cats be wanting to have some skin in the game?

If it goes to him, then that's money the GOP does NOT get. Granted, there'll be plenty for them, but it separates some of the money from the corporations. I'm pretty much fine with that. I don't like corporations slinging their money all over the place to buy influence. If they're throwing money around, and they will ANYWAY, then MY man might as well get some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 07:42 AM

47. 'if not tied to conditions' is one hell of a huge gaping 'if'.

Huge donations without conditions...you do understand this is DC politics we are talking about, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:56 PM

3. Do we really need to have another inaugural?

This is essentially a renewal of his first term - all that money could be better used helping the countless folks that are experiencing difficult times.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:02 PM

7. Yes, we REALLY need to have this inaugural.......

President O will get his second inaugural just as any other re-elected President would!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:04 PM

8. Amen.

If he wants to take a bunch of corporate money, let him take and put it to better use that a party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:19 PM

12. I kind of agree with you

I have never understood the purpose of second inaugurations. Especially this year, since January 20th falls on a Sunday and the president will be taking the oath of office privately, than doing it again publicly the next day.

But I guess it is a chance to address the nation and start off his second term on a high note, and every other re-elected president has had one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:15 AM

33. Add to the fact that the whole thing is a fake

The President will be sworn in on Jan 20th before 12 noon. The next day, Jan 21 he will "Lip Sinc" the oath of office. I froze my ass off 4 years ago and it was a great day. I will most likely be there again, although, I wish the wholething was on the 20th.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bottomofthehill (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:25 AM

34. The Inauguration will be on Martin Luther King Day, Monday, January 21st....

Seems quite fitting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrenchieCat (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 06:58 PM

68. The real Inauguaration takes place the day before on the 20th.

It is private. On the 21st they do a public reenactment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheCowsCameHome (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 08:01 AM

52. I'm sure all the local restaurants and hotels would appreciate all the business.

So would their employees, who would get a nice uptick in their tips, which I am sure most could really use. And, the cab drivers. And, the souvenir vendors. And, the District of Columbia, which would get a nice, little tax windfall, which could be used to help out the large numbers of its citizens who live in poverty...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:01 PM

6. "this civic event"

Said with a straight face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 07:48 AM

48. Well they have to use a straight face, they probably want to book Rick 'gays are all

pedophiles' Warren again, and he demands straight faces only.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:06 PM

10. Make Them Pay

fuck em!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to otohara (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:53 PM

16. they are not forced to pay, they will only 'donate' to gain influence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:31 PM

14. Might be a mistake then most people are tapped out from the campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:34 PM

15. Of course he will.

He doesn't have to worry about appearances now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:03 PM

17. It's probably so the political cronies can get a big paycheck.

unlimited corporate donations. Sweet contracts for cronies affiliated with the inaugural committee.

It's an opportunity to get paid. Who could pass it up.

Huge waste of money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:12 PM

19. Maybe the corporations are tired of throwing their money away on losers

(I'm talking to you Karl Rove and your corporate donors funding your losing candidates) and this is the one way they can finally back a winner. But still, it does make one queasy doesn't it? Hopefully, as others have said, the money will go into the local economy and benefit the people who will be working their asses off behind the scenes of this event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:27 PM

21. So it's gonna be kinda like

the 2013 AutoZone Chick-fil-A Allstate TaxSlayer.com Tostitos Capital One AT&T Outback Discover GoDaddy.com Presidential Inauguration

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 12:12 AM

22. Grought to you by Papa Johns and Goldman Sachs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 12:12 AM

23. Power to the corporate people

and everyone else doesn't have enough money to be heard.

How about this: we hold inauguration parties in our homes with summer food like hot dogs, burgers, salads and cake and invite a pile of people over and celebrate simply and do it everywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 12:19 AM

24. Ummm...

Why does an inauguration require any funding at all from outside sources?

Does a flashy, expensive show benefit the people?

Then if so, finance it publically. And let Congress decide the amount spent.

For BOTH parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Canuckistanian (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 01:56 AM

30. That wouldn't work in a political climate like this one.

Do you think for one instant that THIS Congress would willingly, or in a timely fashion, approve ANY money for the inauguration of the President they tried SO HARD to trash? Hell, these assholes say no to THEIR OWN bills! It should NEVER be up to Congress with this kind of partisanship!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #30)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:31 AM

38. True that

But in an ideal world...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 01:27 AM

25. Good! Fine with me..

Lobbyists and political action committees are still barred from donating, and there will be no sponsorship agreements. All corporate contributions will be vetted and the committee will not accept any from companies who accepted TARP funds and haven't paid them back yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 01:51 AM

27. once again, why do people have to ruin a perfectly good OMG thread with facts

the masses want their pound of flesh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:00 AM

31. Lol, dlwickham.. Facts Can be pesky in some instances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 06:34 AM

41. No the masses want a Pres who actually puts his money where

 

his mouth is.

If I wanted a corporate whore for POTUS I would vote GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Resonance_Chamber (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:20 AM

60. YAY President Obama WON and it's going to a Beautiful

Inauguration!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #60)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:35 PM

65. :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:27 AM

61. "Facts" that say very little.

Objective reality exists, and these 'contributions' are clearly a part of the system of influence peddling that corrupts our government. The only way to eliminate this conflict of interests that undermines the will of the people, is to remove the element that enables quid pro quo; eliminate all private funding from every aspect of American politics. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 07:53 AM

49. Will they be 'vetted' just like Rick Warren was vetted in 08?

Last time they picked Warren to insult gay people just a few days after he'd been filmed calling equating gay people to pedophiles and murderers. Was the 'vetting' to weed out the hate mongers or to make sure we had hate mongers? Will this 'vetting' be of similar intention and results?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 01:40 PM

63. Take that you Cheating Tarp borrowers...

 

said with the velvet glove that strikes ever so gently across their glib cheek.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 01:43 AM

26. Just don't pick Rick Warren to do the prayer again

That matters a lot more to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluestateguy (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 01:52 AM

28. no pun intended but amen to that

I care more about Warren than some corporation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:01 AM

32. I also think it is a big mistake!

Now is the time to set an example and turn away from the corporate influence. He said he was proud of the fact that his campaign was funded by the people not the lobbyist. He should stay on tract and keep an inauguration simple especially during these uncertain economic times. Doing this would send a great message to the citizens. The right will have a field day with the news about the unlimited corporate funds. Bad move.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:33 AM

35. Just so everyone knows who is really in charge.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 02:38 AM

36. Let's see....

We as people buy From Corporations like Apple, Google, Costco, Macy's, Sears and many others....all of the time,
But all Corporations are evil Now?


If this is the case, I suggest folks stop spending money buying stuff.....cause even many small mom and Pop businesses
are corporate entities. Where are folks gonna go and buy their computers made by Microsoft or Apple that they are using to type at Democratic Underground since Corporations are evil and nothing but?? What about their Printers from Epson and HP? Why are folks that hate on corporation give corporations their money by buying the stuff that Corporations sell?

I'm a stockholder because I have a corporation (because I own a tiny restaurant). Does that make me evil too????


Plus it does state that "Lobbyists and political action committees are still barred from donating, and there will be no sponsorship agreements. All corporate contributions will be vetted and the committee will not accept any from companies who accepted TARP funds and haven't paid them back yet."

Is it true that all corporations are bad 100% of the time? Cause if so, I didn't know this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrenchieCat (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 07:56 AM

50. "Corporations are people my friend" Mitt Romeny, 2012

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrenchieCat (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 08:00 AM

51. I'm not sure where you are getting the word "evil."

Nobody on this thread has said that corporations are "evil."

People are only suggesting that corporations could conceivably have ulterior motives for wanting to fund the inauguration. I tend to agree. At the very least, there is something untoward about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrenchieCat (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 08:37 AM

57. Nice Straw Man.

And taking things to illogical extremes.

If they were looking for small stockholders and Mom and Pop donations, there would be no need for unlimited contributions. This is set up for Fat Cats to fund a coronation worthy of Prince Charles.

And after funding the most expensive election in history, and a Royal Gala, somebody is looking for something in return.

I'm tired of Big Business buying our political system and writing the laws to benefit themselves, against small restaurant owners such as ourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #57)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 04:26 PM

67. The nice part of it being the second inagural

Is there's no reason to give them anything in return.

There will not be another Obama campaign. There will not be another Obama inauguration. So why would Obama have to give them something in return?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrenchieCat (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:30 AM

62. Right Frenchie.. It's damn sure Koch Type Corps will not be donating to our Inauguration..

The money quote..

Lobbyists and political action committees are still barred from donating, and there will be no sponsorship agreements. All corporate contributions will be vetted and the committee will not accept any from companies who accepted TARP funds and haven't paid them back yet.


P.S. I don't think Macy's will be donating though 'cause we're boycotting them due to their carrying Mr Birther Trump's Line and being one of their faces, such as it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:11 AM

37. Are We Done "Faking It?"

 

...Just wanted to know if it's ok to drop all the pretense and masks now...now that President Obama has been re-elected...without violating DU's TOS?


.
.
.
.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 06:03 AM

39. Good Job O you were acting like the President we have been wanting for a number of years

 

now you go and pull this BS.

Gee how soon before he goes back to busting Medical MJ facilities?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 06:29 AM

40. Courtesy of Goldman Sachs, and the "Too Big Too Fail's," no doubt.

When does the "Change" begin ???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blkmusclmachine (Reply #40)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 07:08 AM

42. Actually it starts with you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 07:18 AM

43. I want the President to take as much

corporate mony as he possibly can. They dogged him during his first term and re-lection campaign so I want them to pay HARD. PBO has proved over and over again he has an ethical compass so I'm not worried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #43)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:25 AM

58. Me, too.

They get all sorts of fat tax breaks. I'd like for them to pay back some of that, rather than making the tax payers fund this event. It's the least they can do for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 07:28 AM

44. We deserve this party

And if corporations want to pay for it, fine. There's at least as much to celebrate this time as the first. First of all, the fact that Obama was even willing to do another four years after the shit sandwiches he got served by both the right AND the left for the first four years is cause for celebration as far as I'm concerned. There are a few other reasons that this inauguration is a big effing deal, but that's enough for me right there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to union_maid (Reply #44)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 07:34 AM

45. You said it so

much better than me. And AMEN!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 07:40 AM

46. I wonder who will get the naming rights for the reflecting pool during the inaguration?

Yes sir, your ticket is in the Wellpoint Healthcare viewing section, take the Aetna aisle past the Humana atrium and it's right there next to the Rayethon booth...

Enjoy, here's your program and schedule sponsored by Goldman Sachs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 08:06 AM

54. This decision STINKS and should be REVERSED IMMEDIATELY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 08:23 AM

56. I don't have a problem with it

My hope is that there are twice as many Americans there than there were in his first inauguration. The man can draw a crowd!!



GeoEye-1 took this satellite photo of Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony. At left, crowd. At right, Capitol Building.
(Credit: GeoEye)

GeoEye-1, the satellite that will supply Google with high-resolution imagery of the Earth, took a high-resolution photograph of the inauguration of President Barack Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 10:47 AM

59. so cut back on some of it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 01:48 PM

64. I agree

 

Taxpayers have enough to deal with right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Original post)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 04:21 PM

66. I don't think too many "little" Democrats would write up to a $50,000 check for the Inauguration.

It's becoming gauche and fit only for a King and his Corporate Court. I guess the old cliche still works..."If you've got it, flaunt it."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread