|
Posted by Anim8rFSK on January 17, 2009, 11:13 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> >
> >> Jim Beaver wrote:
> >> >> BBp wrote:
> >>
> >> >>> Obamas is just or even more expensive,,
> >>
> >> >> Three times more ($120M v. 40M). HTH
> >
> > IDH. You're adding in some of the costs not paid for by the taxpayers
> > for Obama's inauguration, and leaving those out for Bush's inaugural.
> >
> > Bush added up to $75 million to the federal government's costs on the
> > 20th by declaring a state of emergency for the inaugural. That's half
> > of the total cost of the events...
> >
> >> > Could it be because four million more people are showing up to see
> >> > Obama's than wanted to see Bush's?
> >
> > The expectation is a crowd of 2 million total, not 4 million more than
> > attended Bush's inauguration. Let's not exaggerate.
>
> I know. But I was listening to news commentary yesterday where some idiot
> was using the 4 million number and I thought, well, if an idiot said it on
> the radio, it must be true. ;-)
Like us trying to listen to CNN, and the ijiot newsgal kept telling us
that the good ship Bush is twice as long as the Empire State Building is
high, when it's more like 2/3?
--
Bad Reboot's 'Crap Trek' 2009: "No Shat, No Show"
Rated "least anticipated film of 2009" by ETOnline
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap