Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The budget should have been more like fifty bucks for propane and hot dogs.

I don't see why the inauguration is such an enormous event. Up here, we check the newspaper the day after voting to see who won the election, and that's pretty much that.

At 1/20/09 09:00 PM, Elfer wrote: The budget should have been more like fifty bucks for propane and hot dogs.

I don't see why the inauguration is such an enormous event. Up here, we check the newspaper the day after voting to see who won the election, and that's pretty much that.

Agreed.

Obama takes the oath of office in front of Congress, from the Chief Justice just like the founding fathers did. Cut backs waste and useless time.

Then again, this could be said for every president since the founding fathers. And to be fair, there politicians. Thier slimy parasitic lowlives with a hyper inflated ego and a cloud of smug floating around them.

How many balls do you really need though?

At 1/20/09 09:00 PM, Elfer wrote: The budget should have been more like fifty bucks for propane and hot dogs.

I don't see why the inauguration is such an enormous event. Up here, we check the newspaper the day after voting to see who won the election, and that's pretty much that.

People consider Obama's election to be historic. More people will go to this inauguration than probably the next ten inaugurations. Mostly just happy African-Americans who usually don't care or vote really.

At 1/22/09 04:54 PM, aninjaman wrote:

People consider Obama's election to be historic. More people will go to this inauguration than probably the next ten inaugurations. Mostly just happy African-Americans who usually don't care or vote really.

As irony would have it. for all the hype and hoopla over it, Raegan did better... by about 4 million people. Some people might say the internet made up for that and more, but how many people saw it on the internet can't be tracked.

At 1/20/09 09:00 PM, Elfer wrote: The budget should have been more like fifty bucks for propane and hot dogs.

I don't see why the inauguration is such an enormous event. Up here, we check the newspaper the day after voting to see who won the election, and that's pretty much that.

It's because until the inauguration, the president-elect has no power. The inauguration is when the new president is sworn in and the leaving president is officially no longer president. Plus we Americans absolutely adore traditional formalities, especially if the constitution tells us to.

At 1/22/09 10:02 PM, Tancrisism wrote: It's because until the inauguration, the president-elect has no power.

And the PM really has no power until the first session of parliament, but we don't make no big shit over that.

Why not throw the $150 million party when you get elected, rather than over a formality?

(Hint: because then he couldn't use taxpayer money for it)

At 1/22/09 09:44 PM, Korriken wrote: As irony would have it. for all the hype and hoopla over it, Raegan did better... by about 4 million people. Some people might say the internet made up for that and more, but how many people saw it on the internet can't be tracked.

How many people do you think watched Reagan's inauguration on web or mobile?

How many people do you think did that with Obama? One in a hundred? That's enough to make up the difference.

At 1/22/09 11:00 PM, Elfer wrote: And the PM really has no power until the first session of parliament, but we don't make no big shit over that.

Why not throw the $150 million party when you get elected, rather than over a formality?

(Hint: because then he couldn't use taxpayer money for it)

He didn't use taxpayers' money for it, he used donors'. Firstly, he has no authority to use taxpayers' money for it, as he isn't president until 12:00 EST exactly, and the inauguration starts at around 10-11. Unless Bush took $5 million out for him as a sort of IOU from Obama, this did not happen. Secondly, it's pretty well documented who the donors were.

The inauguration is just a very large deal because it's a friendly shift of power. The Prime Minister may not be taken as seriously because you don't vote for him directly, you vote for his party.

At 1/22/09 11:17 PM, Tancrisism wrote: He didn't use taxpayers' money for it, he used donors'. Firstly, he has no authority to use taxpayers' money for it, as he isn't president until 12:00 EST exactly, and the inauguration starts at around 10-11. Unless Bush took $5 million out for him as a sort of IOU from Obama, this did not happen. Secondly, it's pretty well documented who the donors were.

Oh okay. I wasn't sure if it counted as an official state party of some sort or what.

Still though, it seems like a big waste. He could have still had a 50 million dollar party, then hired a thousand person-years of engineering labour for development projects in Africa or some shit.

The inauguration is just a very large deal because it's a friendly shift of power. The Prime Minister may not be taken as seriously because you don't vote for him directly, you vote for his party.

Well, the people in his riding vote for him. Technically speaking, you don't vote for his party, you vote for a representative who at the time of voting is officially running under the name of that party, which actually comes with essentially no obligations.

At 1/22/09 11:08 PM, Elfer wrote:

How many people do you think watched Reagan's inauguration on web or mobile?

There was still the radio, people used to have them outside of their cars.

At 1/22/09 11:21 PM, Elfer wrote: Oh okay. I wasn't sure if it counted as an official state party of some sort or what.

Still though, it seems like a big waste. He could have still had a 50 million dollar party, then hired a thousand person-years of engineering labour for development projects in Africa or some shit.

Well, conversely, I was thinking that it could actually be a good thing. All the people who helped out with the inauguration had jobs for a day, and this is at a time when unemployment is rising faster than a 13-year old's dick (an old cliche, I know).

I originally thought the way you did, though.

Well, the people in his riding vote for him. Technically speaking, you don't vote for his party, you vote for a representative who at the time of voting is officially running under the name of that party, which actually comes with essentially no obligations.

Weird. Why didn't you guys use a presidential system?

At 1/23/09 12:17 AM, Tancrisism wrote: Well, conversely, I was thinking that it could actually be a good thing. All the people who helped out with the inauguration had jobs for a day, and this is at a time when unemployment is rising faster than a 13-year old's dick (an old cliche, I know).

The issue I have with that is that the effects only last for one day as well. The party gets cleaned up and it's over. If we used the "help some dudes" idea instead, we'd have say, 100 or so people employed for ten years, and you could have the materials required manufactured and delivered by domestic companies. The money would go to your people, and it would have a long-lasting effect on the communities being helped.

Note that I'm not talking about the stupid up-town liberal way of helping people by sending big boxes of laptops and cell phones or cash to people who can't do anything with them, I'm talking about humanitarian engineering projects.

Alternatively, the money could have been put towards reinforcing your own country's crumbling infrastructure.

Weird. Why didn't you guys use a presidential system?

I guess we just don't like executive branches. I kind of like the parliamentary system, because we generally have representation from at least five parties.

That's a lot of tax money.

People praised Obama about it, but Bush was criticized for his $40 million inauguration.

the money that they spend is ridiculous. now, before you call me a racist, i think that it is ridiculous for any president. they don't need to have a huge party to be sworn in. just go, be sworn in, and make a speech. thats it!
another waste of money is the fact that they decorate so much in the white house. i can see thier bedroom and maybe the office but why everything else.

At 1/23/09 08:21 AM, Elfer wrote:

What you say is very true and logical, about the spending.

Weird. Why didn't you guys use a presidential system?

I guess we just don't like executive branches. I kind of like the parliamentary system, because we generally have representation from at least five parties.

It seems to me like in Parliamentary systems (well, England's in particular, I don't know about Canada) the executive branch is actually far, far stronger than that in the US because the executive (the Prime Minister) has full control over legislation that gets passed. In the US he must constantly battle with Congress, and then the Supreme Court can instantly give him a royal spanking that absolutely must be followed. Not obeying the Supreme Court is like saying fuck you to the Constitution, which no president would ever do (publicly).

But I suppose if Canada has to deal with more coalition governments than England the executive is probably much weaker. Though, truly, this also follows that this could explain why England's government may be more efficient than Canada's, as coalitions lead to political infighting. That isn't to say that our government is more efficient, but in Parliamentary systems this is usually the case.

At 1/23/09 10:21 PM, Tancrisism wrote: It seems to me like in Parliamentary systems (well, England's in particular, I don't know about Canada) the executive branch is actually far, far stronger than that in the US because the executive (the Prime Minister) has full control over legislation that gets passed.

Not exactly. All members of parliament can still act independently of their party. For example, when Harper moved to re-open the issue of gay marriage in Canada, a large number of conservatives voted it down because they thought it was a stupid idea and there was no point trying to make some last-ditch effort to temporarily move things backwards.

In the US he must constantly battle with Congress, and then the Supreme Court can instantly give him a royal spanking that absolutely must be followed. Not obeying the Supreme Court is like saying fuck you to the Constitution, which no president would ever do (publicly).

This is the same for Canada. The Senate (basically a bunch of highly educated dudes who sit around all day and don't do much but review legislation) can send it back if it sucks, and the Supreme Court can just throw out laws that they consider unconstitutional.

The difference between the Supreme Court in Canada and in the US is that in the US, standard practice is to get as many of your buddies in while you can, while in Canada, there tends to be a public backlash against people who try to do this. Example: A lot of people got super-pissed when Harper said he wanted to appoint supreme court judges who agreed with his party's stance on drug issues. The problem had nothing to do with drug issues at all, it was because Harper was trying to appoint non-impartial judges to the highest court in the country.

But I suppose if Canada has to deal with more coalition governments than England the executive is probably much weaker.

What happens right now is that there's a minority government, so nothing at all really gets done. A lot of people got pissed off when the coalition formed, because although it wasn't the conservatives, we didn't vote for them so they'd team up with each other and become a single monster with unified goals. That breaks down the entire core of the multi-party system, which we generally like a lot more than a two party system, the sort of which they have in the states.

Sorry, it wasn't actually drug policy specifically, it was just Harper's "law-and-order agenda." I read this about two years ago in the Toronto star when there was also some drug policy stuff being mulled over.

Anyway, here you can find links to at least five newspaper articles that are just about people being pissed off that the Prime Minister would want to appoint anyone that would threaten the impartiality of the judiciary to a significant degree.

There's sort of an unspoken social contract where everyone agrees that the supreme court is important enough that we shouldn't turn it into a political contest.

At 1/23/09 11:20 PM, Elfer wrote: Not exactly. All members of parliament can still act independently of their party. For example, when Harper moved to re-open the issue of gay marriage in Canada, a large number of conservatives voted it down because they thought it was a stupid idea and there was no point trying to make some last-ditch effort to temporarily move things backwards.

That's why I mentioned England. In England, the majority party has absolute control and has very strong party discipline. The members of the party will not go against the party rule except in very rare exceptions.

The difference between the Supreme Court in Canada and in the US is that in the US, standard practice is to get as many of your buddies in while you can, while in Canada, there tends to be a public backlash against people who try to do this. Example: A lot of people got super-pissed when Harper said he wanted to appoint supreme court judges who agreed with his party's stance on drug issues. The problem had nothing to do with drug issues at all, it was because Harper was trying to appoint non-impartial judges to the highest court in the country.

There is a public backlash against it in the US too. When John Roberts fucked up the presidential oath on Tuesday, quite a few people found it amusing. Unfortunately we have a strong tradition of appointing justices who will agree with the president, extending back to FDR. Perhaps it goes earlier too, but he was the greatest example as he actually created more Supreme Court seats so he could appoint people who favored his policies.

But we aren't happy about it. The only people who are happy about it are the bullshit partisans on either side; i.e. those who watch Hannity or listen to Limbaugh, or those who love Olbermann.

What happens right now is that there's a minority government, so nothing at all really gets done. A lot of people got pissed off when the coalition formed, because although it wasn't the conservatives, we didn't vote for them so they'd team up with each other and become a single monster with unified goals. That breaks down the entire core of the multi-party system, which we generally like a lot more than a two party system, the sort of which they have in the states.

And England (although they are a 2.5 party system, technically, despite only 2 parties actually really holding power).

It's a give and take. Coalitions allow for more freedom of choice, but they create a much more politicized Parliament.

If only there was some way to create a no-party system...

All that money, and they fucked it up...

At 1/24/09 01:45 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: All that money, and they fucked it up...

Ironically it was the Supreme Court justice that Bush appointed who did it...

At 1/24/09 01:46 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 1/24/09 01:45 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: All that money, and they fucked it up...

Ironically it was the Supreme Court justice that Bush appointed who did it...

Not a bad day out for the following groups:
1.) Conspiracy Theorists: Bush is obviously trying to make Obama look like an ass.
2.) Con Law Types: If Obama passed any law between his inauguration and being sworn in properly, does that make them unlawful? Cue a 47 page discussion.
3.) West Wing Fans: "For 90 minutes, there was a coup d'etat in this country." (episode 2:18, 17 People)