Inauguration of George W. Bush
Originally posted by Unintentional@Dec 13 2004, 08:16 AM
This is just my opinion and everybody has one. I think it is kinda sad that they would disrupt his one day in the sun. Can anyone say sore loser?
About 60% of the electorate voted this election. About 30.5% for Bush and 29.5% for Kerry. How dare a measley 29.5% of the electorate attempt to disrupt a day of celebration and victory for the winner! Since 40% of the electorate didn't care who won, you could say 70.5% are definitely not upset Bush won. A measley 29.5% do not speak for the 50% who wanted Kerry, they speak for the 29.5% who wanted Kerry. The Kerry side didn't just loose, they lost BIG! We are NOT a 50-50 country, we are a 30-30-40 country with the 40 being \"okay\" with whoever won. That makes us a 70-30 country with ther 70 being Bush.
If the 30 wants to disrupt Bush's inaugeration, I say go ahead, because you will disgust people who were on your side and they will leave. Next election...75-25 country?
Yeah, I can sore loser. Can you say fraudulent winner? I'm not a Kerry supporter, but I damn sure aren't a Bush supporter. Your statistical analysis is flawed. Just because 40% of the country's registered voters didn't vote, doesn't mean they're "OK" with the Bushco gang. There were numerous reports of inadequate voting machines in predominantly Democratic precints, causing voting time to be anywhere from 2 to 7 hours. A majority of these precincts are lower income demographically. These workers did not have the time it took to stand around all day and vote. They needed to be at work. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There are tons of evidence that the election was rigged ahead of time, so maybe it wouldn't have mattered if these people would have taken the 7 hrs. to vote. Polls before the election showed a very close race. We're not a 30-30-40 country. 70% of the American populace is not "OK" with the Bushco gang.
To show you how serious the Bushco gang is about having the inauguration go have without any "dissidents" in W's face, the event has been deemed a National Special Security Event. This means they can pretty well do whatever they damn please to keep "dissidents" out of view. While the protestors may be able to pull something off, they'll probably be arrested and God knows what out of camera site.
Here's a link to the DHS announcement about the inauguration.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Designates 2005 Presidential Inauguration as National Special Security Event
The New York Times has an article out today about the security measures to be taken at unprecedented levels.
First Inauguration Since 9/11 Spurs Tightest Security
You may need to do a free registration to be able to see the article.
Here's some excerpts from the article.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 - For nearly a year, the Secret Service and other law enforcement agencies have been developing what they regard as the most comprehensive security plan ever devised for the inauguration of an American president.
From the swearing-in ceremony for President Bush at the Capitol on Jan. 20 to the presidential parade review at the White House to the evening galas, the inaugural events will be the first in decades to be held in wartime and the first since the terrorist attacks of 2001. They will take place at buildings that symbolize American democracy, and hundreds of thousands of people are expected to attend, including the highest-ranking government officials, other prominent Americans and dignitaries from around the world. It is hard to imagine, say security experts, a bigger target for terrorists.
In January 2001, when the country was divided over a disputed presidential election, the newest development was security checkpoints along the parade route on Pennsylvania Avenue, from the Capitol to the White House, to minimize the ability of protesters to disrupt the procession. None did, although several people threw eggs and debris at Mr. Bush's limousine as it left the Capitol grounds.
Many of the resources that will protect the inauguration have been in place since the Sept. 11 attacks and the discovery of anthrax in Congressional offices weeks later. Anti-aircraft weapons sit atop a federal building near the White House. Monitors have been installed around the city to measure for airborne radiological, chemical or biological substances. The Capitol Police force has grown by several hundred officers to more than 1,500, a record number, and many of them now carry M-16 rifles.
But security officials said safeguards for next month's events would involve more equipment and people than in 2001, including larger numbers of troops and uniformed and plainclothes officers. Besides the armed soldiers who will be deployed around the city, 4,000 others who routinely serve the capital region will be on call.
Yeah, we're so "OK" with W he needs troops, snipers, and military to keep protestors away. He's "OK" with mainstream America too. I'm sure he knows how much they're "OK" with him.
While terrorist activities are the prime concern, protests are also being addressed in security plans. Several groups say they intend to stage peaceful demonstrations, but political protests sometimes grow violent, as they did at world trade meetings in recent years in Seattle, Miami and Washington.
Brian Becker, national coordinator for the Answer Coalition, an antiwar and antiracism group, said he expected thousands of protesters to line the parade route \"in a legal, spirited, peaceful demonstration,\" carrying signs calling for the withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq and for Mr. Bush's impeachment.
Another group is planning a protest in which participants would turn their backs to Mr. Bush's limousine as his motorcade passes. Jim McDonald, an organizer, said the action's effectiveness would depend on how close to the barricades the protesters could get.
Both organizers worried that security would be so intense and access so difficult that their groups' messages would be muffled.
The Bush administration, Mr. McDonald said, \"is using national security as a pretext to stifle dissent and to marginalize dissenters.\"
\"They're not dissuading Osama bin Laden,\" he added. \"They're dissuading protesters from coming out by creating a climate of fear.\"
W just doesn't want to see anyone not liking him. It's been the M.O. of his admin over the last four years. You want to protest, go to the "free speach zone" or cops will be all over your ass and you'll be arrested and prosecuted.
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat and the District of Columbia's delegate to Congress, is working closely with the agencies planning the inauguration and said she was satisfied that security would be strong enough to discourage a terrorist attack. \"And terrorists know it,\" Ms. Norton said. \"Besides, they like the element of surprise.\"
She said she worried more about the permanent changes on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, giving the city a militaristic feel that is amplified by the expanded presence of security personnel at important events like an inauguration.
\"People with guns are on rooftops right now,\" Ms. Norton said. \"Surveillance cameras are everywhere. You have to do everything you can, and I am willing to abide a lot of extra security for the inauguration. But I just don't think President Bush wants the city to look more like a military show than a celebration.\"
Yeah, that's just what we need, a military base for a national captial. Uni, may I recommend you wake up and smell the coffee, or just get your head out of a very dark place. This ain't no "sore loser" or "70% are OK with Bush" thing. This is more serious than most of the sleep walking sheeple out there can begin to understand. And as far as W's "one day in the sun", you got to be kiddin' me. He's had four years "in the sun" and it looks like the elections were rigged for another four years "in the sun." That's the kind of "sun" that you can get some serious burn from.
Cary
