[Ratspittle]

Isn't this ironic....a picture is woth a thousand words....sad

[NYCFarmboy]

notice what his hands spell?

[Ratspittle]

and that means what exactly?!!!

In 1945, wartime President Roosevelt wanted a scaled-down celebration for his fourth inaugural. Congress had appropriated $20,000 for the event; the White House only spent $2,000. He cancelled the parade and the ball and held his swearing in at the White House, followed by a cold lunch of chicken salad, rolls without butter, and unfrosted pound cake.
now that's class...

I think $40 million would go a long way to protect our troops....

[Ratspittle]

and by the way...
"D.C. officials said yesterday that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the District for most of the costs associated with next week's inauguration, breaking with precedent and forcing the city to divert $11.9 million from homeland security projects."

this is DISGUSTING!!!!! glad to know Bush's priorities are in line. Good to know that all the debt we are incurring from homeland security is being put to good use. Please post another picture of Kerry doing some innoculous gesture. It might make you feel better.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Ratspittle:
Please post another picture of Kerry doing some innoculous gesture. It might make you feel better.

oh..ok but only since you insist...

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Ratspittle:
and that means what exactly?!!!

In 1945, wartime President Roosevelt wanted a scaled-down celebration for his fourth inaugural. Congress had appropriated $20,000 for the event; the White House only spent $2,000. He cancelled the parade and the ball and held his swearing in at the White House, followed by a cold lunch of chicken salad, rolls without butter, and unfrosted pound cake.
now that's class...

Yeah, I'm sure it was class.... after 3 grand inaugurations in the heart of the Depression, his deteriorated health, and his near-complete immobility.

There's really no need to spin history to suit whataever anti-Bush point you are trying to make.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Ratspittle:
...this is DISGUSTING!!!!! glad to know Bush's priorities are in line. Good to know that all the debt we are incurring from homeland security is being put to good use.

A Presidential Inauguration ceremony and festivities in a nation's capital filled to the brim with world and national leaders... damn right they should spend some of that Security money.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Ratspittle:
I think $40 million would go a long way to protect our troops....

Why the heck do you give a crap? That's private money, and how it's used is no business of yours.

[badidea]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
notice what his hands spell?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
notice what his hands spell?

"VW"?

Edit: OMG ITS TEH FOREGIN AGENT!!!!!!!!111

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Ratspittle:
and that means what exactly?!!!

In 1945...

And why use 1945 as a comparison to make your point?

Surely there are plenty of other, more recent inaugurations by which to compare...

Reuters news agency this week headlined a story, "Critics Say Bush Inaugural Too Lavish for Wartime," then quoted one "critic," Rep. Anthony Weiner, New York Democrat, who complained that the estimated $40 million for the Bush-Cheney inauguration is extravagant.

The Associated Press moved a story that asked, "With that kind of money, what could you buy?" The answer, the wire service said: "200 armored Humvees ... vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children ... and a down payment on the nation's deficit."

But a review of the cost for past inaugurations shows Mr. Bush's will cost less than President Clinton's second inauguration in 1997, which cost about $42 million. When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent.

According to the Consumer Price Index, $42 million in 1997 is the equivalent of $49.5 in 2004.

The significant majority of funding for this year's festivities, including nine officials balls, are from private donations and tickets for events held by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, a similar setup to fund raising Mr. Clinton used to underwrite his inauguration. Mr. Clinton had a record 12 balls in 1997.

A Jan. 20, 1997, story by USA Today estimated about $12.7 million of Mr. Clinton's inauguration was financed by U.S. taxpayers. Initial estimates indicate the District will foot about $17 million in security costs this year.

"Every inaugural, there's a really good reason given why you should spend whatever donors are sending in on something else," Rich Galen, a veteran Republican activist, told the Associated Press, saying many of the complaints come from the losers of the election.

[Spheric Harlot]

Clinton wasn't at war and hadn't ridden his country into a record-breaking deficit.

[chris v]

Here's another one I noticed a few days ago:

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Clinton wasn't at war and hadn't ridden his country into a record-breaking deficit.

Is that the best you can do in your complaining and whining about how other people's private money is spent?

The liberal kooks are so desperate.. that much is obvious. All their arguments falter in the public arena, their glorified institutions (UN, mainstream media) have been exposed as the frauds they are, and each day in the US, more and more people are becoming fed up with their constant bitching and obstuctionist tactics.

Man, times sure are tough in the Kooky Kingdom.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

I think it's insane ANY incumbent should have such a wasteful orgy of an inagural, no matter who pays for it.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:
I think it's insane ANY incumbent should have such a wasteful orgy of an inagural, no matter who pays for it.

You want to regulate how private citizens spend their money?

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
You want to regulate how private citizens spend their money?

Thanks for the strawman, but no.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:
Thanks for the strawman, but no.

You said:

"I think it's insane ANY incumbent should have such a wasteful orgy of an inagural, no matter who pays for it."

You obviously don't want it done, despite the fact that Bush is more frugal than previous presidents. What does it matter to you how private funds are spent?

[NYCFarmboy]

It's our party, you can cry if you want to

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/a...20050120.shtml


by Ann Coulter

January 20, 2005


In what the New York Times called Angola's "worst crisis" in "nearly 30 years" in December 1992, the country erupted into civil war. By January 1993, the streets were piled with thousands of dead bodies. In the prior year, hundreds of thousands had died of starvation in Somalia. Millions more were still at risk.

Also in 1993, January floods left dozens dead and thousands homeless in Tijuana, Mexico. Russia was, according to a New York Times editorial, on the brink of disaster, facing economic circumstances like those "that helped bring forth Hitler." Nine people were killed in a volcano in Colombia in mid-January, including American scientists. In Bosnia, according to the Times, hundreds had died of starvation and exposure in a matter of days.


"It has all been so much fun," Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd gushed in the New York Times in January 1993. It was Bill Clinton's one-week inaugural celebration. "Is it too much to ask that it go on forever?" (For those who loved America, the next eight years would only seem to go on forever.)

Rich and Dowd quoted Hollywood agent Karen Russell, saying: "I'm in this fantasy world. I haven't slept. I'm punch drunk. ... I just feel like I'm in this place called Clinton-land" � which, if it were a theme park, could bill itself as "the sleaziest place on Earth!" Russell, they said, "spoke for everyone."

While dead bodies rotted in the streets of Angola and Somalia, the only "dead soldiers" in evidence in Clinton-land were the empty Cristal bottles lining the parade route. The most massive relief efforts that week took place at the rows of portable toilets circling each site of drunken Clintonista revelry.

Instead of having the usual Inauguration Day in 1993, Clinton had an "Inauguration Week," with high-tech pageantry, large-screen TVs on the mall, Hollywood direction and, indeed, half of Hollywood. The amount of money that would have been saved just by holding the inauguration in Brentwood could have averted the Rwandan tragedy Clinton ignored just a few years later.

The spokesman for Clinton's 1993 Inaugural Committee said the inaugural events would cost about $25 million � largesse exceeded only by the $50 million Ken Starr was forced to spend when "Clintonland" turned out to be populated with felons. Think of all the starving children in Angola, Somalia, Bosnia and elsewhere that $25 million could have fed! And don't even get me started on Michael Moore's "on location" food budget!

I wouldn't mention it, except for the Times' recent editorial snippily remarking that the amount of foreign aid to tsunami victims offered by the United States within the first few days of the disaster was "less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities." By that logic, why hold the Golden Globes, the Academy Awards, or spend money on restaurants and theater productions praised in the New York Times? That money could go to tsunami victims!

A letter writer to the Times redoubled the Times' bile, claiming to be "embarrassed for our country" on account of the government's "pathetic initial offer of aid" to the tsunami victims. Yet he was still willing to throw away 37 cents on a postage stamp to send his letter � money that could have been spent on the relief effort! (One strongly suspects the letter writer was embarrassed for his country long before the tsunami hit and will remain so long after.)

Another letter writer suggested the first lady wear a used dress to the inauguration to "honor the young people who are dying in her husband's misbegotten war." (To honor John Kerry's position on Iraq, Mrs. Bush would have to order an expensive gown and then, after it was delivered, decide she didn't want to pay for it.)

Hollywood liberals could not be reached for comment on the cost of the inauguration because they were being fitted for gowns and jewelry worth millions of dollars in anticipation of Oscar night.

Speaking of which, I just remembered: George Soros is worth $7 billion! Couldn't he get by on, say, $1 billion and donate the rest to the tsunami victims? If gun owners have to explain why they "need" a so-called "assault rifle," shouldn't Soros have to explain why he "needs" $7 billion? Last year, Soros announced that the central focus of his life would be removing Bush from office. Would that Soros could refocus that energy on alleviating the suffering of tsunami victims.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Ann Coulter

Someone should kidnap this woman and take her down to the local cloning lab. Put me down for one (oh, OK then if you insist, three) of the copies.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
You said:

"I think it's insane ANY incumbent should have such a wasteful orgy of an inagural, no matter who pays for it."

You obviously don't want it done, despite the fact that Bush is more frugal than previous presidents. What does it matter to you how private funds are spent?

I'm not allowed to have an opinion? Anyway, just to be Fair and Balanced�:

Coming to a last-minute defense of President Bush and the unprecedented cost of his lavish inauguration, the right-wing Washington Times today informs readers the cost is no big deal because President Clinton was guilty of spending more on his '97 inauguration. That's flat-out false. But the Washington Times being what it is, the paper charges right ahead in an effort to defend the White House.

First, the Times reports Bush and his team of supporters are spending $40 million in private funds to pay for the inauguration, making it the most expensive in history. The $40 million figure is interesting because just nine days ago the very same Washington Times reported that the Bush team hoped to raise $50 million for the parties and parade. Today, seeing Bush under fire for spending too much against the grave backdrop of events in Iraq, the Times conveniently chops off $10 million from its very own inauguration estimate.

Second, the Times claims that Clinton's second inauguration cost $42 million, and adjusted for inflation, that means it cost $49 million in 2005 dollars. And voila, Clinton spent more than Bush. The only problem is, according to a vast array of news accounts (Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, Newsday, St. Petersburg Times), Clinton's 1997 inauguration cost $30 million or, more precisely, $29.7 million. Even adjusted for inflation, that puts the '97 cost at less than $35 million, well behind the $40-$50 million the Bush camp will spend.

The only way the Times can boost the Clinton cost to $42 million is if it adds in the approximately $12 million spent in '97 by the Defense Department, the National Park Service, the General Services Administration and the government of the District of Columbia, which traditionally chip in to cover inauguration costs. But then the Times would have to add the roughly $20 million being spent this week by the federal government, which would boost Bush's tally toward $60-$70 million. Any way you look at it, the Times' lame defense does not add up.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

[Ratspittle]

You guys are freaking incredible....how is the kool-aid? Denial is not a river in Egypt! I did notice you are all reading the same talking points (private funds...). How do you look at yourself in the mirror at night knowing you are taking this crap hook-line-and-sinker? I don't even know how to put what I feel into words!!! How about the good ol' USA offering less money initially for aid to the tsunami victims than the cost of the inauguration (notice the initially part)? I don't care if it's "private funds" or not! It just goes to demonstrate the moral fortitude of those that are funding the inauguration, and therfore supporting bush and his agenda .

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Ratspittle:
You guys are freaking incredible....how is the kool-aid? Denial is not a river in Egypt! I did notice you are all reading the same talking points (private funds...). How do you look at yourself in the mirror at night knowing you are taking this crap hook-line-and-sinker? I don't even know how to put what I feel into words!!! How about the good ol' USA offering less money initially for aid to the tsunami victims than the cost of the inauguration (notice the initially part)? I don't care if it's "private funds" or not! It just goes to demonstrate the moral fortitude of those that are funding the inauguration, and therfore supporting bush and his agenda .

Get some of your "bleeding heart" brethren to pony up more cash, Soros is worth $7bil, put some pressure on him to give more. Or, how about Moore, he's had a few successful films, why doesn't he donate the profits from those? Maybe Spielberg can dip into his >$2 billion nestegg and be more giving? Tell me, why aren't some of your own people doing more? OH OH, I know, because they don't give a rat's sh*t about the disaster, not enough to put their $ where their hypocritical mouths are. Work on their "moral fortitude", because they're all making you look like posers.

How about you get your own political house in order before you go pointing your crooked fingers at others. Maybe if the scumbag Left can lead by example, instead of perpetually bitching and shifting blame, you might actually have some ethical highground to stand on. Otherwise it's no more than a fart in a stiff breeze, and we've smelled it all before.


Edit: and BTW, it's Dementia, not Demensia. Sheesh.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Maybe if the scumbag Left can lead by example, instead of perpetually bitching and shifting blame, you might actually have some ethical highground to stand on. Otherwise it's no more than a fart in a stiff breeze, and we've smelled it all before.

*Clapping*

Exactly.

[MindFad]

Originally posted by chris v:
Here's another one I noticed a few days ago:

Excellent execution of drop shadow.

[chris v]

Originally posted by MindFad:
Excellent execution of drop shadow.

that is a litte odd, isn't it?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Ratspittle:
How do you look at yourself in the mirror at night knowing you are taking this crap hook-line-and-sinker?

Because we believe it's not crap. We believe that giving should be mostly or entirely private, and that when this is allowed to happen, it does happen. Disaster after disaster has borne this fact out.

And as for the inauguration being funded privately, I ask agin: so what? If's people's own money; should they not be able to spend it however they wish? Is this suddenly a crime?

How about the good ol' USA offering less money initially for aid to the tsunami victims than the cost of the inauguration (notice the initially part)?

Before the damage estimates came in, you mean?

It is worth noting that every time the US made an offer, it was greater than any other offer made by any nation up to that point. The karma-bidding war came only after the US had made its first offer, when other countries had to pony up more to maintain the myth of American selfishness.

[nredman]

Originally posted by Ratspittle:
and that means what exactly?!!!

In 1945, wartime President Roosevelt wanted a scaled-down celebration for his fourth inaugural. Congress had appropriated $20,000 for the event; the White House only spent $2,000. He cancelled the parade and the ball and held his swearing in at the White House, followed by a cold lunch of chicken salad, rolls without butter, and unfrosted pound cake.
now that's class...

I think $40 million would go a long way to protect our troops....

very true, bush is no roosevelt, but i highly doubt any politican today wouldn't spend unreal amounts of money on this bs.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:


notice what his hands spell?

MUHAHAHAH@!

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
MUHAHAHAH@!

Z..you are back..where have you been?

we missed you!

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It is worth noting that every time the US made an offer, it was greater than any other offer made by any nation up to that point. The karma-bidding war came only after the US had made its first offer, when other countries had to pony up more to maintain the myth of American selfishness.

WHAT?!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Z..you are back..where have you been?

we missed you!

Been busy lately.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It is worth noting that every time the US made an offer, it was greater than any other offer made by any nation up to that point. The karma-bidding war came only after the US had made its first offer, when other countries had to pony up more to maintain the myth of American selfishness.

Indeed.

[Ratspittle]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Edit: and BTW, it's Dementia, not Demensia. Sheesh. [/B]

So I guess a mis-spelling, which you have probably never been guilty of, negates my entire point of view. If that is the case, why respond at all?
As far as the "bleeding heart" thing, I find it fairly ironic that you have a problem with giving a sh*t about people...particularly since the right wing claims to be so religious. Just admit it, if it does not directly effect you, you could care less. Hmm...Soros, Speilberg, Moore...how do you know how much they have donated to the tsunami victims? Us bleeding heart types typically don't go around tooting our own horn every time we donate to a cause.
Just say it man, it's easy and we'll all have a lot more repect for you and your ilk...." I only care about myself and my business interests, I only believe the news that is slanted in my direction, everyone else is deluded." Say it...you'll feel better! Calling us leftwing scumbags is a good start but you are not quite there yet. Throw in a little Ann Coulter "democrats are traitors" mentality while you are at it.
Some of us like to think about the greater good of everyone, some of us like to think of the greater good to ourselves...it is pretty evident who is on which side, just freaking admit it already.
Btw, even if soros etc. did absolutely nothing, it has absolutely no bearing on the argument, that's like saying " I saw a man bleeding in the street today, and I did not stop to help him because the mayor walked right by him without doing anything." (and why would you have a problem with it anyway (the donations or lack thereof)....it's[insert republican talking point]"private funds"...right?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Ratspittle:
So I guess a mis-spelling, which you have probably never been guilty of, negates my entire point of view. If that is the case, why respond at all?

Huh? That is just the part YOU quoted. He said other many relevant things.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
WHAT?!

Admittedly, I mixed fact and opinion inappropriately in that post, and I apologize.

It is true that every time the US offered aid, it offered more than anybody else had offered up to that point. This is recent enough that the timeline is not difficult to trace yet.

As for the rest, that is opinion, admittedly. But I find it very interesting that no nation accused the US of being stingy without first raising its bid over what the US was offering at that time. This is why I believe that the bids were raised first: so the US could once again be accused of being selfish.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Millennium:
But I find it very interesting that no nation accused the US of being stingy without first raising its bid over what the US was offering at that time. This is why I believe that the bids were raised first: so the US could once again be accused of being selfish.

Or maybe they did feel that such a small amount was stingy, so they raised it. I'd find it much more strange if they hadn't offered more than us when they accused us of stinginess.

It seems a little too conspiracy theorist for me to believe that other countries are going to pay millions of dollars just to insult a country that they insult all the time for free.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by Millennium:
As for the rest, that is opinion, admittedly. But I find it very interesting that no nation accused the US of being stingy without first raising its bid over what the US was offering at that time. This is why I believe that the bids were raised first: so the US could once again be accused of being selfish.

I really don't think little old Australia was in a game of one-upmanship with the US and I don't think Australia ever accused the US of being tight. Can you please point me to a quote from any country's leader that accuses the US of being selfish?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
It seems a little too conspiracy theorist for me to believe that other countries are going to pay millions of dollars just to insult a country that they insult all the time for free.

The problem is, the millions which the US offered invalidated the claims of American selfishness. The only way to maintain the myth was to donate even more than the US did; otherwise any continued insult along this line would be hypocritical.

[Chuckit]

But why on earth would they care enough about insulting America to keep throwing out money that they didn't really want to give? It doesn't make sense for them to do that. It's like Saddam Hussein deposing himself just to get the world mad at America.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
But why on earth would they care enough about insulting America to keep throwing out money that they didn't really want to give? It doesn't make sense for them to do that.

It's amazing what people and countries will do sometimes, just to avoid loss of face. It doesn't make any more sense to me than it does to you, but I can't deny the patterns I've seen.

[Ratspittle]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Huh? That is just the part YOU quoted. He said other many relevant things.

ummm...read past the first sentence please...I also addressed the bleeding heart thing, the speilberg, soros etc thing, the leftwing scumbag thing, the private fund thing, and the ann coulter thing. I just thought that was a cheap shot (and a good starting point to show the methods used by people like you to discredit people), based on the fact that I am a bad speller and am usually too lazy to use spell check. BTW unlike some people in our administration, I am able to admit my mistakes and shortcomings....

[Ratspittle]

oops double post...

[randallina2001]

Ratspittle's point concerning the inaugural and Farmboy's child like responses combined with others attempts at attack have been fun to watch. It's like I walked into Jonestown or something. And then to quote Ann Coulter as if she was anything less than an absolute monster....wow, that's some kind of kooky there.

Now I do think we should celebrate the peaceful transfer of power and I did enjoy seeing the twins dressed like that, but it just seems we could have been more respectful of the reality of the situation. You know, maybe something with a "sacrifice" theme that would more closely match the sacrifice that this war is causing. Like 1371 American Soldiers so far, like 100,000 Iraqis so far.

Worst president ever, most corrupt administration ever. most dangerous american...ever.

Now calm down righties, sip some kool aid, listen to Rush, dream about Ann's big ole adams apple and have a nice morning.

[Ratspittle]

Originally posted by randallina2001:
Ratspittle's point concerning the inaugural and Farmboy's child like responses combined with others attempts at attack have been fun to watch. It's like I walked into Jonestown or something. And then to quote Ann Coulter as if she was anything less than an absolute monster....wow, that's some kind of kooky there.

Now I do think we should celebrate the peaceful transfer of power and I did enjoy seeing the twins dressed like that, but it just seems we could have been more respectful of the reality of the situation. You know, maybe something with a "sacrifice" theme that would more closely match the sacrifice that this war is causing. Like 1371 American Soldiers so far, like 100,000 Iraqis so far.

Worst president ever, most corrupt administration ever. most dangerous american...ever.

Now calm down righties, sip some kool aid, listen to Rush, dream about Ann's big ole adams apple and have a nice morning.

OMG you are right!!!! She (he) does have an adams apple!!
And what are you talking about? 100,000 dead iraqi's....you bleeding heart liberal. Leftwing scumbag!!!!

[chris v]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
, despite the fact that Bush is more frugal than previous presidents.

Ah, ..... WAHT?

[Ratspittle]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I only know one party, and it is freedom
-Jackson Browne, 'I Am A Patriot'

It's funny that you should use a jackson browne quote for your sig, since one of his songs also say
"they sell us our president the same way... they sell us our clothes and our cars...they sell us every thing from youth to religion, the same way they sell us our wars, I wanna know who the men in the shadows are, I wanna hear someone asking them why...they can be counted on to tell us who are enemies are but they're never ones to fight or to die..."
---lives in the balance

But I guess in retrospect he is just a scumbag leftwinger as welll....guess it's time to change your sig.

[Ratspittle]

and here's the lyrics complete...timely if I do say so myself

"I�ve been waiting for something to happen
For a week or a month or a year
With the blood in the ink of the headlines
And the sound of the crowd in my ear
You might ask what it takes to remember
When you know that you�ve seen it before
Where a government lies to a people
And a country is drifting to war

And there�s a shadow on the faces
Of the men who send the guns
To the wars that are fought in places
Where their business interest runs

On the radio talk shows and the t.v.
You hear one thing again and again
How the u.s.a. stands for freedom
And we come to the aid of a friend
But who are the ones that we call our friends--
These governments killing their own?
Or the people who finally can�t take any more
And they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone
There are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire

There�s a shadow on the faces
Of the men who fan the flames
Of the wars that are fought in places
Where we can�t even say the names

They sell us the president the same way
They sell us our clothes and our cars
They sell us every thing from youth to religion
The same time they sell us our wars
I want to know who the men in the shadows are
I want to hear somebody asking them why
They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are
But they�re never the ones to fight or to die
And there are lives in the balance
There are people under fire
There are children at the cannons
And there is blood on the wire"

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Ratspittle:
and here's the lyrics complete...timely if I do say so myself

Except that it was written in 1993 during the first year of the Clinton administration, so I'm not sure where you get this 'timely' stuff.

[Ratspittle]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Except that it was written in 1993 during the first year of the Clinton administration, so I'm not sure where you get this 'timely' stuff.

ummm... do a little more research pal, that song was copyrighted in 1986(swallow turn music, ASCAP), the second term of the reagan administration...and was used on miami vice, which I believe was not even still on in 1993. and a song does not have to be current to be timely...see roger water's Amused to Death as an example (or bob dylan's The times they are a changin').
BTW...if you righties really had credibility, you would'nt have to use clinton as a justification for so many of your arguments. It's really getting old. But I guess lying about sexual relations is a lot worse than lying about weapons of mass destruction, or the presidential daily briefing, or lying in a national debate that he never said "And, again, I don�t know where he is. I � I�ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him"[about bin laden]
I'll ask you again...how's the Kool-Aid?