Yes, we can.

scaeagles · 01-19-2009, 07:54 AM

Please be clear I have no criticism of the events, as I think I stated. I have always (as is known here) seen the mainstream media as having a left wing bias, and i think the lavishness of the Obama inauguration - now thought to be almost 4 times as expensive as the 2005 - being given not nearly the same scrutiny as a President they all despised (well, most of them did). It's "we like Obama, so spending lot of money is OK".

I fear that no matter what happens during the Obama administration will be glossed over as acceptable becuase they like him.

Another example is whomever his choice is for Secretary of the Treasury...the man did not make honest mistakes, IMO. He dodged paying taxes. However, I am not aware of calls for him to withdraw the nomination.

Strangler, politics is such that of course that will happen, and it happened to Bush all the time.

I've been withholding numerous ciriticsms of Obama and the dems at present....this is just fluff, and a jab at the media and particular elected members of Congress who were so vocal in their opposition to the money spent in 2005, not Obama.

JWBear · 01-19-2009, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I fear that no matter what happens during the Obama administration will be glossed over as acceptable becuase they like him.

Just like the "liberal" media glossed over every wrong doing by Bush?

Motorboat Cruiser · 01-19-2009, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Please be clear I have no criticism of the events, as I think I stated. I have always (as is known here) seen the mainstream media as having a left wing bias, and i think the lavishness of the Obama inauguration - now thought to be almost 4 times as expensive as the 2005 - being given not nearly the same scrutiny as a President they all despised (well, most of them did). It's "we like Obama, so spending lot of money is OK".
Bush all the time.

Actually, according to this article at least, the mainstream media's math is a little off. It would appear that they included all of the security costs into the 2009 number, but failed to do so in the 2005 numbers. Do that and it turns out that this event didn't cost anywhere near four times what was spent in 2005. But those fair and balanced folks at the NY Daily News weren't quite so interested in accuracy when they first broke this "story" which everybody picked up without checking the facts.

wendybeth · 01-19-2009, 10:47 AM

Thanks for the link, MBC.

01-19-2009, 07:54 AM	#1
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Please be clear I have no criticism of the events, as I think I stated. I have always (as is known here) seen the mainstream media as having a left wing bias, and i think the lavishness of the Obama inauguration - now thought to be almost 4 times as expensive as the 2005 - being given not nearly the same scrutiny as a President they all despised (well, most of them did). It's "we like Obama, so spending lot of money is OK". I fear that no matter what happens during the Obama administration will be glossed over as acceptable becuase they like him. Another example is whomever his choice is for Secretary of the Treasury...the man did not make honest mistakes, IMO. He dodged paying taxes. However, I am not aware of calls for him to withdraw the nomination. Strangler, politics is such that of course that will happen, and it happened to Bush all the time. I've been withholding numerous ciriticsms of Obama and the dems at present....this is just fluff, and a jab at the media and particular elected members of Congress who were so vocal in their opposition to the money spent in 2005, not Obama.
	Submit to Quotes

01-19-2009, 10:47 AM	#4
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Thanks for the link, MBC. __________________
	Submit to Quotes