4 years ago

202typical · Jan 26, 2009

Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:
"Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops die in unarmored Hum-vees"

"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"

"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get
the shaft"

Headlines Today:
"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost "only" $120 million"

"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"

"Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate"

and my personal favorite:

"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"

Nothing like fair & unbiased coverage of the news !!!

TFinalshot · Jan 26, 2009

LAST EDITED ON Jan-26-09 AT 02:49PM (MST)[p]I went to Bush's inauguration, for $42 million it was a complete waste of money, no one was there, at least for $120 mil a lot people got a lot of satisfaction, and as if it was not already obvious, Obama IS his own stimulus package. I'll bet DC made more money in the week around the obama bash than it did over the last two years, and you can bet it was enough to make it worth the tax payers expense. Food, t shirts, hotels beer, wind, taxi's, you name it. . . obama spent a lot of private and public money, but the local business's made it all back. . . as for Bush, most places closed down there was no business. . . .

what should have obama done 02? Put a sign up and say sorry, "closed" we cant afford to have almost 2 million people spending money in our town. . . In fact, i'm pretty sure that whatever public money was spent on that event it paid back many times over, at least there was a return, cant say that about Bushes big bash . . .

piper · Jan 26, 2009

thats what happens when you send troops into battle without exploring all the possibles. I really think some people worry too much about the media being unfair, as long as we have freedom of the press I wouldn't worry, little news clips here and there can make anything sound biased

202typical · Jan 26, 2009

At least you read the post piper. T the post was about bias reporting.................hello!

TFinalshot · Jan 26, 2009

i read it, what should the headlines have been? you guys want more half empty glasses or what? it's either or, come on, good news is negative, bad new is negative, if its not of your liking it must be biased. . . good one guys. . . in the spirit of Bush, keep fighting!

202typical · Jan 26, 2009

Boy you can spin it T I have to hand it to you.

Look Obama is the medias darling. He could have commited a human sacrifice at the inaug and the press would have a made a positive out it as well. LMAO.

piper · Jan 26, 2009

there is some truth to that, Obama is popular, so the media plays along, but remember how the media blew it before the Iraq war? thats because by and large the public wanted revenge for terrorist acts. I recall CNN and the "countdown to the showdown" it was like they were promoting a movie

manny15 · Jan 26, 2009

LOL, you guys just don't get!........

huntindude · Jan 26, 2009

First off the fun stuff at the inauration is paid for by donations to the inaguration committee's fund, so those aren't tax payer dollars. second the security cost is not the presidents fault, unless you consider being popular a political defect. 400,000 attended Bush's inauguation, 1.5-1.8 milllion to Obama's. a full accounting will be made by April according to law, but at this point adjusting for inflation Obama's party is expected to be slightly less than Bush's other than increased security expenses due to attendance.

So maybe we should stop electing the most popular person for president,not only would it give republicans a fighting chance it would save money if nobody showed up to their inauguation. you're thinking there boys.

eelgrass · Jan 26, 2009

"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration"

Now that's interesting. I just heard today that Citibank bought a $50 million corporate jet after receiving $42 billion in bail out money.

Bend over America.

Eel

manny15 · Jan 26, 2009

>"Citibank executives contribute $8 million to
>Obama Inauguration"
>
>Now that's interesting. I just heard
>today that Citibank bought a
>$50 million corporate jet after
>receiving $42 billion in bail
>out money.
>
>Bend over America.
>
>Eel

my point exactly.......

cantkillathing · Jan 26, 2009

02, the dems and liberals will never understand what you are trying to point out. I still don't understand why so many people are praising obama, he has done nothing yet, and with all the praising he has already recieved it is only going to get ugly for him. I feel pitty for the guy when he can't accomplish the miracles that people want, he is set up to fail.

People should have waited a couple of years to see if he can do anything before they praise him.

bwnco · Jan 27, 2009

T

LAST EDITED ON Jan-27-09 AT 02:05PM (MST) by TFinalshot (moderator)[p] 02 is simply pointing out how biased the liberal media is... Now go get a dictionary and look up bias and see if you can come back here and give us a report on what the word means and join in on a flowing conversation...

TFinalshot · Jan 27, 2009

RE: T

LAST EDITED ON Jan-27-09 AT 04:10PM (MST)[p]here's one reason, "America is NOT your enemy."
President Obama's message to the world, Jan 25, 2009

I did ask you guys to give us the headlines. . . what would have been a non biased headline? "Obama Takes over from Bush?"

Or, maybe some guys just want to be downers all the time. I know things are tough for many on a lot of levels, not just the fact that the right-wing of the country got blasted in the last election, talk about a message, America said NO more Bush and no more bad Bush style policies. I think having a good attitude and looking on the bright side of things is helpful. I'm a half full kinda guy, you guys seem to always be complaining or pointing out the negatives.

Okay, so is it that Obama has more support than Bush every had and so it' not fair to highlight that? What's the bias? Should the headline have been,

"party's over, Bush left huge disaster: Obama will have to work over-time to rebuild the Nation."

or how about, "Bush Broke it, Obama Owns it."

huntindude · Jan 27, 2009

RE: T

Good point, everyone is so used to the most unpopular president in history that when a popular president steps in there's bound to be a little adjustment period. or maybe we just have some sore loosers, it's all good.

manny15 · Jan 27, 2009

RE: T

> Good point, everyone is so
>used to the most unpopular
>president in history that when
>a popular president steps in
>there's bound to be a
>little adjustment period. or
>maybe we just have some
>sore loosers, it's all good.
>

popular doesn't mean he knows what he's doing, calm your jets! just a thought.......

202typical · Jan 28, 2009

RE: T

T and Hdude you two still missing the point, or you are attempting a redirection to deflect the obvious from you Boy.

You guys say the most popular should be voted in. If you win I would take that as a pretty dad gum good sign that you are popular at that time. Yet the media was all negative on Bush for the money spent on his inaug..........................why? Plain and simple bias and a hard left leaning press in this country.