[Masthead] Mostly Cloudy ~ 69°F  
High: 84°F ~ Low: 59°F
Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Can we afford extravagant ceremony?

Posted Saturday, January 17, 2009, at 2:57 PM

With the economy in such bad condition should so much be spent, historic though it may be, on the swearing in of a new president?

Would our free spending politicans send a much-needed message to the already overtaxed taxpayers by having a small and meaningful ceremony?

Do they even care?


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

I believe the only one who could pull the plug on this would be the President Elect himself. Otherwise there would be too much clamor from ALL sides.

It is helping "someone's" economy, and I am sure that if the plug were pulled now, others would be financially hurt as well.

What is the projected figure?

-- Posted by stevemills on Sat, Jan 17, 2009, at 3:25 PM

Projected cost of Obama's inauguration party is suppose to top 150M

http://thecapitalist.newsvine.com/_news/...

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Jan 17, 2009, at 4:38 PM

How does that compare to other inaugurals?

-- Posted by stevemills on Sat, Jan 17, 2009, at 7:24 PM

Bush's was $42.3 million and said to be excessive and in poor taste Bill Clinton, only spent $33 million in 1992.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Jan 17, 2009, at 8:48 PM

I think this is going to be the trend for this administration.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Sat, Jan 17, 2009, at 9:12 PM

I think they are projecting the image of "Do as I say, not as I do." It's OK for our pres-elect to spend millions of donated money for what is essentially a dinner/dance, while we have lots of folks struggling to pay bills. I don't think it's wrong for them to have a nice night, but within reason. I agree with Steve that it's helping someones economy, and the Washington DC area will make money off the inauguration, like we do with the Celebration, but it's only a every 4 year event.

-- Posted by Sharon22 on Sat, Jan 17, 2009, at 9:21 PM

Does it make you wonder who actually donated this money anyway?

I am not trying to say it is from terrorist so dont even go there..what I am trying to say is ..if the same money from Obama's campaign is the same money that funded the inauguration, then we the tax payers are paying for this in reality. Look at the companies and big businesses that are his contributors..Big Banking as in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, The United Auto Workers, Bank Of America, Citi Group just to name a couple. Now tell me again how much in our tax dollars are in reality going to support the inauguration.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sat, Jan 17, 2009, at 9:36 PM

I have asked the same questions. Do you think we would get a truthful answer if we asked the inaugeral team?

-- Posted by Sharon22 on Sat, Jan 17, 2009, at 10:29 PM

Would any of you be asking this question if McCain had won ? The fact is that some of the monies used are already earmarked every fours years through the government. Yes, the administrations of Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr.--all the way back were allotted a certain amount for the inauguaration. Yep, government money and they ALL got it. Over and above comes from donations (mine for one) and that is what pays the bills. So rest easy TN the money in your pocket stays there. For those of you that STILL want to believe the worst, NO big business or lobbyist money was accepted by the Obama campaign. (unlike the Bush administration) The true facts are out there, if you just read....The thousands of dollars needed to provide extra security is due to the fact that millions of people want to play a small part is this historic event and be there in D.C. (unlike the Bush administration)Oh and another reason is that idiotic folks out there make stupid comments and threats toward President-elect Obama causing the need to have extended security costs. Yes, some American big mouths are their own worst enemy.

-- Posted by up north on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 3:53 AM

I heard a lot of that money came from the banking industry which means you and I donated the money.

-- Posted by bellbuckletn on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 8:13 AM

I do believe all of us would still be asking the questions regardless of WHO won, or WHERE they are from when expenditures tripled.

I am not sure from where you come up north, but I would bet the questions are coming from all parts of the country and not just the Great State of Tennessee.

If we were jumping on a 10% increase from last election, I could see comparing them, and probably put most of it on market prices, but this appears to be a huge difference.

Saying that NO big business donations made it into the campaign is a hard to accept. Maybe it should be said that no READILY APPARENT donations were made.

Since it is so readily available up north, could you give us the exact figures set aside by the U.S. Government for the last four administrations? I am just curious how it compares to the amount spent and I would bet that most of us would appreciate that very much.

I have no doubt that there are numerous threats coming out of the crazy and obsessed world, but I would imagine security was pretty high after September 11, so how much more can they do? Ten percent more, twenty?

Our country and the world appears to be heading into severe challenges. Leadership by example is not too much to request from our government leaders.

-- Posted by stevemills on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 10:34 AM

diana,

since you were kind enough to give a link to your source of "information", i wonder if you read the "discussion" there long enough to find the response i have copied below? it would seem that this inauguration will cost us about the same as the last. i say "it would seem" because extremist freaks on both sides are in love with using half truths and misleading "facts" to tell their sheeplike followers what they have a predilection to believe.

but, at least you read something. sure beats starting your comment with "i heard".

response to the capitalist article follows...

Capitalist -

The $42.3 million that you quote as being spent by Bush on his inauguration was the money, as you say, that was spent by Bush on his inauguration party. That was not the entire amount that was spent on Bush's inauguration. The $42.3 million amount is analogous to the $45 million that will be spent by Obama on his ceremonies ('party').

The government spent another $115.5 million on Bush's inauguration; most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony and cleanup, and compensating federal workers for the holiday. That brings Bush's total inaugural expense to about $157.8 million - certainly in line with the $150 - $160 million projected to be spent for Obama's inauguration.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/us/pol...

In addition, Obama has limited contributions to $50,000 (in contrast with Bush's limit of $250,000 except for corporations, which could contribute more to Bush's inaguration) and Obama has refused to accept contributions from corporations (which provides an answer to jscusmc69's question in msg #2.7), political action committees, people who are currently registered with the federal government as lobbyists, those who are not citizens of the United States, and registered foreign agents. Bush did not make such restrictions on contributors.

I can't imagine that you didn't know all this. Why stir up the pot with false headlines?

-- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 11:00 AM

Sure I read some of the comments on the story but opinions are just that OPINIONS of people just like you.

Whoever said Obama's total included Security?

The total cost really doesn't matter does it? The big problem is the way the media reports it.

Bush's inauguration in 2005 was considered poor taste because of the $42.3 M. The media kept reporting of all the things this money could have been used for, Humvees,Vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children ,A down payment on the nation's deficit all of these things was "reported" from the media.

Now that Obama is being sworn in the media reports "spare no expense" and we are actually in the mist of 2 war and the worse economic recession since the Great Depression.

Many news outlets are reporting Obama's total cost including security and clean-up will top 1 Billion dollars.

I am not a Republican and I am quite sure I myself said Bush's cost was in poor taste, he is still not my favorite person on earth. But even a blind man can see the differences in the media bias reporting all you have to do is open your eyes and look. Of course most of us that have been listening to the Yes We Can spill for the last 2 years already know the spin just continues to grow when anything is said about Obama.I thought Obama was the change man anyway? I don't see this being much of a change.Or if there is a change is it for the better of the country?

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 11:28 AM

Mr. Mills,

In response to your question, the government allocates $6,000,000. to every incoming president for their inauguration. That fund is automatically set up every four years as each president is sworn in.

To lazarus: finally someone that actually looks up the facts, thank you!

In addition, for the "outgoing president's" inaugural festivities- 90% of the $42,000.000 came from corporations and lobbyists.

Are we forever going to live in fear of another 911 because some of you feel the need to keep bringing it up. That is how Bush ran the last years of his white house and that is why the U.S. is in the toliet. FEAR ! Justify 30-50 billion dollars a month for a war we should never have started. You want to talk money, wake up!! Imagine how many people that money could have fed or how many jobs that could have been started here in America. ( not counting those that make combat boots) If you feel safer because of this ridiculous war then you are fooling no one but yourself and that is just want the past administration wanted you to do. Mission Accomplished !

-- Posted by up north on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 11:33 AM

Considering that they are estimating that the inauguration will cost somewhere around $150 million if not more and Obama's inaugural committee has only raised $41 million to cover the cost, then you can rest assure that us the taxpayers are footing the rest of the bill. I find it tacky and somewhat offensive that people are losing jobs and their home but yet the government is partying as usual at the taxpayer's expense yet Obama says we are all going to have to make sacrifices. Where is government making theirs? It is just sad and pathetic and typical government and just further proof that there is no real "change." I really don't care if it would have been McCain or Obama spending the money, it is just wrong. What is even worse is they are going to turn around and ask us to foot yet another trillion dollars on a stimulus plan that may or may not work based on a lot of what ifs.

The thing that is really ironic though is that four years ago this same Democratic party threw a fit about how much George Bush spent but yet this year they are blowing him out of the water even during tougher economic times and yet it is ok now to spend so much money. This is why I have given up on the Democratic party because they are becoming even worse than the Republican party and nothing more than hypocrites. Having a small formal ceremony that cost far less will not make it any less historic but it would set a strong tone to the American people that our government is actually interested in solving our nation's problem.

I love this fact . . . during World War I, President Wilson did not have any parties at his 1917 inaugural saying that such festivities would be undignified. Sounds like a smart man to me but unfortunately intelligence is lacking in this day and age in our government.

Also, many of the fundraisers on Obama's inaugi\ural committee are well-known money men and women in Democratic circles. Those leading the list raised at least $300,000. They include two of Obama's top campaign fundraisers: Louis Susman, who retired this month as vice chairman of banking giant and government bailout recipient Citigroup, and billionaire Hyatt hotel heiress Penny Pritzker. How much bailout money have we issued to Citigroup? Well, I can smell the change already and it smells like cow manure.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 11:43 AM

"The big problem is the way the media reports it."

i might be a little confused, but isnt the CRITICAL article you referenced from a media source?

it should come as no surprise that democratic leaning media sources praise all things democratic and criticize all things republican, and republican leaning media sources praise all things republican and criticize all things democratic.

they both should be arrested and charged with abuse of facts.

-- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 11:53 AM

UpNorth

I guess you think pulling out of Iraq by 2011 (if Iraq is stable of course) is a plan to actually get our troops out of Iraq? In case you didn't know that is 2 years down the road. Another 2 years of 30 billion dollars a month. How does this plan differ than the plan McCain talked about? On top of that we will probably be in the mist of more conflicts long before our troops are taken from Iraq. Just pick one Pakistan, Israel, Iran.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 12:00 PM

I am not sure where the rant came from about my mention of September 11th and security, but.... your interpretation must make sense... to you.

President Wilson's response seems appropriate. THAT would impress me. Business as usual is NOT what I thought was promised but, there will be a lot of promises that fall by the wayside.

This is not meant as a political statement regarding a specific party or candidate, just a statement of opinion based on political history.

-- Posted by stevemills on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 12:13 PM

I for one will be glad when the Bush administration is over. I will be even happier when Obama supporters are free (or may I hope obligated) to stop using criticism of Bush's administrations and are free to let Mr. Obama's administration stand on the accomplishments or failures that it generates. One question I would like to see answered is what provisions have been made to put in attendance to the inauguration ceremonies those folks who have placed most hope in the new regime - the hopeless, the downtrodden, the poor, etc. Thay are supposed to share in the new change. Are they going to be there for the beginning? If any of the money is being spent for this I deem it money well spent.

-- Posted by devan on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 1:36 PM

like someone else said it would be nice to have a leader who could set a good example. I made jokes before about the "obamasiah" and him being lord and saviour,but this is starting to get ridiculous. I feel like a lot of voters are in for a big dose of buyers remorse.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 2:21 PM

Be careful what you wish for , because you just might get it.

-- Posted by michaelbell on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 3:16 PM

I was doing some reading and learned something, the Caesar's of Rome were given expensive parties for their entrance into power[ and after also]

The athletes were the highest paid people in the nation, their armies were stretched financially.

I could point out several similarities between The Roman Empire and The American Empire but I will watch it unfold like everyone else.

Oh1 by the way, they[ Rome[ accepted all kinds of Religions]except Christianity and well we won't bring up the same sex issue.

All Empires must fall.

-- Posted by michaelbell on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 5:18 PM

michael,

you should have paid attention in history class. christianity became the official religion of the roman empire in 380.

the fall of the roman empire is generally accepted as being 96 years later, in 476, when the ottoman turks conquered it.

-- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 6:00 PM

Rome did give Christianity a little boost from time to time so they weren't all bad-any more than Egypt.

I guess all nations need to try and be as fair and compassionate and life-affirming as possible or they won't need outside enemies to destroy them.

They'll deteriorate from within,one individual at a time.

Has anyone heard whether the inauguration festivities are being used to help the less fortunate?

Donating food to hunger programs in lieu of one more bash,taking culinary "test drives" and party leftovers to food banks,shelters,etc; having a lot of the commemorative chatchkes made and sold by non-profits (who'd get the monies for all the souvenirs and such),having admissions to certain shindigs be food,clothes,toys,books,furniture,etc. and even having a Red Cross/Red Crescent van around to accept donations at a "Bring Fresh Blood to America!" party could be the beginning of a celebration that kicked off a practical and responsible trend for our country.

(The blood drive parties could attract a lot of the fans of heroic vampires.)

The First Fur-persons could be welcomed by gifts made on their behalf to animal charities.

There's no reason to confine this inauguration to the sort of bread-and-circuses that can be erased with a mop,broom and a little Alka-Seltzer.

It COULD be used to signal that fun and glory can co-exist with common sense and responsibility.

If that message could sink in,perhaps this administration could convince people the principle also works in reverse.

A rational lifestyle that values the well-being of others can also do us some good and be the sort of healthy and legal high available to anyone.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 6:26 PM

He might of made it legal, but it still was not accepted.

I was referring to the days of Paul in the early part of the first century.

Besides I question Constantine's devotion, according to some scholars he never truly converted.

He just wanted to keep his enemies close.

Constantine ended persecution of Christians in 313, but it continued in the East.

Baptized only a few days before his death in 337, if such a believer , why did he wait?.

The persecution might have ended in Rome, but not the Roman Empire.

All I am saying is , if you follow the patterns and cycles of world empires, we are a mirror image of Rome.

-- Posted by michaelbell on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 6:27 PM

Actually the "fall" was only in the western part of the empire (Rome)and the eastern empire (Constantinople) from which Constantine declared Christianity the official religion continued for another 1000 years.

-- Posted by devan on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 6:31 PM

yes, some consider the roman empire as not ending until 1453. constantinople was, of course, the seat of the eastern branch of christianity, which continues to exist today. rome was the seat of the western christianity. following the fall of rome, the europeans (which would be the roman empire in which mr bell tells us christianity was not accepted) also held fast to their christianity. europe's political and religious leaders hearkened back to the "good old days" under the romans to legitimize their positions... ever hear of the holy roman empire.

christianity was not only accepted by most of the empire, the empire probably did more to spread the gospel than all the modern churches combined.

if mr bell wants to be a teacher, first he should learn about his subject. his supposed parallels between the USA and rome simply dont exist.

-- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 7:00 PM

To answer your question Bo, "They don't care".

As far as paralells I will give you two a link to see what I mean go to www.voe.org and watch the last two episodes of Mannafest then type in"There was a great nation and read it.

I beg to differ my friend.

-- Posted by michaelbell on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 7:11 PM

Maybe Mr. Bell's parallels don't exist yet these and/or similar comparisons have been made for more than a century by academics and the ill informed. I am really not sure exactly what Michael's parallel was.

Michael, you really could benefit from spell checking and proof reading your posts. It really compromises your message when you neglect to do so. Minor errors can always slip through but with modern technology there is really no excuse. If you use Firefox it will even spell check as you type. Obviously you are not alone in this neglect.

-- Posted by devan on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 7:56 PM

sorry to say that my computer cant handle the video. but that really isnt important.

it isnt a history site, and i dont see any purpose in continuing into the merits of an argument based on historical innaccuracies.

the time of paul and the fall of the roman empire were either 400 years, or 1,400 years apart (depending on how you define the "fall"). this isnt something we speculate, it is something we know. there is no way to connect events that occur 20 generations apart. what effect do events from the year 1600 have on us today? are you saying that our current brutal oppression of christians here in the US will have serious repercussions...

around the year 2400?

if the website offers the same argument you have advanced, then it just goes to show that anyone can have a website.

i was offering serious advice earlier. if you want to be a teacher, learn. read some books. it is not unfaithful to make yourself familar with the chronology of the basic historical events from bible times.

-- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 8:52 PM

I read several books per month thank you.

I guess there is different versions of history.

-- Posted by michaelbell on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 9:11 PM

http://worldfuturefund.com/wffmaster/Rea...

no. there are not different versions of the basic facts. the above doesnt link to a site with a political or religious purpose. it is simply a recitation of the historical events from the last 100 years of the empire under christian leadership. the net result of this was the extirpation of other religions within the empire. other than a couple of leading paragraphs by a couple of historians, most of the linked text is a series of laws passed by the christian roman emperors regarding non-christian religions. they progress from shutting down non christian temples and altars to leveling them, to forbidding the practice of other religions at all, to finally making it a capital offense. the christian persecution of non christian religions during the final century before the fall was easily the equal of the persecution of christians some 400 years earlier.

but you dont have to believe any modern interpretation. go to that link and read the law of the land from that time, in the romans' own words.

-- Posted by lazarus on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 9:54 PM

What's 105 million dollars we can get the mint to print more dollars anyway! Besides money is an after thought America is having to live on I.O.U's and Loans from other countries. So spend away!!!

-- Posted by mtsufan on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 10:13 PM

Yea I know your child and your grand child and even your great grand children thank you for that thought.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Sun, Jan 18, 2009, at 10:52 PM

I thought these kind of blogs would stop once the election was over....guess not. *sigh*

-- Posted by GoTitans on Mon, Jan 19, 2009, at 1:08 AM

GoTitans . . . that is easily solved by not reading them if you do not like them.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Mon, Jan 19, 2009, at 7:47 AM

GoTitans,

These kind of blogs would stop....if our leadership would quit acting like morons.

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, Jan 19, 2009, at 12:06 PM

I think spending this kind of money on ANY kind of event is obscene. Especially considering our current financial state as a whole.

My disgust is only compounded by the fact that a huge party is being thrown (nation-wide), despite the fact that we are still engaged in war. Maybe I'm a killjoy, but it seems disrepectful to me.

Celebration is completely understandable, considering the historical impact of this event. An over-the-top, multi-million dollar party is not. Not to me, anyway.

-- Posted by Nobody'sFool on Mon, Jan 19, 2009, at 12:09 PM

I just read this on CNN . . "President-elect Barack Obama's inaugural address is one of the most anticipated speeches in decades, with many expecting his words to be chiseled into marble some day."

Like really, this is how far the hype has gone. I would understand if he had a huge list of accomplishment but he had a mediocre run in state government and as a US Senator and that is it. Wait four years and see what he has done and if he has done great and marvelous things then celebrate him but this whole hype and love fest of someone with no real experience or accomplishments just shows how simple minded we are as a nation. I am a person who believes in actions and not words and so far he has proven he is a master of the spoken word but that doesn't fix things because action is what gets things done and he has yet to do that.

It just blows my mind how easily so many Americans can be seduced in such a manner. I understand being excited about the historical aspect of a black president but this is going far beyond that. People are forgetting about reality and setting themselves up for a huge disappointment after building the pedestal so high. What happens in four years when Obama has had a mediocre presidency filled with mistakes and miscues? People will look back and see how ridiculous all of this was. I hope he does amazing things but we have to have some perspective of the situation and come back to reality. I am just afraid people will become even more disgruntled and disillusioned when Obama doesn't live up to what they have dreamed him to be.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Mon, Jan 19, 2009, at 1:34 PM

There is no mortal man who could live up to the image they are portraying for Obama.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Jan 19, 2009, at 3:13 PM

Even God can't keep up with our demands.

He's stuck with reality-and so are our earthly leaders.

If we try to help as much as we hype and cajole and if the people in charge don't get too sold on their own press,maybe we could make some headway worth celebrating instead of slip-covering the deck chairs on the Titanic while the waters rise to the ceilings in our staterooms.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Mon, Jan 19, 2009, at 5:39 PM

There is no mortal man who could live up to the image they are portraying for Obama.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Mon, Jan 19, 2009, at 3:13 PM

I really feel for the guy. There is no way but to fall off such a high pedestal. It is going to be hard for him to even come close to living up to the measurement they have given him.

I did not vote for him and still do not think he is qualified for such a task but I do pray that he makes it through the treacherous waters that he is stepping into. He is my president also.

-- Posted by parkerbrothers on Mon, Jan 19, 2009, at 7:34 PM

I think they are projecting the image of "Do as I say, not as I do." It's OK for our pres-elect to spend millions of donated money for what is essentially a dinner/dance, while we have lots of folks struggling to pay bills. I don't think it's wrong for them to have a nice night, but within reason. I agree with Steve that it's helping someones economy, and the Washington DC area will make money off the inauguration, like we do with the Celebration, but it's only a every 4 year event.

-- Posted by Sharon22 on Sat, Jan 17, 2009, at 9:21 PM

Sort of the same argument from the left.. Why do we spend hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign countries fighting wars with no results? Why do feed, clothe, and protect terrorists in government paid detention camps? Why do we bail out savings and loan institutions who knowingly caused their own nightmares? The arguments are endless, and it is about time you, and everyone else act like Christians and truly pray for him. Enough of this Sunday Christian crap, and then Monday comes along and all you can do is whine and complain and blame people for everything? The man has not even become president and you are already so anxious to count him out.

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Mon, Jan 19, 2009, at 8:05 PM

Enough of this Sunday Christian crap, and then Monday comes along and all you can do is whine and complain and blame people for everything?

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Mon, Jan 19, 2009, at 8:05 PM

Advice well given is advice well taken.

-- Posted by devan on Mon, Jan 19, 2009, at 8:45 PM

Advice well given is advice well taken.

-- Posted by devan on Mon, Jan 19, 2009, at 8:45 PM

Glad you admit it ;)

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Mon, Jan 19, 2009, at 9:56 PM

Jesuslovesevery1,

What is it about socialism you like so much. To say Obama is anything else is just well silly

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Mon, Jan 19, 2009, at 10:26 PM

up north, and lazarus thank you for giving those information, also I noticed alot of celebrity involvement taking part as well. Lazarus, and jesuslovesevery1 good advice and you two have spoken "right" on the real deal.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Tue, Jan 20, 2009, at 1:55 AM

Bo, I don't think the people of America were planning on this being a "Small" event but definitely a "Meaningful Ceremony". People from every where are planning on being their for this "Historic Event" It is Destined to be Huge.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Tue, Jan 20, 2009, at 2:04 AM

Advice well given is advice well taken.

-- Posted by devan on Mon, Jan 19, 2009, at 8:45 PM

Glad you admit it ;)

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Mon, Jan 19, 2009, at 9:56 PM

Sorry to see you can't take it.

-- Posted by devan on Tue, Jan 20, 2009, at 6:13 AM

jesuslovesevery1 . . . "The man has not even become president and you are already so anxious to count him out."

Funny though that people like you seem to believe he has already solved the world's problems and is the next messiah. It floats both ways. He is a politician . . . nothing more and nothing less until he has proven otherwise.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Jan 20, 2009, at 6:27 AM

Jesusloveseveryone,

I seem to recall basically saying and will still say too much money is being spent for most of todays events. I will also state that in regards to actors and pro-sports players salaries and the bailouts or ANY money inappropriately spent. I would say that no matter whom was taking office, what color they were or how "historic" an event this is. The Bible states that we are to pray for those who are in authority over us, period. I would even pray for you or anyone else that wanted me to, so please do not call me a Sunday Christian when you do not know me. I may not agree with Obama's policies, but I am willing to give him the opportunity to succeed. I will say I do like him as a person. I am a big believer in personal responsibility, and do not expect any person or the government to bail me out if I screw up.

-- Posted by Sharon22 on Tue, Jan 20, 2009, at 10:18 AM

Funny though that people like you seem to believe he has already solved the world's problems and is the next messiah.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Jan 20, 2009, at 6:27 AM

Pure unabashed opinion... with not one sentiment of truth. The only person to proclaim he has solved all of our problems and is the Messiah is YOU putting words in my mouth...

-- Posted by jesuslovesevery1 on Tue, Jan 20, 2009, at 11:17 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Bo Melson is a retired sports and police beat editor of the Times-Gazette.
Hot topics
Shelbyville Mills School
(759 ~ 5:22 PM, Jul 29)

Does TV Hold Us Captive?
(7 ~ 6:04 PM, Jul 26)

Just Some Thoughts
(92 ~ 10:40 PM, Jul 25)

Any haunted places?
(37 ~ 6:15 PM, Jul 23)

Iraq...Again
(40 ~ 5:53 AM, Jul 11)