Big Spender Obama
Since the earlier joke didn't set well with many readers, I apologize to those who were offended.
Racism is a serious issue and accusation and certainly was never the intent.
For the remainder of the weekend, we'll move on to some real facts regarding the candidates and see if we can get some discussion on these issues.
Waste is definitely prevalent in Washington and both parties are to blame.
But with Obama touting “change”, can we really believe anything he says based on his track record.
McCain has always been the maverick when it comes to earmarks and the pork-barrel spending, so Obama will never be able to win that comparison.
But the mainstream media continually acts as if Palin is a spender because of the Bridge-to-nowhere issue. Senator Demint summarized some details in the Wall Street Journal recently.
Here are some of the facts:
• Governor Palin vetoed more local projects than any other governor in the Alaska's history.
• She cut nearly 10% of Alaska's budget this year, saving state residents $268 million.
o This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system.
o She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were "not a state responsibility."
• Obama voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year including the following:
o $12 million for bicycle paths
o $450,000 for the International Peace Museum
o $500,000 for a baseball stadium
o and $392,000 for a visitor's center in Louisiana.
• Governor Palin cut Alaska's federal earmark requests in half last year which was one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor
• Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year
o Obama requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005
o His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.
• Governor Palin killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state.
o It is true that she once supported the project, but after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did change her position and saved taxpayers millions.
o Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge project. So yes she did flip-flop but unlike most flip-flopping democrats, she changed and made the right decision.
o When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, both Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.
• Governor Palin has also taken on the big spenders in her own party.
o In March of this year, the Anchorage Daily News reported that, "Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is aggravated about what he sees as Gov. Sarah Palin's antagonism toward the earmarks he uses to steer federal money to the state."
• Obama failed when he had a chance to take on his party when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered a sham ethics bill, which was widely criticized by watchdog groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste for shielding earmarks from public scrutiny.
o Obama voted for the bill rather than standing up for taxpayers
o Obama is now claiming he helped write the bill that failed to clean up Washington.
• Obama just this year (election year) is claiming to co-sponsor an earmark moratorium authored by Mr. McCain.
I’d say based on this information, Obama is less than honest and really has no facts to support a claim that he will cut spending.
Governor Palin is one of the strongest antiearmark governors in America and if other legislators would follow her lead, we might finally be able to balance a budget and spend less than we take in.
If change is going to occur with finances, the McCain/Palin ticket is by far our best chance.
Racism is a serious issue and accusation and certainly was never the intent.
For the remainder of the weekend, we'll move on to some real facts regarding the candidates and see if we can get some discussion on these issues.
Waste is definitely prevalent in Washington and both parties are to blame.
But with Obama touting “change”, can we really believe anything he says based on his track record.
McCain has always been the maverick when it comes to earmarks and the pork-barrel spending, so Obama will never be able to win that comparison.
But the mainstream media continually acts as if Palin is a spender because of the Bridge-to-nowhere issue. Senator Demint summarized some details in the Wall Street Journal recently.
Here are some of the facts:
• Governor Palin vetoed more local projects than any other governor in the Alaska's history.
• She cut nearly 10% of Alaska's budget this year, saving state residents $268 million.
o This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system.
o She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were "not a state responsibility."
• Obama voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year including the following:
o $12 million for bicycle paths
o $450,000 for the International Peace Museum
o $500,000 for a baseball stadium
o and $392,000 for a visitor's center in Louisiana.
• Governor Palin cut Alaska's federal earmark requests in half last year which was one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor
• Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year
o Obama requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005
o His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.
• Governor Palin killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state.
o It is true that she once supported the project, but after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation's budget, she did change her position and saved taxpayers millions.
o Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge project. So yes she did flip-flop but unlike most flip-flopping democrats, she changed and made the right decision.
o When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, both Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.
• Governor Palin has also taken on the big spenders in her own party.
o In March of this year, the Anchorage Daily News reported that, "Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is aggravated about what he sees as Gov. Sarah Palin's antagonism toward the earmarks he uses to steer federal money to the state."
• Obama failed when he had a chance to take on his party when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered a sham ethics bill, which was widely criticized by watchdog groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste for shielding earmarks from public scrutiny.
o Obama voted for the bill rather than standing up for taxpayers
o Obama is now claiming he helped write the bill that failed to clean up Washington.
• Obama just this year (election year) is claiming to co-sponsor an earmark moratorium authored by Mr. McCain.
I’d say based on this information, Obama is less than honest and really has no facts to support a claim that he will cut spending.
Governor Palin is one of the strongest antiearmark governors in America and if other legislators would follow her lead, we might finally be able to balance a budget and spend less than we take in.
If change is going to occur with finances, the McCain/Palin ticket is by far our best chance.
posted by Anonymous at 8:36 PM
16 Comments:
How can McCain, a 20 year Washington insider and a republican who voted with Bush be an agent of change? His whole "shake up Washington" theme is ironic, since he's part of the problem we're trying to shake up.
Let's see. You apologize, but you don't remove the offending post.
It was distressing, so you posted it anyway in the first place.
Racism was never the intent, and you apologize while not addressing the racism issue ... and did I mention that the offending post is still up.
Would it be a redundancy to suggest that you really don't get it, do you?
Regarding: "Racism is a serious issue and accusation and certainly was never the intent."
Then what was the intent?
From my perspective,it is a blatently racist cartoon meant to evoke ridicule of a black man presuming to aspire to the presidency. It says nothing about his record, or his political beliefs or his formal qualifications or lack of them. It simply plays to an old style racist stereotype.
If you saw something else in the cartoon, what was it? And would you be comfortable explaining to the hospital board chairman your reasons for posting it?
Dr. Eichenberger,
If I may try to answer the intent I think it might be something like this.
The intent was to use a common form of joke-telling using homophones to buildup to a punchline which only makes sense when accompanied by an approximation of a presidential candidate using exaggerated features while still being easily recognized.
-The above statement does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the original poster.-
For the past several months, political satire has been abundant as we near election day. There have been spoofs on all of the candidates. Prior to the democtatic candidate nominee being finalized, much humor was directed at Hilary. Could some of this be considered as discriminatory?
The cartoon was political satire, a joke. Leave it at that. As a racially-mixed American, I didn't think anything of it.
Stop putting people under microscopes unless you are willing to step under the high powered lens first.
Life could be worse!
You could be in Texas with no electrically and a flooded home. Be thankful for your blessings and this great country where we can enjoy the 1st amendment - freely.
Roger,
I am extremely disappointed at your hypocrisy and elitist attitude. I really was hoping you were going to stay above this, but I can see I was wrong
If being offensive to a few individuals is a reason to remove posts, you would not have a blog.
You demean, critisize, antagonize, name-call, and repeatedly post bigoted views especially to people of faith.
Yet this is acceptable.
You specifically stated you would not vote for Palin simply because of her religious views.
You got kicked out of a council meeting for a really horrible remark.
And now you judge a post that was intended as humor, posted as humor, intended as humor, and with the contributor even acknowledging and apologizing to those few it may have offended.
Your bigoted, elitist attitude is unbelieveable, but your ego is evidently so huge you'll never see it.
I have never once seen you acknowledge or apologize to anyone you have offended. Or do you not believe you have ever offended anyone.
Very shameful and even worse than all4word.
Bluegill so far has seemingly remained above this, but we'll see if he chimes in as well.
As a Black Man, I have withheld my comments thus far, but feel compelled to contribute.
I was not offended in any way with the post and did not view it as racist in any way. The caricature of Obama was visual humor and it exagerated some of his features as caricatures are supposed to do.
Black humor can be extremely funny just as white humor, religious humor or other humor.
It is only racist when it is done with the specific attitude and intent of motivating racial disharmony.
This post was not done in that spirit and anyone following this blog knows that.
I agree there must be other underlying motives for some of these hateful comments toward the author of the blog.
I find most of this blog to be informative, some to be extremely funny and other posts I don't agree with, but overall I have never seen anything to be bigoted or racist.
As Barck Obama said; "enough is enough"
Let's see some of you intellectuals actually address some of these issues and differences between the candidates.
McCain and Palin will be reformers. He has disagreed with Bush on torture, finance reform, tax cuts as they were originally proposed, pork projects and several other issues.
He has voted along with Bush proposals only becuase they were the lesser of two bad choices and there is no other way to vote.
His record shows he will govern differently and certainly will be better for America than Obama
Palin's record as listed here is far better than Obama's continued rhetoric
I can't believe that a constantly moralizing, religion-on-his-sleeve guy like HB allows that racially insulting cartoon to remain on his blog site. Waiting for the newspaper to pick up the story or what? Maybe you will explain why you think it is worthy of publication to your friends at church tomorrow.
Once again, drop the racial attacks. What Roger did to incite this was just like what Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton does routinely. He should be ashamed as well as those who continue to try and make something out of nothing
This was intended as humor and if you do not see it that way, maybe you are the one who has the problem.
How sadly typical of the prevailing local standard of cowardice that both Dr. Dan and myself are known entitities ... but I digress.
Anonymous mentions "What Roger did to incite this ... "
Really? Here's the sum total of it, copied verbatim from NAC, and I do believe not entirely indicative of the sort of invective anonymous cites:
Title: "Is race baiting a medical art?"
As I commented the other day over at NA Health, there's at least an outside chance that our local medical blogger might return to commenting on health issues some day ... but not before the right wing venom's all depleted.
Sorry, Doc -- gotta call you out on this one. Without further comment, here is today's "healthy" humor.
(link to) A most distressing knock-knock joke
Please reserve some of your opprobrium for the poor taste that Dan exhibited in running the "humor" in the first place. The remainder of it is bluster and BS, don't you think?
I might be mistaken but I thought the race for the presidency was between McCain and Obama, not Palin and Obama.
If being a Christian, as Dr. Dan claims to be includes racist "cartoons", and what seemed like a never ending hate mongering blogging against the ex-CEO of FMHHS I am glad to be an atheist.
Dr. Dan did everyone a favor when he helped get the CEO replaced.
It only took several years of work and a $13 million dollar loss before enough people finally admitted the problem.
Things at Floyd are so much better and continuing to improve and this would not have occured without his leadership and the sustained attacks on his character as is currently being done.
I'd bet most of you commenting have never met him or worked with him and therefore are passing judgment with zero knowledge.
I know Mr Baylor knows Dr. Dan, but for the rest of you, I'm not sure.
Mr. Baylor's blog has some very offensive posts but for some reason these never get commented on in any negative manner. I guess that is because he only allows friends to post.
I guess that is because he only allows friends to post.
Incorrect. Anyone may post provided they have the courage to stand behind their opinions by using a name or confiding their identities. I follow this policy because it reduces the instances of senseless flaming and embittered malice from people hiding behind pen names.
Thanks.
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick!
When is this damn country going to grow up and stop all of this political correct BS?
someone posted something offensive to someone...BFD, read it get insulted and move on...
NO ONE should feel to be forced to defend or explain anything they think, say or believe, nor should they be pressured into to censoring what they think, say or believe because someone finds it offensive...
For Gods sake, these days saying "have a good day" could be twisted into elitist behavior because it excludes those who work third shift!
Post a Comment
<< Home