Obama's 08' Earmarks vs. McCains

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

Let me get things clear here, he made a post about earmarks, and you are accusing him of being a homosexual?  I hate what the political forum has become.  You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Easy there, YoungTulsan.  I think we're accusing them of becoming aroused by Republican policy/buzzwords.  Sexy sexy earmarks.  Autoerotic arousal from drowning the government in a bathtub.

Is that the sound of Grover Nordquist masterbaiting...?  Geez, I can smell it from here... [)]

[we vs us]

I have to say my friends that I'm not willing to accept the premise of this post, which is that earmarks are the work of the devil and a "clean earmark record" is next to godliness.  I'm willing to concede that the process is bad (sneaking budget items into unrelated bills), but certainly not that the items themselves are unwarranted.  

Look, that bridge to nowhere was a bunch of crap.  Admitted.  A great example of an earmark gone awry  . . . and reportedly authored by Mr. Earmark himself, the Honorable, Indicted Ted Stevens of Alaska.  But what about the bills and things that need doing on a micro level within states?  Some of the individual stuff that needs doing is right up there on Obama's list:  infrastructure, economic development, health initiatives, lots of scientific research, and god bless him, some stuff for the arts (American Theater Company represent!  A real tragedy that they're leaving North Center for freaking trendoid Logan Square though . . .)

Anyhow, the only thing I see lacking with the earmarks system is a way to conduct oversight.  That, admittedly, is a major problem.  But a lot of Obama's stuff -- while Conservatives might plotz -- makes a whole lot of sense to me. And as an ex-Chicagoan, he's bringing home a lot of needed bacon to some seriously underserved areas.

PS. I'd applaud McCain's list too, if he had one.

[Conan71]

Uncle Gaspar!  Uncle Gaspar!

The liberal spinsharks are circling, the spinsharks are circling!!!!!

Help!!!

Help!!!

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Uncle Gaspar!  Uncle Gaspar!

The liberal spinsharks are circling, the spinsharks are circling!!!!!

Help!!!

Help!!!

Bah.  As led by Mssr. Reid and Pelosi, we're a toothless bunch of sharks.  Sad but true. Would that it were otherwise.

What do mean by spin?

[USRufnex]

Not spin.

TRUTH.

Obama is NUMBER EIGHTY ONE in a senate of 100 in earmarks.

If you and Gaspar were anything other than HYPOCRITS, you'd be railing against Inhofe's pork in the exact same way you're railing against a guy who is NUMBER EIGHTY ONE in a congress of 100 in use of earmarks... and you'd admit that Sarah Palin is being very disengenuous when she acts like her opposition to the "bridge to nowhere" was anything other than a parlor trick to KEEP THE MONEY while pretending to be a "maverick"...

The silence is deafening.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

I have to say my friends that I'm not willing to accept the premise of this post, which is that earmarks are the work of the devil and a "clean earmark record" is next to godliness.  I'm willing to concede that the process is bad (sneaking budget items into unrelated bills), but certainly not that the items themselves are unwarranted.  

Look, that bridge to nowhere was a bunch of crap.  Admitted.  A great example of an earmark gone awry  . . . and reportedly authored by Mr. Earmark himself, the Honorable, Indicted Ted Stevens of Alaska.  But what about the bills and things that need doing on a micro level within states?  Some of the individual stuff that needs doing is right up there on Obama's list:  infrastructure, economic development, health initiatives, lots of scientific research, and god bless him, some stuff for the arts (American Theater Company represent!  A real tragedy that they're leaving North Center for freaking trendoid Logan Square though . . .)

Anyhow, the only thing I see lacking with the earmarks system is a way to conduct oversight.  That, admittedly, is a major problem.  But a lot of Obama's stuff -- while Conservatives might plotz -- makes a whole lot of sense to me. And as an ex-Chicagoan, he's bringing home a lot of needed bacon to some seriously underserved areas.

PS. I'd applaud McCain's list too, if he had one.

I'm not making any judgment on earmarks.  My opinion is that they are underhanded and dishonest, but your opinion may be different.  

If you believe that earmarks are a good thing, then great!  If it's your opinion that the only way to get things done in government is to sneak or attach things that serve your constituents onto unrelated bills, then good for you.

I am with you on the fact that many Republicans are just as guilty if not more.  I think they should be held accountable too.  This is not a "single party" problem.  This is an addiction.  A problem.  A crack in the system that allows things to get funded through government that would never pass through a truthful and transparent system.

Adding layers of deception to government is the norm and it needs to be reduced (here comes the liberal talking point response).

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

Let me get things clear here, he made a post about earmarks, and you are accusing him of being a homosexual?  I hate what the political forum has become.  You should be ashamed of yourselves.

You drew that conclusion. I merely made an analogy to an activity that only includes people with a common purpose and a homogeneous makeup. If these guys want to have a small caucus of republican true believers then they should head out to Owasso and fulfill themselves. Its not discussion unless differing opinions are proffered.

If I had made the analogy that they were like herding animals baying at the moon would you think I had sunk to the level of calling them a pack of hyenas?

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Not spin.

TRUTH.

Obama is NUMBER EIGHTY ONE in a senate of 100 in earmarks.

If you and Gaspar were anything other than HYPOCRITS, you'd be railing against Inhofe's pork in the exact same way you're railing against a guy who is NUMBER EIGHTY ONE in a congress of 100 in use of earmarks... and you'd admit that Sarah Palin is being very disengenuous when she acts like her opposition to the "bridge to nowhere" was anything other than a parlor trick to KEEP THE MONEY while pretending to be a "maverick"...

The silence is deafening.

Yes when she was a mayor she voiced support for the bridge.  When she became Governor she reversed her opinion.  Let me explain a little what the bridge is and why there was mixed support for it.

Last year, I spent a wonderefull day in Ketchikan and learned a great deal about the Gravina Island Bridge.  



You see, Ketchikan is one of the most beautiful places on earth.  It is also quite remote and rugged.  

Fuel, cargo, people and nearly everything necessary for modern life has to be shipped in by boat.  Gasoline is several dollars a gallon more expensive than it is on the mainland.

Ketchikan has a very modest population of around 7,000 people, but every summer that population explodes with tourism.  Because of this, a large airport was built on Gravina island (across the bay from mainland Ketchikan).  This was the only flat developable land available for an airport.  The airport caused Ketchikan to boom even more with tourism and other industry.  Unfortunately people, cargo and food, had to be loaded on boats and ferried across the bay to the mainland.  Additionally, historic Ketichikan has very little land left for development that would not otherwise harm the pristine landscape.  As the city has grown, the people have wanted to develop housing and hotels on Gravina island to cope with the expansion without damaging forest and mountain land.

You see, the proposal of building a bridge across the bay is not so outrageous.  It was politicized based on its price as compared to the population of the city, rather than it's price vs. the tourism and growth potential.  

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the "Bridge",  far from it.  It was an earmark deal and therefore the wrong way to go about it.  Palin did good to take down the REPUBLICAN that proposed it.

I just wanted you to understand a little about what you are talking about.  It will help you in life.  If you understand your argument, you have a better chance of meaningful debate.

Raising your voice or resorting to name-calling is simply an indication that you have lost the argument.  

Talking points, without exception, are designed as tools to allow the unprepared and uneducated participate in the debate without an understanding of the subject matter.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

Originally posted by we vs us



I'm not making any judgment on earmarks.  

^Another example of how you can't even be honest with yourself.

Of course you made a judgement and you spent 30inches of thead space driving that judgement home to the approval of your other Republican (er, Independent) co-horts. Only after it was pointed out that it was an unfair comparison did you backtrack and correctly blame the system for allowing them and both sides for abusing them.

If your man Mc was a true Maverick he would have chosen Coburn as his running mate. Coburn brings nothing home to his state (then you could have two zero's on your list!) He also would love to strangle the government by proposing nothing to meet the needs of its citizens.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

Originally posted by we vs us



I'm not making any judgment on earmarks.  

^Another example of how you can't even be honest with yourself.

Of course you made a judgement and you spent 30inches of thead space driving that judgement home to the approval of your other Republican (er, Independent) co-horts. Only after it was pointed out that it was an unfair comparison did you backtrack and correctly blame the system for allowing them and both sides for abusing them.

If your man Mc was a true Maverick he would have chosen Coburn as his running mate. Coburn brings nothing home to his state (then you could have two zero's on your list!) He also would love to strangle the government by proposing nothing to meet the needs of its citizens.

So let me understand.  Do you believe that earmarks are the only way of meeting the needs of the citizens?

You are correct, I think strangling government would probably be a healthy thing.  Guilty.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Not spin.

TRUTH.

Obama is NUMBER EIGHTY ONE in a senate of 100 in earmarks.

If you and Gaspar were anything other than HYPOCRITS, you'd be railing against Inhofe's pork in the exact same way you're railing against a guy who is NUMBER EIGHTY ONE in a congress of 100 in use of earmarks... and you'd admit that Sarah Palin is being very disengenuous when she acts like her opposition to the "bridge to nowhere" was anything other than a parlor trick to KEEP THE MONEY while pretending to be a "maverick"...

The silence is deafening.

Yes when she was a mayor she voiced support for the bridge.  When she became Governor she reversed her opinion.  Let me explain a little what the bridge is and why there was mixed support for it.

Last year, I spent a wonderefull day in Ketchikan and learned a great deal about the Gravina Island Bridge.  



You see, Ketchikan is one of the most beautiful places on earth.  It is also quite remote and rugged.  

Fuel, cargo, people and nearly everything necessary for modern life has to be shipped in by boat.  Gasoline is several dollars a gallon more expensive than it is on the mainland.

Ketchikan has a very modest population of around 7,000 people, but every summer that population explodes with tourism.  Because of this, a large airport was built on Gravina island (across the bay from mainland Ketchikan).  This was the only flat developable land available for an airport.  The airport caused Ketchikan to boom even more with tourism and other industry.  Unfortunately people, cargo and food, had to be loaded on boats and ferried across the bay to the mainland.  Additionally, historic Ketichikan has very little land left for development that would not otherwise harm the pristine landscape.  As the city has grown, the people have wanted to develop housing and hotels on Gravina island to cope with the expansion without damaging forest and mountain land.

You see, the proposal of building a bridge across the bay is not so outrageous.  It was politicized based on its price as compared to the population of the city, rather than it's price vs. the tourism and growth potential.  

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the "Bridge",  far from it.  It was an earmark deal and therefore the wrong way to go about it.  Palin did good to take down the REPUBLICAN that proposed it.

I just wanted you to understand a little about what you are talking about.  It will help you in life.  If you understand your argument, you have a better chance of meaningful debate.

Raising your voice or resorting to name-calling is simply an indication that you have lost the argument.  

Talking points, without exception, are designed as tools to allow the unprepared and uneducated participate in the debate without an understanding of the subject matter.

You're so good at rewriting and re-intrepreting history Gas. And we're all so in debt to your condescending, psuedo-individualist education efforts.

Only problem is, lots of transcripts and videos prove she strongly supported the bridge. She didn't propose it but worked with Stevens to bring it home even when the rest of Congress including her running mate , chose the bridge as the perfect example of earmark abuse! Was McCain not ready for meaningful debate on the subject? Was he unprepared, uneducated and lacking in understanding? Dang, he lost your phone number I guess.

She continued to make efforts to bring that earmark money home even after Congress rebuked her and only turned on her fellow Republican grifter when it bacame obvious he was a liability. Eventually she brought home a over 200 million of the money and spread it to other projects. Good politician but not good work, bub.

Ironically, I saw a lot of the same arguments you make for this bridge thoroughly repudiated in discussions of river development here in Tulsa.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

Originally posted by we vs us



I'm not making any judgment on earmarks.  

^Another example of how you can't even be honest with yourself.

Of course you made a judgement and you spent 30inches of thead space driving that judgement home to the approval of your other Republican (er, Independent) co-horts. Only after it was pointed out that it was an unfair comparison did you backtrack and correctly blame the system for allowing them and both sides for abusing them.

If your man Mc was a true Maverick he would have chosen Coburn as his running mate. Coburn brings nothing home to his state (then you could have two zero's on your list!) He also would love to strangle the government by proposing nothing to meet the needs of its citizens.

So let me understand.  Do you believe that earmarks are the only way of meeting the needs of the citizens?

You are correct, I think strangling government would probably be a healthy thing.  Guilty.

You ask the wrong question in an effort to divert attention from your hypocrisy and dishonesty. Its not the only way and you're narrowing of the issue that way suits only you.

Its not about whether earmarks meet the needs of citizens. Its obvious they do. In the absence of any other system to accomplish meeting your constituencies needs, it will continue to flourish.  In this sense, you're not an Independent. You're an anarchist. Destroy the system with no replacement and you serve only your ego. You want to drive the car to the crusher because the fuel system leaks.

I won't deny that you are good at your task which is clever manipulation of facts, words, and people. That's probably why you're in consulting. Consultants get paid to tell businessment what they want to hear, what they already know and what they'll never do.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

Not spin.

TRUTH.

Obama is NUMBER EIGHTY ONE in a senate of 100 in earmarks.

If you and Gaspar were anything other than HYPOCRITS, you'd be railing against Inhofe's pork in the exact same way you're railing against a guy who is NUMBER EIGHTY ONE in a congress of 100 in use of earmarks... and you'd admit that Sarah Palin is being very disengenuous when she acts like her opposition to the "bridge to nowhere" was anything other than a parlor trick to KEEP THE MONEY while pretending to be a "maverick"...

The silence is deafening.

Yes when she was a mayor she voiced support for the bridge.  When she became Governor she reversed her opinion.  Let me explain a little what the bridge is and why there was mixed support for it.

Last year, I spent a wonderefull day in Ketchikan and learned a great deal about the Gravina Island Bridge.  



You see, Ketchikan is one of the most beautiful places on earth.  It is also quite remote and rugged.  

Fuel, cargo, people and nearly everything necessary for modern life has to be shipped in by boat.  Gasoline is several dollars a gallon more expensive than it is on the mainland.

Ketchikan has a very modest population of around 7,000 people, but every summer that population explodes with tourism.  Because of this, a large airport was built on Gravina island (across the bay from mainland Ketchikan).  This was the only flat developable land available for an airport.  The airport caused Ketchikan to boom even more with tourism and other industry.  Unfortunately people, cargo and food, had to be loaded on boats and ferried across the bay to the mainland.  Additionally, historic Ketichikan has very little land left for development that would not otherwise harm the pristine landscape.  As the city has grown, the people have wanted to develop housing and hotels on Gravina island to cope with the expansion without damaging forest and mountain land.

You see, the proposal of building a bridge across the bay is not so outrageous.  It was politicized based on its price as compared to the population of the city, rather than it's price vs. the tourism and growth potential.  

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the "Bridge",  far from it.  It was an earmark deal and therefore the wrong way to go about it.  Palin did good to take down the REPUBLICAN that proposed it.

I just wanted you to understand a little about what you are talking about.  It will help you in life.  If you understand your argument, you have a better chance of meaningful debate.

Raising your voice or resorting to name-calling is simply an indication that you have lost the argument.  

Talking points, without exception, are designed as tools to allow the unprepared and uneducated participate in the debate without an understanding of the subject matter.

You're so good at rewriting and re-intrepreting history Gas. And we're all so in debt to your condescending, psuedo-individualist education efforts.

Only problem is, lots of transcripts and videos prove she strongly supported the bridge. She didn't propose it but worked with Stevens to bring it home even when the rest of Congress including her running mate , chose the bridge as the perfect example of earmark abuse! Was McCain not ready for meaningful debate on the subject? Was he unprepared, uneducated and lacking in understanding? Dang, he lost your phone number I guess.

She continued to make efforts to bring that earmark money home even after Congress rebuked her and only turned on her fellow Republican grifter when it bacame obvious he was a liability. Eventually she brought home a over 200 million of the money and spread it to other projects. Good politician but not good work, bub.

Ironically, I saw a lot of the same arguments you make for this bridge thoroughly repudiated in discussions of river development here in Tulsa.

I would like to learn more.  Could you provide me with more information?  Perhaps some reputable sources?

[waterboy]

Yes, I can. I just listened and watched them yesterday. Surprised you haven't. I'll get the links today and post them. I think it was the NY Times and Youtube.

She was pretty forthright about working with Stevens and supporting the bridge.

[akupetsky]

^^Read this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122090791901411709.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

(it's the wallstreet journal, not huffington or dailykos).