Forums | MacLife

mo' ron wrote:

From what I could find the Bridge to Nowhere wasn't officially killed until 07 after it came under a lot of scrutiny. Ted Stevens tried his best to keep it alive (probably getting kickbacks from the construction companies).

He's talking about when the earmark was killed in Congress.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - Congressional Republicans decided Wednesday to take a legislative wrecking ball to two Alaskan bridge projects that had demolished the party's reputation for fiscal austerity.

Straining to show new dedication to lower spending, House and Senate negotiators took the rare step of eliminating a requirement that $442 million be spent to build the two bridges, spans that became cemented in the national consciousness as "bridges to nowhere" because of the remote territory and small populations involved.

Link.

That article is from Nov. 2005.

Farmerkev wrote:

bratboy wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

From what I could find the Bridge to Nowhere wasn't officially killed until 07 after it came under a lot of scrutiny. Ted Stevens tried his best to keep it alive (probably getting kickbacks from the construction companies).

He's talking about when the earmark was killed in Congress.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - Congressional Republicans decided Wednesday to take a legislative wrecking ball to two Alaskan bridge projects that had demolished the party's reputation for fiscal austerity.

Straining to show new dedication to lower spending, House and Senate negotiators took the rare step of eliminating a requirement that $442 million be spent to build the two bridges, spans that became cemented in the national consciousness as "bridges to nowhere" because of the remote territory and small populations involved.

Link.

That article is from Nov. 2005.

Alaska still got the money and could still use it for the bridge though.
She is the one that killed it.

If by kill it you mean built the road to nowhere™ so she could keep those funds.

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Alaska still got the money and could still use it for the bridge though.
She is the one that killed it.

Who cares?

She ran for governor on a platform of supporting the project.  She went to the area and decried the fact that they were being labeled as "nowhere."  After Congress had already removed the earmark, after the project became a national laughingstock, she finally relented and put an end (sort of) to the more expensive bridge plans--not citing waste, but noting that it had drawn too much unfair negative attention and that Congress was no longer interested in paying for it. 

Now she's adopted the phase she once rejected--"bridge to nowhere"--and is claiming that she told Congress "thanks but no thanks."  She didn't tell Congress anything, she still supported the project when the earmark was removed, and she took all the money anyway.  Her story is bullsmurf.

Was she the one that killed the project, yes or no.

Look again at that statement from his campaign:

"The fact is that once Governor Palin was elected and had an opportunity to look closely at the project, she killed it," he said in an e-mailed statement. "She fought for Congress to kill the provision, but they sent the funds anyway. Palin fired the kill shot by not using a dime of that money on the bridge."

"She fought for Congress to kill the provision."  No she didn't, Congress had already killed the earmark before Palin became governor--during the time that she still supported it. 

And what did she say at the point she decided to kill the project?

"It's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Palin said then.

Right, square that with the notion that she was the one pushing Congress to get rid of the earmark.

What a completely unexpected response.

When did I say that democratic politicians don't "distort?"  What do those unrelated situations (and I'm not bothering to even watch them because they don't have anything to do with what was being discussed) have to do with the discussion at hand? 

You should know better than to think I'd fall for that attempted deflection.  If you've run out of arguments regarding the topic being discussed, so be it.

Farmerkev wrote:

My objection is simple, you only care about what you perceive to be R distortions and couldn't care less about the D's.
It's not the distortion and lying that's got you upset, it's because it's against your team.
I really don't care for either guy, they both are ignoring what I consider to be our biggest problem and actually want to make it worse. If forced to pick it would be Obama based on the narrowest of slight differences but it certainly wouldn't be because he's any more honorable than McCain because frankly, he isn't. For people that decry swiftboating I'm seeing plenty of it coming from them.

Name it.

Sorry, I meant the last thing you posted. Name what Obama's campaign has done that's comparable to swiftboating. Honestly, I can't think of anything that McCain's done yet that's as reprehensible as the swift boat attacks.

Tallgeese wrote:

Sorry, I meant the last thing you posted. Name what Obama's campaign has done that's comparable to swiftboating. Honestly, I can't think of anything that McCain's done yet that's as reprehensible as the swift boat attacks.

wiki wrote:

Swiftboating is American political jargon that refers to the unsubstantiated allegations of a politician's personal history, or unsubstantiated allegations on other levels, by people who may or may not have accurate information and the publishing of such. The term "Swiftboating" is often utilized as an evasive measure designed to produce an emotional as opposed to a rational response when the targeted or objecting parties do not or cannot produce actual proof or documentation to refute the allegations against them, and becomes, in effect, a counter-smear obviating the need for counter-proof, when used improperly.

I think quite a bit that's been slung from both sides, not necessarily the candidates themselves so far,  falls under this definition and I'd agree that nothing is to the Kerry level yet. I do expect it to come.

Farmerkev wrote:

My objection is simple, you only care about what you perceive to be R distortions and couldn't care less about the D's.
It's not the distortion and lying that's got you upset, it's because it's against your team.
I really don't care for either guy, they both are ignoring what I consider to be our biggest problem and actually want to make it worse. If forced to pick it would be Obama based on the narrowest of slight differences but it certainly wouldn't be because he's any more honorable than McCain because frankly, he isn't. For people that decry swiftboating I'm seeing plenty of it coming from them.

The problem here as I see it is that this election is about so much that needs to be changed and McCain / Palin are only concerned with winning the election and apparently not changing anything. . . Bush tax cuts will remain in place, continuing in the middle east ad infinitum, no real lobbyist reform, if the number of lobbyists connected with his campaign is taken as a bellweather of how he actually feels about the issue irrespective of what he SAYS about it.

bratboy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

My objection is simple, you only care about what you perceive to be R distortions and couldn't care less about the D's.
It's not the distortion and lying that's got you upset, it's because it's against your team.

I couldn't care less?  If you'd like to discuss some other "distortion" by another person concerning another subject, start a thread about it.  I'd probably even agree with you in many situations.  Here, you didn't have a relevant response to my argument, so you came back with the sad and predictable "Oh yeah, well why aren't you talking about this unrelated subject?"  Where was the outrage there?" 

Why should I be persuaded by this?  Is this your new 'thing' now--to incessantly remind everyone that 'it's all been done before' and 'they're all crooks' and 'everyone does it' and 'someone else did something similar at some point so it doesn't matter now?' 

We get it.  It's boring, and does nothing for the discussion. 

Palin has repeated this line at pretty much every appearance she's made in the last two weeks--over 20 times herself, I believe.  It's constantly touted as one of her greatest accomplishments and supposedly ties into the message of their campaign.  Excuse the hell out of me for talking about it.  You want to talk about something else, start a frickin' thread.

Pretty much in the recent go around I was telling you that you're being too biased.
As far as boring, constant bashing of one side while ignore the smurf from the other is also boring and hardly a discussion.

Farmerkev wrote:

Pretty much in the recent go around I was telling you that you're being too biased.

I appreciate your input. 

As far as boring, constant bashing of one side while ignore the smurf from the other is also boring and hardly a discussion.

I've ignored it?  At any point in this thread did I claim that Obama's campaign is wholly innocent of distorting the words of their opponents?  At any point have I claimed that democrats are completely innocent of similar behavior?

No, of course not.  I don't know if you're frustrated because you don't like the argument I'm making yet can't seem to come up with a rebuttal or what, but "the other side does it too!"-type responses are lazy and simply demonstrate that you have nothing to say.

You're free to bring up any other subject you'd like here, but complaining that I'm "biased" because I'm talking about one particular event without mentioning ALL conceivably similar events is just stupid.

Is Richard Nixon McCain's new campaign manager?

Sooo...
Thread is 'about' celebrity takes on Palin. OK. I signed up just to get this:

mber 14, 2008

   
UH OH!
Current mood:  shocked

I really cannot bite my tongue anymore when it comes to Sarah Palin.

I couldn't be more supportive of a woman in office, but let's face it, it comes down to the person, and their beliefs, male or female.

Is it a sin to be gay? Should it be a sin to be straight? Or to use birth control? Or to have sex before marriage? Or even to have a child out of wedlock?

I find it quite interesting that a woman who now is running to be second in command of the United States, only 4 years ago had aspirations to be a television anchor. Which is probably all she is qualified to be... Also interesting that she got her passport in 2006.. And that she is not fond of environmental protection considering she's FOR drilling for oil in some of our protected land.... Well hey, if she wants to drill for oil, she should DO IT IN HER OWN backyard. This really shows me her complete lack of real preparation to become the second most powerful person in this country.

Hmmmm-All of this gets me going-Fear, Anxiety, Concern, Disappointment, and Stress come into play...

Is our country so divided that the Republicans best hope is a narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe?

I know that the most important thing about this election is that people need to exercise their right to vote, regardless of their choice... I would have liked to have remained impartial, however I am afraid that the "lipstick on a pig" comments will overshadow the issues and the fact that I believe Barack Obama is the best choice, in this election, for president...

Palin's Desire to "save and convert the gays"-really??

According to this Associated Press story, the church of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is hosting a kind of conference devoted to the "conversion of Gays" -- no kidding.

Here's the AP text:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) ? Gov. Sarah Palin's church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.

You'll be encouraged by the power of God's love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality," according to the insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church, where Palin has prayed since she was a child.

Palin's conservative Christian views have energized that part of the GOP electorate, which was lukewarm to John McCain's candidacy before he named her as his vice presidential choice. She is staunchly anti-abortion, opposing exceptions for rape and incest, and opposes gay marriage and spousal rights for gay couples.

http://zennie2005.blogspot.com/2008/09/ … i-gay.html

I feel it's necessary for me to clarify that I am not against Sarah Palin as a mother or woman.

Women have come a long way in the fight to have the choice over what we do with our bodies... And its frightening to see that a woman in 2008 would negate all of that.

Oh, and...Hint Hint Pali Pal- Don't pose for anymore tabloid covers, you're not a celebrity, you're running for office to represent our, your, my COUNTRY!

And in the words of Pamela Anderson, "She can suck it"..

The way I found out about this is via the hateful WEEI AM neonuts. For those who aren't familiar, WEEI is Boston's SPORTS radio talk. These guys insist on a few minutes to bash 'the left' every AM just before 8. They took the whole segment just racking and raking lesbo Lohan.

Made my morning. Smells like "Teen Spirit" and "Victory" all in one. Oh. And tuna.