wanna talk about earmarks?

• Just a little about John McCain - gourdpainter
  • How any American can vote for a ... - sam
    • I agree, Sam. This is one the saddest times I have - seen. Could be the end of our freedom with O.nm
  • Link, please, for verification (nm) - Backwards typist
    • Do your research if you want - gourdpainter
      • 'Well, 'scuse me, GP. I was pretty busy - Backwards typist
      • The Teamsters newsletter is her source. - what did you expect?
        • That explains it. They used to be a - Backwards typist
          • Whoa, wait just 1 minute s/m - gourdpainter
            • Your hubby is one of the lucky ones - Backwards typist
        • The source is not the issue - gourdpainter
          • only because it's you? - dnh
            • Oh for crying out loud on a cripple's crutch!!!! - gourdpainter
  • I have just one thing to say in response - leaning to the right
    • That is going to be wayyy at the end of the list...sm - oldtimer
      • I wouldn't be so sure about that - leaning to the right
  • Great post. Also, McCain is now... - Stardust
    • I bet within a year, you will be wondering WHY you - voted for O when jobs disappear.nm
  • Thank you, thank you, thank you, Gourdpainter! - me
    • Funny...we feel the same way about - sm
      • Okay. n/m - gourdpainter
      • wanna talk about earmarks? - Amanda
        • You need to understand the difference in earmarks and... - sam
          • Okay, Sam, I did some reading.... - Amanda
        • Not to mention her ritzy hotel bills she stuck the state with.nm - Stardust
          • Nancy Pelosi flies back home to California on our dime... - sam
        • I know but - gourdpainter
          • It goes like this: - O's people is sheeple.
            • Okay, so O's people are "sheeple" - gourdpainter
              • How ANYONE could vote for O with his RADICAL - relationships should feel ashamed!.nm
                • Radical relationships proved or hear say? - gourdpainter
              • Actually, we're all headed for the slaughter - With your Judas goat leading

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

The link below is to a radio show -- no film -- just talk.  These people could care less about the stances of either candidate or their running mates, they just want O to be elected, maybe because of his color?  They certainly don't give any other justifiable reason.

http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_100108.mp3

were from the dems.  Both sides suck as far as I am concerned!  If you are going to comment and bash the pubs for their 40%....at least be thorough and report the dems and their 60%.  Now we have President Obama who said that he would not sign anything with earmarks in it and that he would read every line, etc........now that he is pres.....he seems to be whistling a different tune. 

There are 8,500 earmarks in that bill costing us around 810 billion dollars.  As far as I am concerned.....both dems and pubs know where they can go because I tired of this crap!  They are all crooks.  They are all out for their own special interests.  They are hurting us more than helping us.

*** Edited by Moderator***

Please post URLs, not copyrighted materials or content from any other site.

One

Big

A$$

Mistake,

America!

but his reasoning was, at times, questionable. It appears as though he is going to take the money and run unlike some of his compatriots who are "attempting" to refuse stimulus money.

Earmarks Include:

1. Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark.
   
2. Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark.
   
3. Funding provisions that do not name a recipient, but are so specific that only one recipient can qualify for funding.

socially acceptable behavior without looking at the influences that set those standards.  Christianity is what determined homosexuality to be unacceptable.  It is the dominant factor in this debate as far as the US goes.  The US generally accepted christianity as the norm some time ago in this country.  In doing so it automatically put people in the sinner and non-sinner brackets.  Homosexuals were obviously put into the sinning bracket.  That is why they have been put in the closet.  Not because "it's just not natural," but because it's a sin. 

And that's where I have a problem with the whole thing.  Since we are not a theocracy, religious concepts have no place in determining something as personal as marriage.  For that matter, I also think it's absolutely absurd that govt weighs in on this issue.  I think it's a personal choice, not for the church and not for the govt.

I do not get.

Me need new insult, yes.

It was simply an exaggerated example to make a point about the subjectiveness of deciding what constitutes an observation versus an insult.  I think that was obvious to most people.  Regarding your snide observation, no I do not talk like that.  As I said it was an example.

Perhaps your other boards do not have such a marked slant.  And shall I make an observation on the tedious repetition that is found in your milieu's absolutely ENDLESS recitation of the evils of liberals, just to mention a few?  ONe doesn't even need to read the content of the posts, merely scan the subject lines and the repetition is obvious.

You said:

There are things that the poster felt needed to be said, and you see, this is a liberal board. 

As it has been said ad nauseam, anyone can post on this board.  Liberals post on the conservative board as well.  I must have been absent the day you were named moderator.

You said: 

You have a habit of mis-representing the facts, of twisting them to fit your agenda and your conscience. 

 On the basis of what, three posts, you say I have a habit of misrepresenting the facts and twisting them to fit my agenda and m conscience.  Pot calling the kettle black, I would say.  You posted erroneous information, represented it as fact, and I called you on it.  If anyone's conscience should be bothering them, that would be you.

You say most of the people of the U.S. were against slavery.  At different points in history that may or may not have been true, there weren't a lot of nationwide polls back then.  Could you share your facts?  Just the facts, ma'am. 

I again refer you to history.  History is full of the people who opposed slavery.  We are at war right now as a country but as it is perfectly clear, is it not, that the whole country is not behind the war. 

The fact is though that slavery was perfectly legal for 100 years in this country.  Try twisting that one.  That's what I mean when I say this country condoned slavery.  But I think that was obvious to most folks.

Because it is legal does not mean all the people in the country condone it.  Abortion is legal in this country but I sure as heck do not condone it.  That doesn't mean I bomb abortion clinics or stand outside them and ridicule the people using them.  But I do not condone it, nor do many others.  I follow the laws of the land but I do make sure with my vote and in other ways to work to see that law gone.  And I think that is obvious to most folks as well. 

Secondly, you say this was Congress's war just as much as Bush's.  Well, we know that is not true either.  It was Bush and his cronies that planned this war, probably even before 9/11.  There was erroneous evidence presented to Congress that led them to okay military action.

I really am incredulous that there are still people who buy that nonsense.  Erroneous evidence presented to Congress?  The Senate Intelligence Committee had the very same information the Bush administration had.  And if all those congresspeople are so ignorant they could be *fooled* into buying into lies (if there were any, which there is no proof there were) that led the country into war, then I would think, for the love of pete, that you would be equally as incensed at them.   What proof do you have that Bush and his cronies planned anything?  None, because there is none.  As you said, just the FACTS, ma'am.  

  If your daughter came home from school and stated that the neighbor girl beat her up you would might believe the evidence.  However, do you not change your course of action if it turns out the neighbor girl didn't do the actual damage? 

I believe you twist and arrange the evidence so you don't feel guilty about this utter madness and endless slaughter we know as Iraq as you similarly defend the US government role in the slaughter of indigenous peoples.

There you go again.  First, my friend, I do not feel guilty.  I have nothing to feel guilty about.  I support the American military and I certainly support the war on terrorism.  I do not readily forget 3000 people dying.  I will never forget watching those people jump out of that building to avoid being incinerated and for what?  Simply because they were Americans.  How easily you seem to blow that off.

And I did not defend the US government role in the slaughter of indigenous peoples.  I did not defend slavery.  Both were wrong.  Abortion is wrong, but they happen every day, and they happen NOW.  There is no longer slavery and there is no longer the slaugher of indigenous peoples.   Why does it not bother you that it is legal to slaughter upwards or over a million babies unborn babies every year?  Why don't you get involved to stop that?

My whole point is that the US is indeed a great and often noble and generous country.  I really want it to stay that way though and powerful people have a way of corrupting the moral values that have sustained this country for so long. 

Excuse me yet again...but that is exactly what I said.  The moral values that the country was founded upon and have sustained and how far we have gotten from that.  But I guess we are talking about two different sets of moral values.  What set are you talking about?

 The US has taken some pretty bad detours along the way but fortunately common sense and good character have generally won out in the long run.  Complacency and acceptance of corrupt power is always a threat though and that's why we need to QUESTION always those that are in near-absolute power.  I firmly believe that those who question are the MOST patriotic.

I never said questioning was unpatriotic.  What is unpatriotic in my view and always will be is suggesting that any American soldier died in vain.  What I think is unpatriotic is while we have men and women dying in combat, no matter who sent them there or for what reason, we owe them the respect to, if we cannot support their mission, to not go public with rampant criticism and for the love of everything Holy not to suggest publically that they are fighting and dying for nothing.  Not only do I think that is unpatriotic, I think it is selfish and mean.  Doesn't mean you or anyone else can't grouse about it friends in the privacy of a home, but to go public with it where friends, family and loved ones of soldiers who have died there, were injured there and continue to fight there can read it.  I don't know why some people (not naming anyone in particular) cannot just hold all that in until the troops come home.  Then if they want to dissect it, take it apart, malign it or whatever, our troops are home and no longer in harm's way.

It is rhetoric like you are repeating that Al Qaeda loves to hear, and their greatest propaganda tool.  Playing right into their hands.  And yes, giving that upper hand to the enemy is to me, yes, unpatriotic.