Reply With Quote
So democrats helped strike down the earmark. Great generalization thread.
HR1 (or was it S. Amdt. 98) contained something that was struck down in the senate. At least something went right.
Senate Amendment 109:
Purpose:
To strike the $246 million tax earmark for Hollywood production companies.
This amendment passed 52 to 45. 42 senate demonrats voted to give their Hollywood friends money (no vote) along with independent Bernie Sanders and two republicans. Vitter and Voinovich. The democrats who did the right thing by voting YES were Bayh, Bennet, Byrd, Carper, Casey, Dorgan, Feingold, Hagan, Johnson, McCaskill, Pryor, Udall, and Webb, along with independent Lieberman.
S. Amdt. 109
Rollcall for S. Amdt. 109
So democrats helped strike down the earmark. Great generalization thread.
Only 35 senators voted yea on S. Amdt. 238 to insure the bailout didn’t create new social programs. Rollcall 39:
Democrats:
55 No
00 Yes
Republicans:
05 No (Collins, Lugar, Martinez, Snowe, and Specter.)
35 Yes
Demonrats love socialism!
Socialism is a good thing until you run out of people to pay for it! Problem is, demonrats are not long term thinkers. They are part of the “I want it now” mentality, like spoiled kids.
Most of the senate does not want accountability to limit earmarks with this Billion dollar bailout. Votes were 32 for accountability, 65 against. Again, mostly republicans on the right side of this issue, with mostly democrats wanting to be irresponsible to us tax payers.
Naturally, demonrats vote to pay back their favorite activist group, ACORN.
ACORN is just awesome, aren't they?
ACORN is the future. Bow down.
This whole country is turning into a big scam. It's out of control. Who cares anymore.
Did you or whottt or anyone ever prove that there were fraudulent votes cast as a result of ACORN's activities?
Or are you just spreading lies and innuendo like a good Republican who won't admit he's a Republican?
The only reason he doesn't admit he's a republican is because he's scared of the black men at gas stations.
"America will never elect a president named Hussein"
Don't even worry about that argument. Funny how you only argue weak points, always shifting back to them avoiding other arguments. ACORN is a left wing partisan group, and therefore, the majority has no right to give tax payer dollars to them. If they wish to do so, they should give equal money to right wing groups.
How would the lefties feel about that?
Personally, I don't like either option. Let ACORN stand on their own, with private donations.
people afraid of acorn are funny.
Not afraid of them. I just hate them.
How does hate = fear?
you're afraid.....i get it.......try to be honest for once.
I am afraid. Afraid that this nation I love will be destroyed by Socialism, Marxism, or Fascism.
That's why I hate groups like ACORN.
you already got your hands on it.
what's left to destroy?
Republicans now out of the majority, suddenly remember that they don't like earmarks.
Good for them.
I wonder if WC was as studious in the particulars of the no-bid contracts awarded to Haliburton. Somehow I doubt it.
Yet another WC/conservative hack double-standard when it comes to the political parties. When Republicans do it, we get a lot of looking the other way, when Democrats do it, it's the end of the world.
Meh.
Actually this wasn't a payback to ACORN.
The vote was on specifically prohibiting ACORN from receiving funds, which was simply voted down. There is a vast gulf between specially allocating funds to a specific group, and not voting for a bill that specifically prohibits a certain group from receiving funds.
Please show a bill that specifically earmarks money directly to ACORN.
Otherwise your premise here is not only weak, but misleading to the point of lying. Color me unsurprised.
And black surgeons. Or, wait, that's just skepticism or cynicism, not really an overt fear.
LOL...
Bringing that up again?
Two companies were capable of doing the job.
The other was a French company.
Haliburton had the blueprints and spare parts because they built the facilities.
It was a no-brainer.
Bull . When did I ever agree with republican earmarks?
Would you please stop being RandomPropagandaGuy?
This seems to me like little more than political theater, actually. ACORN is a group of people that are despised by the right for various reasons, partly because they have the audacity to attempt to register people who (gasp!) might tend to vote for Democrats.
This amendment was little more than an attempt to provide red meat for the slobbering right wing of the GOP that have been baying blood, and so that conservatives like WC can jump up and own like giggly schoolgirls about how Democrats are somehow playing politics with federal funds.
It isn't some principled stand against government waste, it is a rather shameless and nasty political ploy, and attempting to paint it otherwise either demonstrates a niavite or willingness to deceive.
I never said you didn't disagree with them there, sparky, I said you looked the other way and didn't go out of your way to post threads about them here.
The reason you didn't, is either because you read about them and didn't say anything, or, more likely, the right-wing propaganda shows that you fill your head with chose not to give examples of Republicans doing just that, so you never really found out about the pork to be outraged about it.
Astonishingly enough, when I go through the six pages of thread started by WC in the last two years, not one of them is one that looks like it is complaining about Republicans and their fiscal irresponsibility in regards to earmarks.
Why is that?
It's simply because there are so many lies about the republicans that you guys propagate, I don't want to give your side more firepower with actual facts.
That is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. One does not withold information simply because it makes your case look bad.
You don't fight lies with half-truths.
Personally, I think the above statement is simply your attempt to not admit that you have no clue what kinds of earmarks were included in spending bills by Republicans over the last 8 years, and didn't want to admit I was right about never getting that information from the news sources you read/hear. The fact that it says more about you than you realize is simply icing on the cake.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php? le=EarmarksIn all, there were roughly 15,000 congressional earmarks in 2005 at a total cost of $47 billion.
Have at. Prove to us that you aren't a hack, and tell me specifically what Republican introduced an earmark that you didn't like. THere are lots to choose from, so someone who is a genius of your caliber shouldn't have a hard time finding one.
That is, unless honesty isn't something you strive for, in which case, feel free to ignore my request, and re-state how bad Democrats are. I promise not to be disappointed, as I don't expect much from you to begin with.
Actually this wasn't a payback to ACORN.
The vote was on specifically prohibiting ACORN from receiving funds, which was simply voted down. There is a vast gulf between specially allocating funds to a specific group, and not voting for a bill that specifically prohibits a certain group from receiving funds.
Please show a bill that specifically earmarks money directly to ACORN.
Otherwise your premise here is not only weak, but misleading to the point of lying. Color me unsurprised.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
