Repug hate having their lies destroyed

[boutons_deux]

Stimulus signage has GOP outraged


Critics say they amount to taxpayer-funded political advertising. Others respond that signs, too, are jobs

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,5674059.story

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, they are jobs. However, make it so it isn't a political message. It absolutely, without doubt, is spending tax payer dollars for advertising that their party did something.

I hope someone is within their right to sue over this. Maybe the DNC should have to pay for of such signs.

[DMX7]

Socialism!

[Spurminator]

I don't see what the big deal is. It's good to actually see what the money is being used for. We are all in this together, after all, right?

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, they are jobs. However, make it so it isn't a political message. It absolutely, without doubt, is spending tax payer dollars for advertising that their party did something.

How? It is merely saying how it was funded.

You are the one making it political.

As usual.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't see what the big deal is. It's good to actually see what the money is being used for. We are all in this together, after all, right?

It's a long standing message that stays around during the elections.

It is improper use of funds to give free campaign commercials to a set of politicians.

[DMX7]

How? It is merely saying how it was funded.

You are the one making it political.

As usual.

It's political because it's the truth, and the truth has a well known liberal bias.

[DMX7]

It's a long standing message that stays around during the elections.

So what? Let the people decide if that project was a waste of money or not. What are you trying to hide?

[Spurminator]

It's a long standing message that stays around during the elections.

It is improper use of funds to give free campaign commercials to a set of politicians.

It doesn't say anything about any politicians or political parties.

[Spurminator]

WC approved non-partisan redesign:

[Spurminator]

dp

[z0sa]

It doesn't say anything about any politicians or political parties.

The article states every House Republican opposed the $787 billion dollar stimulus bill.

[Nbadan]

WC approved non-partisan redesign:

[Spurminator]

The article states every House Republican opposed the $787 billion dollar stimulus bill.

I'm talking about the sign.

[z0sa]

I'm talking about the sign.

At total face value, I agree. I choose not to play dumb, though.

Everyone knows that the sign is political propaganda, however indirect (it's not very indirect at all, actually).

That said, I don't have a problem with the message. I do have a slight problem spending $665,000 on 950 such messages.

[Wild Cobra]

WC approved non-partisan redesign:

Now that one gets a nice laugh, and yes, believe it's closer to the truth. However, that would be improper to place also.

Look, if you want to use something that effectively advertises, then pay for it out of the advertising funds of those who benefit from it.

[Wild Cobra]

At total face value, I agree. I choose not to play dumb, though.

Everyone knows that the sign is political propaganda, however indirect (it's not very indirect at all, actually).

That said, I don't have a problem with the message. I do have a slight problem spending $665,000 on 950 such messages.

But that keeps the county sign shops open, so they don't have to let government employees with union benefit to hurt like the rest of us might.

When will some money go to the private sector?

[boutons_deux]

What's political about this, WC?

The stimulus helped all Americans just not ex-ACORN employees, Dems, Black Panthers, commies, etc.

I've read many articles citing Repug Congrassholes who voted against the stimulus, etc, but showed up at groundbreaking, etc, ceremonies and claimed how great the funds were for their districts and "their" voters.

[Spurminator]

At total face value, I agree. I choose not to play dumb, though.

Everyone knows that the sign is political propaganda, however indirect (it's not very indirect at all, actually).

It's only political propaganda to partisan cheerleaders. Most people don't see it that way, nor care. Plenty of people couldn't even tell you what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is.

That said, I don't have a problem with the message. I do have a slight problem spending $665,000 on 950 such messages.

It came from stimulus funds. Somebody has to make the signs and install them, right? That's work.

[Wild Cobra]

At total face value, I agree. I choose not to play dumb, though.

Everyone knows that the sign is political propaganda, however indirect (it's not very indirect at all, actually).

That said, I don't have a problem with the message. I do have a slight problem spending $665,000 on 950 such messages.

But that keeps the county sign shops open, so they don't have to let government employees with union benefit to hurt like the rest of us might.

When will some money go to the private sector?

[z0sa]

It's only political propaganda to partisan cheerleaders.

If every single person in the minority hadn't opposed the act, maybe this statement would have merit.

Most people don't see it that way, nor care.

Says who?

Plenty of people couldn't even tell you what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is.

And that changes the facts how?

It came from stimulus funds. Somebody has to make the signs and install them, right? That's work.

Is your point these signs were a good use of stimulus funds?

[Spurminator]

If every single person in the minority hadn't opposed the act, maybe this statement would have merit.

You're missing the point. This is no longer a political ping-pong ball. This is an approved act. As such, it is something that affects us and I see no problem with signage showing us where it's being used.

The sign is a statement of fact. A notice. It's only an advertisement to partisan cheerleaders who seem concerned that unknowing passers-by might actually approve of the work being done. It's like objecting to school textbooks publishing Barack Obama as the current President because you feel it's "gloating."

Is your point these signs were a good use of stimulus funds?

I'm making no point about whether the funds were used intelligently or even whether I approve of the stimulus at all. But this seems to be a piece of what it was intended for. They were going to have to install "Road Construction" signs anyway... Pretty miniscule thing to get worked up about if you ask me.

[z0sa]

You're missing the point. This is no longer a political ping-pong ball. This is an approved act. As such, it is something that affects us and I see no problem with signage showing us where it's being used.

Approved barely, with much politicizing and coverage in the MM and abroad, and at the expense of every, single, one of the minority's approval.

I don't know why you've chosen to play dumb about the obvious politicization just because the signs are also a semi-decent use of stimulus cash.

The sign is a statement of fact. A notice. It's only an advertisement to partisan cheerleaders who seem concerned that unknowing passers-by might actually approve of the work being done.

Did it create a few additional jobs? Yes. Is it politicizing tax payer funded work? Yes, it is.

Have you stopped to think that at least a portion of the tens of thousands of drivers seeing these signs, who aren't aware of even the basics of the act, as you presume, will soon find out the Republicans opposed the act universally? And vice versa (Democrats accepted it)?

The fact that plenty of people don't know what the sign is about is indeed part of the reason why it's a politicization. The Republicans could actually gain a few votes from this, but they're mostly going to be the losers on this one IMO.

I'm making no point about whether the funds were used intelligently or even whether I approve of the stimulus at all. But this seems to be a piece of what it was intended for. They were going to have to install "Road Construction" signs anyway... Pretty miniscule thing to get worked up about if you ask me.

First of all, that's a rather extravagant sign (purposely, I'm sure, so everyone can make out it out while passing by). I am honestly curious is standard size, and how many smaller signs not depicting the name of the act in huge lettering could be made for the same amount of money.

Second, as we've gone over, it's not some universally accepted act, even if it was passed by the majority; a huge amount of our leaders opposed it. There's many, many people who voted for them, who don't approve, and did not want it passed, and don't think this is a good use of their tax money. So why are you confused about Republicans, who represent most of that demographic, opposing these 950 of these signs being put up? That's whoring it out IMO and "self-congratulating", as they say.

I'll repeat that I don't have a problem with the message, for part of the reason you stated: we should know how our tax dollars are being used. However, should such info be depicted so vaguely on the side of the public highways? 950 times? And of an act many Americans oppose? I don't know, but IMO things certainly seem like they have some political connotations, however indirect.

[ElNono]

When will some money go to the private sector?

What makes you think those signs were not manufactured by the private sector?

[Spurminator]

Approved barely, with much politicizing and coverage in the MM and abroad, and at the expense of every, single, one of the minority's approval.

I don't know why you've chosen to play dumb about the obvious politicization just because the signs are also a semi-decent use of stimulus cash.

....

as we've gone over, it's not some universally accepted act, even if it was passed by the majority; a huge amount of our leaders opposed it. There's many, many people who voted for them, who don't approve, and did not want it passed, and don't think this is a good use of their tax money. So why are you confused about Republicans, who represent most of that demographic, opposing these 950 of these signs being put up? That's whoring it out IMO and "self-congratulating", as they say.

Irrelevant. It passed. It is under way.

Again, your argument betrays your view of current issues as points in a big partisan spectator sport. It's not a "Congrats Los Angeles Lakers" billboard in San Antonio. It's a notice of a public project that is happening whether Republicans voted for it or not.

Have you stopped to think that at least a portion of the tens of thousands of drivers seeing these signs, who aren't aware of even the basics of the act, as you presume, will soon find out the Republicans opposed the act universally? And vice versa (Democrats accepted it)?

The fact that plenty of people don't know what the sign is about is indeed part of the reason why it's a politicization. The Republicans could actually gain a few votes from this, but they're mostly going to be the losers on this one IMO.

You present the idea that passers-by would look up more information on the act as though it were a bad thing. If they choose to vote one way or another based on their understanding of the terms of the stimulus, that's their choice.

If they learned something about it that they didn't know, great. But in today's media environment they're just as likely to Google an article blasting the Democrats for the Stimulus as they are to find one praising them.

I'll repeat that I don't have a problem with the message, for part of the reason you stated: we should know how our tax dollars are being used. However, should such info be depicted so vaguely on the side of the public highways? 950 times? And of an act many Americans oppose? I don't know, but IMO things certainly seem like they have some political connotations, however indirect.

How would you suggest the sign read?