Reply With Quote
Why are they lying on stuff that is easily refuted? It means they're desperate, and it shows that Palin was a Hail Mary pass.
But I said THANKS on that $600 mil. bridge to Wasilla!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/...dge_to_wasilla
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Gov. Sarah Palin may eventually have said "no thanks" to a federally funded Bridge to Nowhere.
ADVERTISEMENT
But a bridge to her hometown of Wasilla, that's a different story.
A $600 million bridge and highway project to link Alaska's largest city to Palin's town of 7,000 residents is moving full speed ahead, despite concerns the bridge could worsen some commuting and threaten a population of beluga whales.
Why are they lying on stuff that is easily refuted? It means they're desperate, and it shows that Palin was a Hail Mary pass.
So what.
It doesn't matter.
Congress controls the earmarks. Not someone in a state.
priceless
You lie, WC. It matters because the pitbull lied, then admitted she lied, and then went on repeating the lie. That matters.
So then why does she get credit for saying no the bridge?
Logic my friend. Something many on the right lack.
Sure, she wanted the bridge at first. When she started becoming against it, hard to say now. My understanding is when it was a state sponsored project, she wanted it. When it bacame a federal project, she didn't want such a large piece of pork.
Point I'm making is that congress is to blame for all earmarks and pork. Likewise, they should get credit for good projects.
As for blame, someone at the state or local level requesting funding shouldn't be blamed, unless it a completely stupid project. The bridge wasn'r a stupid project. Just one more expensive than it should have been. If she killed a good project, she would get the blame. In helping to kill a bad project, she gets credit.
I mentioned before that most projects like this are more expensive than they need to be because of federal requirements for the funding. Such funding includes structural standards that may be far more than ever utilized by any vehicle for that bridge. This would make it several times more costly then necessary.
I'm not certain of all the details, nor do I care. Fact is, it is the problems in the US Congress that allows pork and earmarks. It is not the fault of a state official asking congress for something. It's part of their job.
I'm confused, what did she lie about?
I'm confused too. I don't see any lies. I have heard a few different angles on the subject. One doesn't stick, so they try another angle. I really don't think they know either. They are just being good liberal lemmings drinking the Kool-Aid.
You can't boast about shooting down bridges to nowhere and being a reformer when that's really what you are about. That's the lie.
So she didn't directly lie, but rather in your opinion she's a liar in general.
The lie Palin told about her role in the bridge fiasco, and continues to tell, has been well do ented.
But you can be an agent of change without ever changing a damn thing of importance.
Gotcha.
If Obama wasn't such a weak candidate, some of this stuff would probably stick. How much will Obama talk about the recent financial woes when his economic advisors used to work for Freddie/Fannie. How much can he discuss reform, when he received the 2nd most from these companies.
haha politics is a !
McLame is horrible at pointing out the hypocrisy related to Obama and focuses on stupid instead though. Ya'll are lucky
As WC already noted, pork is a problem at the congressional level. The state has to ask for funding, it's their job and it's what their cons uents want. Doesn't anyone know how politics works (or is supposed to work)? If you start turning down grants and funds and so forth, you'll get voted out. The thing is, "the people" don't want to buy pork for other states yet expect to still get pork in return.
But I digress, the scope of our federal government and taxation is a whole other topic.
I've only seen 'heresay' on the subject. Care to back that up with links to legislative timelines?
This far, the negative media on Palin has under a 5% accuracy. Palin's words with the exception of a periodic mistatement are shown to be factual. Therefore, without unimpeachable proof, I will believe Palin over your word and sources.
Palin Paul 2012'
Now that would be an interesting ticket!
John McCain has asked for ZERO earmarks as Arizona state senator. Yet he has held office for years. Explain.
That doesn't mean he didn't ask for money for Arizona. Maybe the people just liked his policies.
The debate is about earmarks. Not other means of voting on a project that may help a congressional members state. Earmarks are usually stuffed in a committee report, or other do ent rather than the text of the bill being voted on.
Earmarks also have no settled definition. Some people call it any pork brought home. Others specify it as hidden spending. Point is, any spending McCain brought home to Arizona would be something openly discussed in amendment form. Therefore, it had a proper vote in congress.
Hopefully. America will say thanks, but no thanks to her.
Well, that's what the Ameican public will be saying to Obama/Biden in my opinion. I see her as easily talking the presidency in '12 or '16.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
