- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
If you are such a one issue voter, and that one issue obviously outweighs any other, then what is the point of debating anything?
If you think that Obama supports murdering infants, which is unbelievably offensive to any parent that disagrees with you, then obviously you are not going to vote for him no matter what, nor vote against McCain / Palin no matter what. So why offer anything up in this threads?
Maybe I'm off the mark here, but isn't "state funding" like when the state funds the project, instead of the fed, which is exactly in line with her original statement: "If our state wanted a bridge, I said we’d build it ourselves."? And isn't she talking about the Alaskan congressional delegation?
And McCain supports suspending habeus corpus for American citizens.
Yes, but you left out the part where she finishes the statement with "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to exist". That is the part where she is looking for their federal delegation to send in the pork. Which of course is typical of the welfare queen "individualist" Alaskans. They probably would not even have flush toilets up there if it were not for wealthy blue staters paying taxes just so the Alaskan congressional delegation could funnel it up to a state with just 700,000 people in it.
Shall we start a thread about pork barrel politics and which party is the biggest pig at the public trough?
The fascinating thing about this debate is that Sarah Palin was not in Congress and could not VOTE for this legislation, she could just stick her hand out like so many Democrats and other politicians who feed at the public trough.
CCAGW also broke down ratings based on party affiliation and membership in the two fiscally conservative groups, the Republican Study Committee and the Blue Dog Democrats. The average scores were: House Republicans 60 percent, up 14 percentage points from their grade of 46 percent in 2006; House Democrats 5 percent, down 4 percentage points from their 9 percent score in 2006; House Republican Study Committee 73 percent, up 17 percentage points from their 56 percent score in 2006; and House Blue Dog Democrats 11 percent, down 9 percentage points from their 20 percent score in 2006.
CCAGW also broke down ratings based on party affiliation and membership in the two fiscally conservative groups, the Republican Study Committee and the Blue Dog Democrats. The average scores were: House Republicans 60 percent, up 14 percentage points from their grade of 46 percent in 2006; House Democrats 5 percent, down 4 percentage points from their 9 percent score in 2006; House Republican Study Committee 73 percent, up 17 percentage points from their 56 percent score in 2006; and House Blue Dog Democrats 11 percent, down 9 percentage points from their 20 percent score in 2006.
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today announced the final results of its online poll for the 2007 Porker of the Year. Rep. John “Jack” Murtha (D-Pa.) won in a landslide victory, receiving 63.4 percent of the vote. A distant second, Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) received 10.6 percent, while Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) came in with 9.9 percent, Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) had 6.7 percent, and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.) both finished up with 4.1 percent. The finalists were chosen by CAGW staff from among the 12 Porker of the Month winners for 2007.
Back on the topic side of things:
Binary Digit nailed it. I think. It seems different news sources are having disagreements on what she was asking for. Can we find some accuracy if she was wanting it to be solely state funded or federally funded?
BUT
Just this year, she sent to Sen. Ted. Stevens, R-Alaska, a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million — more, per person, than any other state.
Some of Palin's requests were for science research, such as $499,900 to assess halibut harvesting; others for lighting village airports in the Alaskan bush, where small planes and gravel runways may be the primary link to the outside world.
Palin's requests to Congress came at a time of huge federal deficits, while Alaska state revenue was soaring due to rising oil prices and a major tax increase on oil production that Palin signed into law in late 2007.
As a result, Alaska this year was in such a money-flushed condition — with no state income tax or sales tax and total state revenues of $10 billion, double the previous year's — that Palin gained legislative approval for $1,200 cash payments to every Alaskan.
No state income tax or sales tax and Alaska is demanding federal funds for pet projects? I don't like that.
I love this debate. So does this mean that the Independents and Democrats on this forum will now support eliminating earmarks and pork barrel politics in Washington?
Can we all make a pact to argue for the political defeat of ALL politicians in Washington who continue this practice?
If we cannot, then I can only presume you are all Liberal hypocrites who believe that earmarks and pork barrel politics are only okay if it is a Liberal practicing it.
I'm all for it. I'm against all of these funding initiative. The news this morning I read about the US sending $1B to the country of Georgia pissed me off and that's not even considered "pork".
For much of his long career in Washington, John McCain has been throwing darts at the special spending system known as earmarking, through which powerful members of Congress can deliver federal cash for pet projects back home with little or no public scrutiny. He's even gone so far as to publish "pork lists" detailing these financial favors.
Three times in recent years, McCain's catalogs of "objectionable" spending have included earmarks for this small Alaska town, requested by its mayor at the time -- Sarah Palin.
In 2001, McCain's list of spending that had been approved without the normal budget scrutiny included a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in Wasilla. The Arizona senator targeted $1 million in a 2002 spending bill for an emergency communications center in town -- one that local law enforcement has said is redundant and creates confusion.
McCain also criticized $450,000 set aside for an agricultural processing facility in Wasilla that was requested during Palin's tenure as mayor and cleared Congress soon after she left office in 2002. The funding was provided to help direct locally grown produce to schools, prisons and other government institutions, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan watchdog group.
Wasilla had received few if any earmarks before Palin became mayor. She actively sought federal funds -- a campaign that began to pay off only after she hired a lobbyist with close ties to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who long controlled federal spending as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He made funneling money to Alaska his hallmark.
Did she or did she not ask for these bits of legislation via corrupt politician Ted Stevens?Last time I looked, Palin was not responsible for earmark spending in Congress as she has never been a congresswoman. But I appreciate the desperate attempt to paint Palin as a big Government spender which illustrates the desperation and frustration of those who want to promote a Democrat tax and spend agenda over a Republican shake up the old guard agenda.
As noted above, the biggest pigs at the public trough of pork legislation are Democrats.
It illustrates that REAL change is represented by the Republican ticket as opposed to more of the same old Democrat pork barrel promise pie-in-the-sky politics of the Obama campaign. Democrats have always been much better at talking the talk over walking the walk.
Carry on with your desperate campaign.
:rofl
Ever heard of Jose Padilla? The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 allows the suspension of habeas corpus for "enemy combatants". The Military Commissions Act of 2006 allows for U.S. Citizens to be labeled "enemy combatants." John McCain voted for both acts.He does? Do you have any credible evidence to support this assertion; or is this another one of those; because you say so?Binary_Digit said:And McCain supports suspending habeus corpus for American citizens.
Say what? Have you even read the Constitution??Foreign aid is more in line with the US Constitution duties of our Federal Government however.
Please show me where in the Constitution it talks about foreign aid.Foreign aid is more in line with the US Constitution duties of our Federal Government however.
Yup, I am equally pissed whenever my dollar goes overseas.It is in our nation’s best interests to protect the American people and American interests. Georgia is an ally who is being militarily threatened by a much larger belligerent neighbor.
Pork barrel spending for the sake of pandering for votes does not.
I am surprised you are pissed at this as I didn't think you were even an American citizen. Why does this aid piss you off? Do you get equally pissed off with the billions we send to the Palestinians; Africa?
Did she or did she not ask for these bits of legislation via corrupt politician Ted Stevens?
Please show me where in the Constitution it talks about foreign aid.
Foreign aid is a system by which the American taxpayers are forced, in the name of national security or defense of the “free world,” or charity, or whatever the politicians tell us, to subsidize US export companies and prop up client states that are often ruled by dictators.
Constitutionally, of course, none of this spending is authorized. The US Constitution was written under what is referred to as “positive grant.” In short, what this means is that the federal government is authorized to engage in only those activities specifically authorized by the Constitution. Positive = authorized activities. Grant = specifically listed.
Just to make sure this principle was legally codified, the Tenth Amendment was included:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Yup, I am equally pissed whenever my dollar goes overseas.
Ever heard of Jose Padilla? The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 allows the suspension of habeas corpus for "enemy combatants". The Military Commissions Act of 2006 allows for U.S. Citizens to be labeled "enemy combatants." John McCain voted for both acts.
Say what? Have you even read the Constitution??
Right. Foreign aid is "in line" with the Fed's Constitutional duties to protect American citizens, while social programs are NOT "in line" with the Fed's Constitutional duties to "promote the general welfare." Nice selective reasoning there, Truth Deflector.Let me state it again: MORE in LINE with the Federal DUTIES under our Constitution of the Federal Government which is the PROTECTION of American citizens, defending the nation from hostile foreign interests and administering our laws.
As opposed to social welfare spending; which was NEVER the INTENT of the founding fathers.
Excuse me, but I'm not trying to kid anyone. Please try to follow along. This is really simple.What part of "enemy combatants" do you not comprehend? It is specious to suggest that McCain supports the suspension of Habeas Corpus. Who are you trying to kid?
I find it fascinating how quickly you resort to a straw man instead of addressing what was actually argued. Is that because you don't have a reasonable rebuttal, or because you simply can't understand the argument?I find it fascinating how the desperate Left wants to provide Constitutional rights to enemy combatants.
Obviously you don't understand what you're quoting here because it doesn't refute anything I said. Here's a hint: issuing a writ of habeas corpus (as in the above) means granting habeas corpus, not withholding it. IAW: these are limitations for when habeas corpus can be granted. Not suspended. Nice try though, just keep Deflecting the Truth and pretending you're honest if it helps you sleep.The United States Congress grants U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court, and all Article III federal judges, acting in their own right, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to issue writs of habeas corpus to release prisoners held by any government entity within the country from custody, subject to certain limitations, in the following circumstances:
• Is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or is committed for trial before some court thereof; or
• Is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree court or judge of the United States; or
• Is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States; or
• Being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled therein is in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption claimed under the commission, order or sanction of any foreign state, or under color thereof, the validity and effect of which depend upon the law of nations; or
• It is necessary to bring said persons into court to testify or for trial.
Multiple times. And I've never seen any clause which says that foreign aid is part of the Federal government's duties. Maybe you should quote the part of the Constitution that supports your claim, or stop Deflecting the Truth and admit you don't know what you're talking about. Think you can manage that?Have you read the Constitution?
Excuse me, but I'm not trying to kid anyone. Please try to follow along. This is really simple.
1. The Detainee Treatment Act allows for the suspension of habeas corpus for "enemy combatants." True or false?
2. The Military Commissions Act allows for U.S. Citizens to be labeled as "enemy combatants." True or false?
3. John McCain voted for both the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act. True or false?
I find it fascinating how quickly you resort to a straw man instead of addressing what was actually argued. Is that because you don't have a reasonable rebuttal, or because you simply can't understand the argument?
Obviously you don't understand what you're quoting here because it doesn't refute anything I said. Here's a hint: issuing a writ of habeas corpus (as in the above) means granting habeas corpus, not withholding it. IAW: these are limitations for when habeas corpus can be granted. Not suspended. Nice try though, just keep Deflecting the Truth and pretending you're honest if it helps you sleep.
Multiple times. And I've never seen any clause which says that foreign aid is part of the Federal government's duties. Maybe you should quote the part of the Constitution that supports your claim, or stop Deflecting the Truth and admit you don't know what you're talking about. Think you can manage that?
I was accused today of attacking someone because they had an opinion. Are you (Jerry) being attacked because you have an opinion?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?