DEWEY BEACH, Delaware (CNN) -- Although Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden routinely mocks his Republican counterpart, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, for her onetime support of the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," Biden and his running mate voted to keep the project alive twice.
More here.
Hm. . . if you go around harping on someone's use or misuse of billions of dollars, but you actually voted for that huge project, then you might be hypocritical.
That's all we are saying.
Old Drum: it maybe that the talking points you were issued are best left unused here. Just let it go and wait until next week to go back to saying Palin's a liar. You could even work up some new material.
Okay, we both know you can't come up with new material, but that's okay. We'll have forgotten this by next week. The same way we have forgotten Biden's rampant racism and forays into plagiarism.
Nothing in the story says that Palin did not lie about the Bridge to Nowhere.
A lie is a lie.
***
That is separate from the votes Obama and Biden made on the legislation.
***
And, it is also separate from the fact that Palin took the $25 million that was allocated by Congress and build a three mile road to nowhere.
than campaigning.
Biden's and Obama's votes have absolutely nothing to do with the McCain campaign's lies. Nothing whatsoever.
Even the STAR ran an analysis that Palin did not "lie" about the bridg to nowhere. Only those so myopic enough to be the "Obamadrones" are still arguing that point. Some of you should look in a mirror right about now.
So in the world of ever-shifting Democratic positions, are you now saying the the bridge was really OK because Barry and Bidey voted for it, and that Palin should be damned for not forcing it through to completion?
You KNOW I'm Right
Our good wrong "right" friend, American Pride, Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. And, she kept the money to build a road to nowhere.
Now, what are the "lies" that attempt to deny these FACTS.
oh, wait, you said it three times two weeks ago. And it still isn't any truer.
The fact is that Palin supported the bridge and then stopped supporting it. Call it a flip-flop, I don't care.
She got the money, even though the earmark was stripped out of it. She could have used that money for anything she wanted. She chose not to use it on that particular project. She did end the project, not in Washington, but in Alaska. Where she actually had jurisdiction.
The reason the "lie" charge doesn't stick is because it isn't a lie. It's a flip-flop. It may even have been a politically motivated flip-flop. Again, go nuts, drag out the waffles, whatever. But we are really tired of your whining.
The website PolitiFact.com analyzes this cynical attempt to interpret Barack Obama's vote on the Highway Reauthorization Bill as support for Senator Ted Stevens' "Bridge to Nowhere". (Ted Stevens, of course, was *mentor* to Sarah Palin until the investigation and the indictments became a political liability. Now he is thrown under the bus.)
"As Exhibit A to show Obama’s longtime support, the McCain campaign notes that Obama voted in 2005 for the conference report on the Highway Reauthorization Bill, which included $225-milion for the Gravina Island bridge.
"The conference report passed 91-4. And yes, McCain was among the four who voted against it. In a floor statement explaining his opposition, McCain specifically referenced the Gravina Island bridge among his many concerns with the bill.
"But does Obama’s vote for the bill equal support for the Bidge to Nowhere? Let’s put this in some perspective. The bill included $286.5-billion though 2009 for highway, mass transit, safety and research programs. The Alaska bridge was less than a tenth of 1 percent of the spending in the bill.
"'So they’re saying that because Obama was among the 91 senators who voted for the highway funding bill, that makes him a supporter of the bridge? That’s laughable,' Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor told PolitiFact.
"We agree.
"The bill included more than $1.3-billion for transportation projects in Illinois, which also could explain Obama's vote.
"'This gets so goofy,' said Keith Ashdown, a spokesman for Taxpayers for Common Sense. Ashdown is the guy who saddled the Gravina Island project with the dubious moniker, 'Bridge to Nowhere,' a catchy name that helped the project become a national poster child for wasteful government spending.
"'He (Obama) voted for the bill that would have made the Bridge to Nowhere a reality,' Ashdown said. 'But I don’t know if that means he supported it. I don’t think that’s true.'"
[quote=American Pride]Even the STAR ran an analysis that Palin did not "lie" about the bridg to nowhere.[/quote]
Oh really? Please provide that link. I will go search for their analysis, but she tells us "thanks but no thanks" for that bridge to nowhere.
If my friends get together and decide that they want to give me $100 to buy some tools from the hardware store, and then after some more discussion decide instead to say, "well, maybe not tools, but here is that $100; spend it on the tools if you want to." and I TAKE THAT MONEY that was originally earmarked for tools, it would be a FLAT OUT LIE to tell everyone willing to listen to me that I said "thanks but no thanks to my friends for those tools".
Wunder, the link you seek is:
http://www.kansascity.com/105/story/791636.html
It's really sad that weeks later all you have is "she lied about the bridge" (ps, she didn't).
I'm still waiting for anyone to show me the legislation that Obama introduced to head off this economic crisis, make America safer or reduce our oil dependency. Of course that would mean that he had to show leadership within his own party.
You KNOW I'm Right
As I just said in the post above yours:
If my friends get together and decide that they want to give me $100 to buy some tools from the hardware store, and then after some more discussion decide instead to say, "well, maybe not tools, but here is that $100; spend it on the tools if you want to." and I TAKE THAT MONEY that was originally earmarked for tools, it would be a FLAT OUT LIE to tell everyone willing to listen to me that I said "thanks but no thanks to my friends for those tools".
Palin keeps endlessly telling us that she told Congress "thanks but no thanks for that bridge to nowhere". But actually, Congress had already said "here's the exact same amount of money for that bridge, Sarah, but now it turns out that you don't have to spend the money on the bridge! If you want to spend it on other things, go ahead.". That earmarked money that had been included in the original budget was still taken from the US Taxpayer. Got that? How hard is that to understand? Squirm all you want. The dollars originally earmarked for the bridge to nowhere still ended up going to the state of Alaska. Yes, she ultimately decided to spend it on other priorities, but she kept the money. "NO THANKS" for what?
REGARDLESS of anything else you may say, at least admit that she took the earmarked money. She is lying about that. Why is that hard to admit? Saying "thanks but no thanks" for WHAT? What is she saying "no thank you" to?
How can you parse that to mean that she didn't take the earmarked money? SHE DID. I wait with amusement for your contorted excuse to explain away this obvious LIE.
Go back to the link our good friend American Friend who is rightfully wrong provides.
The key passage:
"The Democrats claim that Palin was for the bridge before she was against it, that she opposed it only when it became a national joke and Congress killed it in 2005.
Palin did support the $398 million project to build a bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island’s 50 residents when she ran for governor in 2006.
But Congress had already pulled the plug by that time. However, while it had eliminated the project, the money remained and was still Alaska’s to spend on transportation.
According to Congressional Quarterly, Palin continued to back the bridge “long after it was no longer necessary for Alaska to spend money” on it. She still could have built it, but as governor chose not to."
****
So, she was for it before she was against it. American Pride, my good reading-challenged friend, for you let me repeat the paragraph from your link.
"Palin did support the $398 million project to build a bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island’s 50 residents when she ran for governor in 2006."
***
I said "Thanks to no thanks" is a lie. Thanks for the proof.
American Pride, you asked for information on Barack Obama's legislative activity and here it is.
As always, wikipedia comes to the rescue here:
List of Obama Sponsored Legislation
We also have, over at the Washington Post, this article that says:
People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama's bills and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability.
The article talks about both his US Senate and Illinois Senate accomplishments and observes:
Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Dillard, the Republican state senator, calls a "unique" ability "to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people." In other words, Obama's campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just rhetoric.
Other links:
Grassley, Obama Looking to Renew Spark in Biofuels Bills
Some of Obama's most recently sponsored bills include...
That is from the U.S. Senate. I haven't dug into his Illinois Senate career yet. The guy is a Harvard Law whiz-kid, so I am expecting similar results there. Your mileage may vary.
Yea...sponsoring a bill doesn't mean much. Why don't you find out which bills he actually wrote.
Two examples of parsing by Underwood
Underwood parses to benefit Obama:
But does Obama’s vote for the bill equal support for the Bidge to Nowhere? Let’s put this in some perspective. The bill included $286.5-billion though 2009 for highway, mass transit, safety and research programs. The Alaska bridge was less than a tenth of 1 percent of the spending in the bill.
Says no to parsing to benefit Palin:
How can you parse that to mean that she didn't take the earmarked money? SHE DID. I wait with amusement for your contorted excuse to explain away this obvious LIE.
I am waiting for you to tell me why Sarah LIAR Palin keeps repeating that stupid "thanks but no thanks" quip! Have you found the answer?
You gonna saying random "funny" things? (smile)
Or can you engage in a serious conversation?
Is it too late?
Are you already drunk?
It is getting kind of late I guess. Maybe tomorrow.
I always thought that SPONSORING A BILL actually meant the same thing as WRITING IT.
JoCoGuy please explain the difference. I am waiting for your analysis.
Translation: He did write them.
Next.
Actually there is a need to clarify your position. You see a legislator can sponsor a bill by writing it, but that's not necessarily the case. Oftentimes you'll see a bill with multiple sponsors. All a legislator has to do to "sponsor" a bill to simply have a staffer put their signature on the back end of a sponsorship letter. Then, a Senator or Congressman, while on the floor of the House/Senate, will ask for consent to add said legislator as a sponsor to the bill. And voila, that person is a sponsor.
So once again, I'll ask. How many of those bills were written by Obama and how many did he just agree with and put his name on? I can promise he didn't write many of those.
Sponsoring is not the same as cosponsoring. If you sponsor the bill, your name is at the head of the ticket. Get more information before running off your mouth, okay?
Haha yea well I'd love to concede this point to you, but since I work on the Hill, I can tell you that you are wrong. Its a matter of semantics and you are simply incorrect because often sponsoring and co-sponsoring are used interchangeably. So sorry pumpkin, but you're not going to win this battle.
Sorry to embarrass you in public like this JocoGuy, but I wanted to help you learn more about the risks of "running your mouth" when you are short on facts.
Here is a PDF from the state of Indiana website (hbttp://www.in.gov). I am going out on a limb here and presuming that their definition will apply fairly well to the process in the US Senate, but if you believe otherwise you should clear it up for us laymen with some documentation, okay?
An idea is developed.
A legislator – either a Representative or a Senator – decides to sponsor a bill. This could be an original idea, or it could come as a suggestion from a constituent, an interest group, a public official, or the Governor. Other lawmakers may be asked to join as co-sponsors. The co-sponsors may or may not be of the same political party as the sponsor.
A bill is drafted.
At the sponsoring legislator’s direction, the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency (LSA) provides research and drafting assistance. LSA prepares the bill in proper technical form.
There's more after that, but I think I have covered that "sponsoring" a bill means that the sponsor is the principal force behind said bill. The senator or representative may get help in the legal wording, but please quit trying to tell us that Senator Barack Obama wasn't the primary force behind these pieces of legislation that I listed. If you want to keep that position, prove it. Do some more research and post it here. Drop the smug attitude and put forth some detail.
I'm not arguing that a sponsoring a bill doesn't mean you didn't write it. My point is that sponsoring a bill CAN also be interpreted as being a co-sponsor. Plenty of times co-sponsors are just referred to as sponsors.
You haven't dispelled my argument and you haven't proved me wrong. I simply asked you to tell us how many were written by Obama/his staff and provide some evidence of it. I didn't say he didn't write them, I'm just wondering whether they were all written by him or not. You have missed the debate entirely.
Don't try and debate this nonsense with me you petulant little child. I'm not being smug when I tell you that being a sponsor does not necessarily mean you wrote the legislation. You haven't publicly embarrassed me and you probably never will.
So once again, I'll clarify the question: Did Obama write all of that legislation? If so, do you have a link to some sort of fact checker to indicate that this is the case?
Get yourself a cup of Joe and read slowly. You won't get me to do this often.
I like sheetswillager and bleatwillager --a-ok. I like clever and those are clever.
But I think calling you wunder pee-pee is more on target -- speak big and carry a soft stick
Are you FUBAR, wunder pee-pee? I rarely drink, but thanks for the concern. Just had to move some funds to a softer landing today. All will be fine. Thanks for your concern to my whereabouts.
So I'm back. Now I'll answer you.
You said (gonna strip it of the chafe):
I am waiting for you to tell me why Sarah LIAR Palin keeps repeating that stupid "thanks but no thanks" quip! Have you found the answer?
Or can you engage in a serious conversation?
Let's go backwards. First of all, I'm all in favor of serious conversations.
But I prefer that political Internet media sources be excused -- in fact wadded up and thrown in the trash. There isn't a single Internet media source, conservative or liberal, that isn't tainted with partisanship. As far as I'm concerned, that invalidates all of them. Just about every national newspaper is tied to the partisanship game. The game? They assign someone to write the anti-Obama pieces and someone to write the anti-McCain pieces. Then they spin pieces off of those. That's claptrap -- and you can't trap me in that game. It is not informative, it is a game of divide and conquer. Pretty good aren't they? You mentioned parsing as do many. They all parse and voters get nothing from them, but chest thumping on a blog. You're pretty good at chest thumping, wunder pee-pee. (smile)
You say I'm not above the fray. I'm way above the fray, because I'm not fooled by the game. I play my own game. You go ahead and play follow the leader -- I find that boring. Like it or not, I don't plan to change.
If I want to post a song, it gets posted. If I want to post a poll, it gets posted. If I want to post a quiz, it gets posted. I enjoy it and could care less whether you do. I don't play follow the leader, so why would I care whether someone thinks I'm not playing the game the way it should be played? If you want to play follow the leader, by all means do. I end up laughing at you guys because you buy into this Internet media game. If you didn't, I wouldn't laugh at you.
A lot of you are hooked on the what you think is journalism. Whatever... Dan Rather said it best before he retired -- paraphrased --- I [Rather] don't even recognize it any more. I agree with Rather. Not all things that change -- change for the better.
Now to Palin. You interpret it how you want.
1. She kept $223 million dollars in transportation infrastructure money -- fact.
2. Congress told her she could keep it -- fact.
3. They stopped funding -- fact.
4. She too stopped funding -- fact.
5. She wasn't going to saddle her state with an underfunded project that would have put Alaska on the hook for the rest of the money -- fact.
5. My question [and a very valid question] why did Congress even fund the initial $223 million? Why isn't anyone complaining about that? -- Why isn't this being answered?
6. I understand budget laws -- fact.
7. One thing you don't do is cut infrastructure money -- fact. You snooze, you lose.
8. If she gives it back it is considered a budget reduction and no one gets it the next time around, not Missouri, not Kansas -- no one -- fact.
9. Did she say thanks, but no thanks? That is a cliche -- used for effect. She's pounding it for the very reason it pisses off you and people like you -- it keeps her in the news and any news is good news. She probably didn't say those exact words. Did she stop the funding of an overpriced project? Yes -- fact. Is that an exciting way to say "thanks, but no thanks?" No. Fact.
Now are you happy, wunder pee-pee? If you continue to play follow the leader, don't expect me to play along. I march to the beat of whatever drum I choose -- and you can be sure it is not Old Drum. (smile)
You can fart and tapdance around this all you want. I am not sure what hill you are talking about, but if you are an insider in Washington DC, then please make sure and fix these problems on the sources I have already referenced.
Asking "questions" is easy. I have already provided two different reputable links to the MANY bills that Barack Obama sponsored (not co-sponsored).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bills_sponsored_by_Barack_Obama_in_the_United_States_Senate
The opening paragraph on this page says:
List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate is a compilation of legislation sponsored by United States Senator Barack Obama in the 109th United States Congress and the 110th United States Congress. The bills offer a way to review the legislative achievements and political positions of Barack Obama, who is a candidate and the nominee[1] of the Democratic Party in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election.
Wikipedia is not infallible, of course. It relies on experts to correct such errors. You claim to be such an expert, so if this is an error, fix the wikipedia article and change the opening paragraph that right now CLEARLY says that Barack Obama SPONSORED these bills.
After that, I suggest that you contact the webmaster at govtrack.us and let him/her know that us simple puddin-heads in Kansas are being misled into believing that Senator Barack Obama is a hellofa Senator.
Until you do these things or provide some shred of evidence to refute my documented positions, I am going to have to conclude that you are full of manure.
But... it is getting pretty late especially east-coast (Washington DC) time, so maybe you are just getting sleepy? Let me know if you get this figured out.
But you just validated my beliefs...
You are trying to hide in cynicism. Your lenthy diatribe can be boiled down to that you don't give a damn and can say whatever the hell you want without regard to it's accuracy, and after conceeding all the points that Palin TOOK the damned money, you brush off her "thanks but no thanks lie" with the equivalent pithy remark of "hey the political effect was out-f-ing-standing so who cares! It pissed off the liberals that she is lying!"...
So it all boils down to this. You admit it.
Thanks for that. It was a bit roundabout, but at least you came out and said it. She is a liar.
Yea, I'm heading to bed shortly. But I enjoy hopping on the blog to relax every now and again. I'm going to stop trying to argue this point with you because you aren't getting it.
My point is that oftentimes sponsor and co-sponsor are used interchangeably. This means that a legislation doesn't necessarily write the legislation to be considered a sponsor. I'm not even arguing that Obama didn't write all the bills, simply asking whether he did or not.
You seem to miss the point that sponsorship doesn't necessarily imply authorship. I'm tired to running in circles with you. It has lost its fun. So we'll simply agree to disagree.
You missed this quote by me.
Said Jeetz:
Now to Palin. You interpret it how you want.
I was prepared for your game way before you said it. Therefore the above little disclaimer to your response.
Gawd, you're easy.
JocoGuy earlier you said:
"I simply asked you to tell us how many were written by Obama/his staff and provide some evidence of it. I didn't say he didn't write them, I'm just wondering whether they were all written by him or not. You have missed the debate entirely..."
Then you pretty much repeat yourself in your latest post.
Obviously I didn't miss your distinction between sponsorship and co-sponsorship. That is why I was busy stressing that Wikipedia and govtrack.us were using the term sponsorship. You asserted that meant nothing and that I was supposed to drag up additional "evidence" as if the current batch wasn't enough for your "questioning" mind.
I pointed out to you (but you seem to have missed it) that asking "questions" is easy. It is providing documented answers that is hard. I have given you two sources and you have provided a lot of "questions'.
I went so far as to quote directly from the Wikipedia page where it said that Obama sponsored those bills. You are not happy with this information, but that is your problem not mine.
Once again: Obama sponsored (not co-sponsored - not voted on - SPONSORED) that list of bills. Get over it.
(oh and Bleetz, your lame reply doesn't deserve a second post, so just read this one - your girlfriend lied to you - I am sorry, but someone had to tell you and it happened to be me. Again, bleats, thanks for coming clean on this - the truth can hurt but it will set you free.. PALIN LIED - just keep saying it and it will hurt less each time (smile)).
Let's start with the obvious. Drum, you are as dishonorable and as big a liar as the Obama campaign. The link I sent you that you seem to be pulling random quotes and using out of context said "Was Palin accurate when she said that she opposed Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere,” which became a symbol of congressional spending gone wild?
Yes, but with an explanation." It was in bold print at the lead of the section. . .you really couldn't have missed it.
For the "tool" example (although you may want to research the difference between buying a tool and being a tool). Here's a better one. Your family wants a new high-def tv. You save the money and then think "I really don't need another tv, but the house sure could use a coat of paint." So you paint the house. That's a responsible use of the money you have.
Now to the Obama legislative history. Have you actually read the Bills? It's easy, just google by the listed names. We'll forget the concurrent resolutions since those are non-binding and congressmen famously just add those to get their name in the record. Non of the bills are what you would call substantial, and the certainly don't show the clainmed "leadership." The first hasn't made it out of comittee (but it was read twice!), the second was placed on legislative orders just this month (more great "leadership"). What I asked for was for something substantial, and you offer pap.
Please, this is serious and what we get from our darlings of the left are lies, misrepresentaions and cute "wish it were substatial" stories of congressional leadership.
You KNOW I'm Right
American Pride you said this before:
I'm still waiting for anyone to show me the legislation that Obama introduced to head off this economic crisis, make America safer or reduce our oil dependency. Of course that would mean that he had to show leadership within his own party.
Now you are saying, the answer didn't fit because some of the bills were recent or hadn't been passed or weren't in your eyes substantial? I found several of those to be significant. The "Google for Government" bill even impressed Sarah Palin. So, make up your mind.
You asked for leadership. This guy, a one term Senator, is already kicking ass and taking names but you aren't satisfied. Oh well. I was so sure you would finally see the light this time. I thought that somehow you would finally realize there is a truth out there and you are closing your eyes to it. Maybe next time.
...By the way, a bit of a change of subject, but do you read the columns by George Will?
Even though it is obvious to others, you won't admit you're wrong
Read the article American Pride.
What is the explanation? Palin said No thanks after Congress had taken most of the money to build the Bridge to Nowhere.
In other words, Palin said "please;" Congress said, "no, but here is a little money"; Palin said, "Thanks but no thanks for such little money" but I'll take that little money and build a $25 million road to Nowhere.
That is a LIE.
Funny thing about the "google For Government Bill" is that it was so flawed that it needed a new bill this June to close the loopholes (and Barry needed help from the Repubs to get it done). From the Hill (addressing the New Bill) "The new bill would beef up the website by requiring the actual contracts to be posted as well as new details , including whether the contract occurred under competitive bidding or whether it was the product of an earmark.
Posted: 06/04/08"
As for the bridge, Drum, either your the victim of a public school system corrupted and bankrupted by the Democratic Party, or you are delussional. She had the cash and could have gone on, but chose not to. THANKS for the cash, but NO THANKS to the bridge. It's not a hard concept if you think rationally.
You KNOW I'm Right
Let's see if we can agree on a couple of FACTS (of course, facts have a distinct liberal bias, but let's try).
Did Palin ever campaign FOR the Bridge to Nowhere?
Yes or no.
Did Palin say "no thanks" before or after Congress cut the earmark for the Bridge to Nowhere?
Before or after.
Does saying "I told Congress thanks but no thanks for the Bridge to Nowhere" imply ALWAYS being against the Bridge to Nowhere or at a particular time.
ALWAY or a particular time.
America Pride, answer the questions.
Drum: In the words of Siggy Frued (a man whose followers you may be in need of seeing) sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Fact: the money was there but she decided against building the bridge.
Fact: the analysis link I sent you highlighted that she did not lie (take a deep breath, bring in the good air, exhale the bad). Read the whole article.
Fact: Thanks but no thanks means just that. Thanks for the cash but I don't want to spend it on a bridge. (Irony note: you seem off base from the rest of your liberal brethern in that you don't believe she really got the money while they argue she got it but spent it on something else).
Why are you emotionally a twitter over this one thing? Barry's got lies about gun control, lapel pins, preachers, campaign financing, how his home got financed, his legislative record. . .
Wouldn't your time be better spent defending your candidate; IF YOU COULD!
You KNOW I'm Right
I asked three questions and our good very right friend American Pride can't answer them.
If he does, he reveals Palin lied.
Answer my questions, then the conversation can progress.
You have been proven wrong on this point so many time that you have started to slip.
"Does saying "I told Congress thanks but no thanks for the Bridge to Nowhere" imply ALWAYS being against the Bridge to Nowhere or at a particular time."
You use the word "imply". So you are admitting that all this time you have been yelling "LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE", is because of how you interpret the statement.
Thanks for playing.
Collect your set of steak knives on your way out.
OK, Craig, let's play the fact game. Answer these questions. I help you with the answers.
Did Palin ever campaign FOR the Bridge to Nowhere?
Yes or no.
Did Palin say "no thanks" before or after Congress cut the earmark for the Bridge to Nowhere?
Before or after.
Does saying "I told Congress thanks but no thanks for the Bridge to Nowhere" imply ALWAYS being against the Bridge to Nowhere or at a particular time.
ALWAYS or a Particular Time.
Let's answer all three of them.
Here is the truth: Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against.
However, the lie about the Bridge to Nowhere is taking a backseat to (a) Troopergate (for cooperation before she as against it) and (b) the deep ignorance Palin demonstrated in her interview with Couric.
1. To be honest, I don't know. I could do the research, but for the sake of argument I will say yes she did. That doesn't make her statement a lie, which is the point that I am trying to make with you.
2. For the sake of argument, I will say after. Once again, it doesn't make her statement a lie.
3. I am a very literal person. I don't try to imagine what people "imply" by their statements. When I say something, take it for exactly how it is stated. I understand politicians parse words, but that doesn't make them lies. You can try to look into people's minds and pretend that you are an amatuer Freud reincarnated, but I don't do that.
The statment isn't a lie, you can call it a lie all you want, but that doesn't make it true.
You seem to have a problem with defintions of words. I have told you this before, but it is worth repeating. Open up a word document, and use the dictionary.
What about Biden's lies?
"We don't support clean coal."
"I didn't support partitioning of Iraq"
Sarah Palin Facts.
1. Palin kept $223 million dollars in transportation infrastructure money -- fact.
2. Congress told her she could keep it -- fact.
3. Congress stopped funding -- fact.
4. Palin stopped funding, too -- fact.
5. Palin wasn't going to saddle her state with an underfunded project that would have put Alaska on the hook for the rest of the money -- fact.
5. My question [and a very valid question] why did Congress even fund the initial $223 million? Why isn't anyone complaining about that? Maybe Obama has an answer.
6. I understand budget laws -- fact.
7. One thing you don't is cut infrastructure money -- fact. You snooze, you lose.
8. Old Drum has screamed to high heaven on this blog about infrastructure money for Missouri -- fact.
9. Old Drum doesn't care if Missouri gets more than they deserve -- fact.
10. If Palin gives it back it is considered a budget reduction and no one gets it the next time around, not Missouri, not Kansas -- no one -- fact.
11. If Old Drum wants Palin to give it back, then it means he doesn't want Missouri to get it -- fact.
12. Palin say thanks, but no thanks -- fact.
13. It is a good cliche for effect -- fact.
14. Democrats hate it because it works -- fact.
15. She's pounding it because it pisses off liberals -- fact.
16. It keeps her in the news and any news is good news -- fact.
17. She stop the funding of an overpriced project that was approved before she became governor -- fact.
18. No. 17 is not an exciting way to say "thanks, but no thanks," but it works -- fact.
19. Old Drum will call all these facts, fact-free and ignorant -- fact.
20. Old Drum will repeat the same talking points tomorrow, five times on five different threads -- fact.
My wife and I saw Palin's interview.
We both felt very sorry for her.
She is such an embarrassment, it is comical.
Actually, its incredibly sad.
I am embarrassed for her.
It was your dog and it was licking your face. It was embarrassed for you that you had to talk to an animal about a political interview. It must be the PETA gene in you liberals.
Now stop barking like a dog. You're are giving yourself away.
I thought your cynical attitude and smirking demeanor meant you weren't going to play follow the leader? Looks like you are still swinging away here. Poor sap.
Anyway, let me clear this one up since you are still buffooning around it.
3. Congress stopped funding -- fact.
THIS is the whole point, BLEATing-villager... Congress did not stop the damned funding. Palin's LIE is that she saved taxpayers money.
EVERYONE PAYING ATTENTION KNOWS THAT.
Saying "thanks but no thanks" is a LIE. Your girlfriend lied to you. She is still lying. Maybe she just can't help it and you love her anyway? Get OVER it.
Bottom line on that one folks. Palin lied over and over.
But! This is boring because you all won't see the bloody bat even though you have been beaten senseless with it multiple times.
How about another WHOPPER??? You won't like it much either.
SHE SOLD THE JET ON EBAY FOR A PROFIT!!
LMFAO!! SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURE SHE DID! HONEST!
What a bunch of rubes. (smile)
He had several others, but it is nice to get even a little movement towards the truth.
The truth is: Obama was *for* transparency in government at the national level back when Gov Palin was still trying to sell that jet on ebay, trying to get her ex-brother-in-law fired, grabbing earmarks from Ted Stevens until the indictments got too close, and bilking Alaska for travel time spent in her own house.
Yeah, pieces of legislation do get updated from time to time and isn't it is nice to know that even you can see how Obama worked with Republicans in a bipartisan fashion and took their suggestions to improve this piece of good government legislation. Of course, you can't improve it if it never existed in the first place, and these refinements are hardly major surgery. They sound like improvements added on to an already good idea.
That bipartisan stance is one that I really am glad you brought up. Recall that I already pointed it out before:
We also have, over at the Washington Post, this article that says:
People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama's bills and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability.
The article talks about both his US Senate and Illinois Senate accomplishments and observes:
Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Dillard, the Republican state senator, calls a "unique" ability "to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people." In other words, Obama's campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just rhetoric.
Obama has demonstrated that he can craft a bill that uses 21st century technology to make government more transparent and that he can then work with others to improve it. McCain (regardless of whether his wartime injuries affect his keyboard use or not) does not seem to understand internet technology well enough to use these modern tools or to invision how they might help citizens track government spending on their own.
Hmmmm.
Last I heard, Jethro, er I mean Todd, had them out back by the cement pond, er I mean ice rink. He was checking his gozintas.
liberal socialist
Last I heard, Jethro, er I mean Todd, had them out back by the cement pond, er I mean ice rink. He was checking his gozintas.
Wow... gozintas! That takes me back. I haven't thought about that Beverly Hillbillies joke in quite a while.
So... Now where were we? Think, think, think. Oh yeah! I remember.
We clearly established that saying "No Thanks" to the Congress for the earmark money was a lie, since she kept the money spent it on other projects, including a road to nowhere. Moving on...
We are now trying to unravel several other issues.
Wait! Come back! Where are you all going! Stop looking at me like that! I said I *have* this one! Give me another chance to defend her. I am SURE Sarah "Barracuda" Palin *is* the celebrity we are all looking for, not that smarty pants, taught constitutional-law, tall thin guy.
Wait that's it! The narrative! Her name in high-school basketball was Barracuda! We can hold on to the mirage! Let me fire up that song on my old record player!
Barracuda starts playing...
And if the real thing won't do the trick...
You better make up something quick!!!
Sound of an old LP record scratching and breaking!
No, no, no... that is definitely not the image we want for McCain/Palin with all these hail marys... Note to Rick Davis: We shouldn't play that song at the pep rallies anymore.
Let's go back to talking about how McCain is going to fix the economy.
Do some blog research. I proved wrong every one of your points long ago. Try to stay current, wunder pee-pee.
PS: Wunder pee-pee -- Commander Strikeforce has you under his spell. Your posts are all glitz & dazzle because of a lack of substantive information.
I can't wait to see how you'll add Greek columns! (smile)
Wunder, the constant harping on the city debt is idiotic. How is any city supposed to fund capital improvements? The City of OP has nearly $200M of indebtedness for 2009. Is that some sort of fiasco?
It takes debt to improve and move any inftrastructure dependent enterpise forward, you certainly coould not expect taxpayers to fund imporvements on a cash basis.
Thoughtful, you need to understand the difference between "a budget" and "debt". A budget is "necessary" but a debt is "bad".
The city of Overland Park, Kansas has a population of roughly 149,080 (2000 census).
The entire budget for the city (repeat: the entire budget) for 2007 was $251,380,000.
Now, to pay for this, the city charges various taxes and fees (a sales tax, for instance). The budget SURPLUS (making more than you spend) was expected to be modest for 2007.
So, it turns out you are wrong and OP, KS is running a budget SURPLUS. Don't feel bad because it surprised me too! After all, Carl Gerlach is a Republican! I suppose it must happen from time to time. He must be a rare "fiscal conservative".
Trust me: we talk about how many earmarks Overland Park, KS received compared to Wasilla, AK. Do not go there.
Read on to understand just how huge that debt in Wasilla, Alaska really is.
Let's pretend that Overland Park has ZERO income (NO taxes, NO fees, NO revenue from traffic tickets!), and that they threw caution to the wind (like a true borrow-and-spend-conservative) and just ran up a huge debt, it would mean that every man, woman, and child in Overland Park, Kansas would go into debt PER PERSON of about 253MM divided by 149M, which is roughly $1700 per capita.
What's the per capita debt for Wasilla (with a population the size of Shawnee Mission South + Shawnee Mission West High Schools)? It is about $3,000 per person.
To be clear:
Palin Left Behind Almost $19 Million In Long-Term Debt, Compared to None Before She Was Mayor.
Long-Term Debt Was $3000 Per Capita When Palin Left, Compared to None Before She Was Mayor.
Mixing up two issues -- our "liberal" media at work
Neither Biden nor Obama has gone around the country saying they were against the Bridge to Nowhere from the very beginning.
We are all grown ups here, so we know that in a bill this large some items of pork were involved. If it is amended in anyway, the whole thing may fall apart.
This suggests problems with earmarks but is COMPLETELY irrelevant to Palin and her LIE.
Palin is lying....lying.....lying when she says "I told Congress thanks but no thanks for the Bridge to Nowhere."
Nothing in this article supports Palin's claim -- it was a lie, it is a lie, and it will still be a lie tomorrow.