Governer Palin to Congress: More earmarks, please!

[elvis]

I would rather vote for.. Palin... no... Edwards?... no... I would've voted for Clinton... umm.. Frist? Ah! I'd rather vote for Keyes than Gore.

I would vote for Nader before I'd vote for Gore.

I think anyone in their right mind would've done that... Nader's done a lot of good in his career... he's just a little.. well, slightly imbalanced these days.

who was the libertarian candidate in 2000?

 

[DavidS]

I would vote for Nader before I'd vote for Gore.

I think anyone in their right mind would've done that... Nader's done a lot of good in his career... he's just a little.. well, slightly imbalanced these days.

who was the libertarian candidate in 2000?

Browne. He died a couple of years ago, I think.

 

[DiveCon]

I would rather vote for.. Palin... no... Edwards?... no... I would've voted for Clinton... umm.. Frist? Ah! I'd rather vote for Keyes than Gore.

I would vote for Nader before I'd vote for Gore.

I think anyone in their right mind would've done that... Nader's done a lot of good in his career... he's just a little.. well, slightly imbalanced these days.

no, those in their right mind, voted for Bush over GOre
same for Bush over Kerry

 

[elvis]

I would vote for Nader before I'd vote for Gore.

I think anyone in their right mind would've done that... Nader's done a lot of good in his career... he's just a little.. well, slightly imbalanced these days.

no, those in their right mind, voted for Bush over GOre
same for Bush over Kerry

if Kerry had won in 2004, Obama wouldn't be President right now.

 

[DiveCon]

I think anyone in their right mind would've done that... Nader's done a lot of good in his career... he's just a little.. well, slightly imbalanced these days.

no, those in their right mind, voted for Bush over GOre
same for Bush over Kerry

if Kerry had won in 2004, Obama wouldn't be President right now.

true, but think of how much worse the last 4 years would have been

 

[Cecilie1200]

You can't have it both ways. You are either against them, just like John McCain is and you never allow any earmark spending to flow into your state at all, or you're like every single other Senator and you have no problem with it. You can't say "Oh I'm against earmarks, but hey, might as well get mine as long as everyone else is!" That's not a leader. A leader stands up to earmarks and rejects them if she is against them. She instructs her Senators and representatives to vote NO on any bill with earmarks and to never appropriate them for her state as she will never accept that money. Kind of like the Bridge to Nowhere, except she accepted the money and rejected the bridge!!

Am I the only one who has noticed that David carefully avoids ever having to address the question of whether or not his starting premise is even accurate? Apparently, the only argument he's able to make is dependent on everyone letting him impose his worldview as the standard from the get-go.

I guess we'll have to assume that, in fact, they weren't earmarks at all, and David is desperately trying to keep anyone from noticing that he's been bullshitted by the leftwing talking points again.

I know you want me to argue with you, but I'm not going to do it. Not that I don't think you're intelligent, I think you're quite intelligent, actually. I just... I don't want to argue with you.

In other words, you don't want to take on the REAL argument you know you can't win. What you want is for everyone to just let you set the parameters of the debate so that you can fake a lot of outrage and pontificate about how horrible Sarah Palin is.

If you don't want to answer the question about whether or not they were really earmarks, then I guess you don't want to argue any more about whether or not Sarah Palin is a hypocrite. So I either won't see another word from you on the subject, or I will see an explanation as to how they really were earmarks. Anything else, and YOU are the hypocrite. And a coward.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And what you're suggesting is that Republicans must always adhere to their values under any and all circumstances....is that about it..???
Well screw you dude....
If Republicans stood by, stood aside, while Democrats raided the nations treasury for their pet projects and to literally buy votes I would personally kick some Republican ass if they did not grab every dollar they could for us...their supporters, for OUR pet projects.....
We'd be fools to not play the game according to the Democrats rules, as repugnant as they are....so I say, with all due respect....FU !

As much as we hate to play in your sewer with you....if we must...we will....

what he doesn't understand is Palin DID stick to her principles
she was protecting the citizens of Alaska from having to PAY for something they got ZERO benefit from

You can spin it any way you like, man. In the end, she appropriated funds for earmarks - something she said she would never do. She's a liar and a hypocrite.

Well, so YOU say, but why we're supposed to take YOUR word for it is anyone's guess.

 

[DavidS]

I would vote for Nader before I'd vote for Gore.

I think anyone in their right mind would've done that... Nader's done a lot of good in his career... he's just a little.. well, slightly imbalanced these days.

no, those in their right mind, voted for Bush over GOre
same for Bush over Kerry

No, those who were social conservatives and wanted Jesus as their mentor voted for Bush over Gore. I'm about as socially conservative as I am Christian. I don't want Jesus ruling the land, I want a human being. The idea of gambling with people's social security in the stock market has a horrible idea and I hated it from the get go. I did not like Bush the candidate at all.

 

[DavidS]

Am I the only one who has noticed that David carefully avoids ever having to address the question of whether or not his starting premise is even accurate? Apparently, the only argument he's able to make is dependent on everyone letting him impose his worldview as the standard from the get-go.

I guess we'll have to assume that, in fact, they weren't earmarks at all, and David is desperately trying to keep anyone from noticing that he's been bullshitted by the leftwing talking points again.

I know you want me to argue with you, but I'm not going to do it. Not that I don't think you're intelligent, I think you're quite intelligent, actually. I just... I don't want to argue with you.

In other words, you don't want to take on the REAL argument you know you can't win. What you want is for everyone to just let you set the parameters of the debate so that you can fake a lot of outrage and pontificate about how horrible Sarah Palin is.

If you don't want to answer the question about whether or not they were really earmarks, then I guess you don't want to argue any more about whether or not Sarah Palin is a hypocrite. So I either won't see another word from you on the subject, or I will see an explanation as to how they really were earmarks. Anything else, and YOU are the hypocrite. And a coward.

I appreciate the gesture - you're good. You almost got me. I'm not doing it. I have a rule against arguing with anyone who was recently pregnant.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I know you want me to argue with you, but I'm not going to do it. Not that I don't think you're intelligent, I think you're quite intelligent, actually. I just... I don't want to argue with you.

In other words, you don't want to take on the REAL argument you know you can't win. What you want is for everyone to just let you set the parameters of the debate so that you can fake a lot of outrage and pontificate about how horrible Sarah Palin is.

If you don't want to answer the question about whether or not they were really earmarks, then I guess you don't want to argue any more about whether or not Sarah Palin is a hypocrite. So I either won't see another word from you on the subject, or I will see an explanation as to how they really were earmarks. Anything else, and YOU are the hypocrite. And a coward.

I appreciate the gesture - you're good. You almost got me. I'm not doing it. I have a rule against arguing with anyone who was recently pregnant.

Hey, wow, not just a cowardly excuse, but a MISOGYNISTIC cowardly excuse. I'm impressed.

Don't forget what I said. If you're not prepared to defend your premise, you don't get to argue based on it. I can't think of a single good reason why anyone here should respect you, your premise, or your posts enough to debate with you if you can't even prove that you know what you're talking about.

 

[Maple]

Yes and didn't Obama say that he would put an end to earmarks. He certainly had his chance, all he had to do was not sign the Omnibus bill with 9,000 earmarks in it. Palin turned down the stimulus money and I think we all need to send her a thank you note for that.

Winston Churhill," If you are twenty and you are not a liberal you do not have a heart. If you are forty and still a liberal you do not have a brain."

Margaret Thatcher, " Socialism works fine until you run out of other people's money."

 

[Maple]

Anyone out there wonder why the left is soooooo terrified by Sarah Palin. I have never seen such an attack by the left wing in my life. Could it be that they want her to shut up because she actually makes sense to the great majority of Americans. She is not from an Ivy league school, like most of us, she and her husband actually have had to work in their lives, like most of us, she has a family, like most of us, she lives her life conservatively, like most of us. She governs from a conservative point of view and actually has put money away in the state coffers to handle this recession without going to the Federal government, so she was able to turn the stimulus money back. The liberal left does not want us to know Sarah Palin. The liberals shake in their boots everytime she speaks, she is the female version of the great Ronald Reagan.