Men's Clothing Forums banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,441 Posts
Considering that they had nearly the entire US Sentate on their side I don't there's much of a "gotchya" here.

Palin is being challenged because her memory of her position doesn't seem to jibe with reality and contradicts her intended image as a reformer. A little more newsworthy don't you think?

-spence
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,306 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Considering that they had nearly the entire US Sentate on their side I don't there's much of a "gotchya" here.

Palin is being challenged because her memory of her position doesn't seem to jibe with reality and contradicts her intended image as a reformer. A little more newsworthy don't you think?

-spence
I can accept that Palin isn't much of a reformer, but attacking her over a proposed boondoggle that she supported with words is a bit hypocrtical coming from people who supported that same boondoggle with actions.

They did have almost the entire U.S. Senate on their side, with the notable exception of the senator heading the rival ticket.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,306 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
And the fact that Palin can't--or won't--stop lying about it doesn't bother you even a little bit?
It bothers me quite a bit, but so does the fact that they ALL lie. Believing that any of them are any better than the rest is, in my opinion, delusional.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,132 Posts
I would agree that they all lie, but if history is any measure the GOP is a lot better at it ;)

-spence
Exactly so as of late anyway, and this still does not prevent one from making, delusion-free, large and clear distinctions between the various liars and their plans for the future of the country.

Be interesting to see if there is a debate this Friday if the bridge is mentioned by anyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,441 Posts
Be interesting to see if there is a debate this Friday if the bridge is mentioned by anyone.
Especially considering Obama has not gone along with the call to suspend campaigns, which I'd have to agree is a smart move.

The debate is about foreign policy, I'd think the bridge would only come up if you can see Russia from it ;)

-spence
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,367 Posts
Folks ought to understand the facts before making accusations of lying. In sum, the town of Ketchikan, Alaska has an airport on nearby Gravina Island, accessible only by ferry. The town has long desired funding for a bridge, and in 2004 and 2005 the Alaskan congressional delegation sought $223MM in earmarked federal funds for this project as well as a similar one near Anchorage. This effort eventually failed, but in 2005 the feds did award the State of Alaska $400MM+ in additional unearmarked transportation funds. In 2006 gubernatorial candidate Palin endorsed the state use of these already awarded unearmaked funds for the Ketchikan bridge, though also commenting that other options (such as enhanced ferry service) should be considered as well. One year later, in 2007, now Gov. Palin reversed her support citing that cost estimates had increased to $400MM. By that time the bridge had understandably become a symbol of budget irresponsiblity among fiscal conservatives in Congress and dubbed, memorably even if inaccurately "The Bridge to Nowhere." Palin's critics basically accuse her of supporting the Bridge when she was running for governor and then refusing to pay for it once elected. This is certainly true, but the more salient question is whether she changed her mind because for fiscal reasons associated with the cost estimate increase, which is the view expressed by her supporters, or because she wanted to draw national attention to herself as a cost-cutter, which is the view expressed by her critics. Her critics on this issue basically are composed of (i) bridge supporters in Ketchikan and (ii) her political opponents. The first group are especially miffed that she is now referring to the project as "The Bridge to Nowhere" when as a candidate she derided the term as unfair.

Personally, the idea that she would opt to reverse her support for the bridge in 2007 in order to make a national splash seems pretty implausible, but folks have to make up their own minds.

In any event, I'll let Jack explain how exactly she is lying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,132 Posts
Since Jack has blocked me, can someone else ask him if he is delusional enough to believe that Obama and Biden have told the truth on every single issue during the campaign? Or is he ok with their lying?
If you put your question in the form of a question instead of a gratuitous insult he might choose to respond in some fashion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
Well, he claims he's blocked me, so no matter how nicely I put it, he won't see it. Oh, and this this the sort of tone I should be going for?

And the fact that Palin can't--or won't--stop lying about it doesn't bother you even a little bit?
Jack always has a such a pleasant and measured tone when dealing with others....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,169 Posts
Folks ought to understand the facts before making accusations of lying. In sum, the town of Ketchikan, Alaska has an airport on nearby Gravina Island, accessible only by ferry. The town has long desired funding for a bridge, and in 2004 and 2005 the Alaskan congressional delegation sought $223MM in earmarked federal funds for this project as well as a similar one near Anchorage. This effort eventually failed, but in 2005 the feds did award the State of Alaska $400MM+ in additional unearmarked transportation funds. In 2006 gubernatorial candidate Palin endorsed the state use of these already awarded unearmaked funds for the Ketchikan bridge, though also commenting that other options (such as enhanced ferry service) should be considered as well. One year later, in 2007, now Gov. Palin reversed her support citing that cost estimates had increased to $400MM. By that time the bridge had understandably become a symbol of budget irresponsiblity among fiscal conservatives in Congress and dubbed, memorably even if inaccurately "The Bridge to Nowhere." Palin's critics basically accuse her of supporting the Bridge when she was running for governor and then refusing to pay for it once elected. This is certainly true, but the more salient question is whether she changed her mind because for fiscal reasons associated with the cost estimate increase, which is the view expressed by her supporters, or because she wanted to draw national attention to herself as a cost-cutter, which is the view expressed by her critics. Her critics on this issue basically are composed of (i) bridge supporters in Ketchikan and (ii) her political opponents. The first group are especially miffed that she is now referring to the project as "The Bridge to Nowhere" when as a candidate she derided the term as unfair.

Personally, the idea that she would opt to reverse her support for the bridge in 2007 in order to make a national splash seems pretty implausible, but folks have to make up their own minds.

In any event, I'll let Jack explain how exactly she is lying.
You don't have to believe me, but factcheck.org considers her incessantly repeated line, "Thanks, but no thanks" to be long since discredited.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,969 Posts
Folks ought to understand the facts before making accusations of lying. In sum, the town of Ketchikan, Alaska has an airport on nearby Gravina Island, accessible only by ferry. The town has long desired funding for a bridge, and in 2004 and 2005 the Alaskan congressional delegation sought $223MM in earmarked federal funds for this project as well as a similar one near Anchorage. This effort eventually failed, but in 2005 the feds did award the State of Alaska $400MM+ in additional unearmarked transportation funds. In 2006 gubernatorial candidate Palin endorsed the state use of these already awarded unearmaked funds for the Ketchikan bridge, though also commenting that other options (such as enhanced ferry service) should be considered as well. One year later, in 2007, now Gov. Palin reversed her support citing that cost estimates had increased to $400MM. By that time the bridge had understandably become a symbol of budget irresponsiblity among fiscal conservatives in Congress and dubbed, memorably even if inaccurately "The Bridge to Nowhere." Palin's critics basically accuse her of supporting the Bridge when she was running for governor and then refusing to pay for it once elected. This is certainly true, but the more salient question is whether she changed her mind because for fiscal reasons associated with the cost estimate increase, which is the view expressed by her supporters, or because she wanted to draw national attention to herself as a cost-cutter, which is the view expressed by her critics. Her critics on this issue basically are composed of (i) bridge supporters in Ketchikan and (ii) her political opponents. The first group are especially miffed that she is now referring to the project as "The Bridge to Nowhere" when as a candidate she derided the term as unfair.

Personally, the idea that she would opt to reverse her support for the bridge in 2007 in order to make a national splash seems pretty implausible, but folks have to make up their own minds.
Well said. Back in the 70s I thought they should put a bridge from town to the airport, too. But, even I changed my mind and decided it is a waste of money and an eye soar. Ketchikan, Alaska is so small (third larges city in Alaska, back then) that there is no reason to own a car. The length of the town is a mile or two with a few side streets. The only way into town is by boat or plane. Some houses are along board walks (I think some of the board walks have been replaced with concrete walks, these are actually bridges, being on steep hillsides). Beyond these first houses are more house on up the hill, so lots of stairs, and beyond these houses, again, more houses and stairs. Some of the streets are also bridges, the hillside is so steep. So, I know something about Ketchikan, Alaska having spent some time up there.

In any event, I'll let Jack explain how exactly she is lying.
This I gotta see.

Edit- Jack finished his answer before I finished what I wrote above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Maybe Obama should have voted "present" as he did so many times prior...
This dig bothers me a lot. It really comes down to people not understanding how the legislative process works (or doesn't work in some cases) in the state of Illinois. The New York times, I believe, did a nice article explaining this and why it is not an issue. Essentially, in Illinois many lawmakers vote Present for a variety of reasons. It's rather common and is used by members of both parties. A simple review of votes would show that but most people don't bother doing the research for themselves.

I happen to live in Illinois and more importantly I spent a fair amount of time studying state politics through the years. I really wish people would take the time to educate themselves instead of throwing around one liners made up by any party.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
493 Posts
This dig bothers me a lot. It really comes down to people not understanding how the legislative process works (or doesn't work in some cases) in the state of Illinois. The New York times, I believe, did a nice article explaining this and why it is not an issue. Essentially, in Illinois many lawmakers vote Present for a variety of reasons. It's rather common and is used by members of both parties. A simple review of votes would show that but most people don't bother doing the research for themselves.

I happen to live in Illinois and more importantly I spent a fair amount of time studying state politics through the years. I really wish people would take the time to educate themselves instead of throwing around one liners made up by any party.
So did he vote or was he just acknowledging he was on the floor that day?

New York Times quote;

In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted "present," effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.

Lawmakers and other Illinois officials said the present vote was devised to enable lawmakers to recuse themselves from voting on bills that present personal conflicts. It can also be used in the routine day-to-day wrangling in the legislature.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html

So did he or didn't he vote, us uneducated folks want to know...
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top