OBama voted twice for the bridge to nowhere

Palin had no vote
Obama voted for it said did Mr stick your foot in your mouth.
Railing against Palin for the bridge when you voted for it is 1,000 times worse than voting for it.
Could the dems please stick to issue's, when they try to slime they come off looking incredibly stupid.
 
Palin had no vote
Obama voted for it said did Mr stick your foot in your mouth.
Railing against Palin for the bridge when you voted for it is 1,000 times worse than voting for it.
Could the dems please stick to issue's, when they try to slime they come off looking incredibly stupid.

Two things, nay three:

1) Biden and Obama also voted against it.

2) Biden and Obama aren't running around claiming they killed it and that they sent the money back.

3) I shouldn't have clicked "view post."
 
This is the type of ridiculous shit that bothers the hell out of me.

1) The Bridge to Nowhere was killed in committee. Biden and Obama voted on the overall package bill that, in the end, did not fund the Bridge to Nowhere.

2) The Coburn Amendment that they voted against was stupid cynical ploy that Coburn was using to attack the earmark process generally. It failed by a large majority.

3) Coburn used the New Orleans thing as a political club to attempt to bludgeon people to get in line. It didn't work. Why? Because close to a trillion dollars was already appropriated or in the works for the new Twin Span Bridge.

You'll find the entire Bridge to Nowhere timeline here ..
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/whats_the_full_story_on_the_bridge.html

... but here's the quickee

The digested version of the time line:

Palin expressed support for the bridge while running for office.
Congress removed earmarks for both bridges long before Palin was elected.
While campaigning, Palin still made statements supporting the Gravina bridge, which had no earmarks at that time.

Palin chose not to use the money for the Gravina bridge but kept it for other projects, including the Knik Arm bridge.

Biden and Obama voted for the authorization bill, which included the earmarks, and the final appropriations bill, which didn't. McCain voted against the authorization but was not present for the vote on the appropriations bill.

Biden and Obama voted against redirecting the money intended for Alaska to Louisiana. McCain did not vote.

Thus the statement that Obama and Biden voted for the bill authorizing earmarks for the bridge and against redirecting the money to Louisiana is factually correct.

Surely you're not bothered by factual correctness.

The question is why would anyone attack someone else for supporting a bill they voted for?
 
Last edited:
1 thing I'm for Obama but if you can't say they are moronic on the bridge issue then your IQ is below room temperature.
 
You'll find the entire Bridge to Nowhere timeline here ..
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/whats_the_full_story_on_the_bridge.html

... but here's the quickee

The digested version of the time line:

Palin expressed support for the bridge while running for office.
Congress removed earmarks for both bridges long before Palin was elected.
While campaigning, Palin still made statements supporting the Gravina bridge, which had no earmarks at that time.

Palin chose not to use the money for the Gravina bridge but kept it for other projects, including the Knik Arm bridge.

Biden and Obama voted for the authorization bill, which included the earmarks, and the final appropriations bill, which didn't. McCain voted against the authorization but was not present for the vote on the appropriations bill.

Biden and Obama voted against redirecting the money intended for Alaska to Louisiana. McCain did not vote.

Thus the statement that Obama and Biden voted for the bill authorizing earmarks for the bridge and against redirecting the money to Louisiana is factually correct.




BAC - What you don't seem to get is that you are being played by Tom Coburn just like he planned for you to be played.

You're unreadable at this point.
 
BAC - What you don't seem to get is that you are being played by Tom Coburn just like he planned for you to be played.

You're unreadable at this point.

What you don't understand is that you're being played by the system.

How about less psychological analysis and more FACTUAL analysis of the issue.

Did Obama and Biden vote to authorize funding to the Bridge to Nowhere .. absolutely they did.

Did Obama and Biden vote against funding a more important bridge in devastated New Orleans instead .. absolutely they did.

If you don't choose to read my posts .. I don't really give a damn. I'm not here to please democrats or kiss their asses. The truth is undeniable .. so are Senate votes.
 
What you don't understand is that you're being played by the system.

How about less psychological analysis and more FACTUAL analysis of the issue.

Did Obama and Biden vote to authorize funding to the Bridge to Nowhere .. absolutely they did.

Did Obama and Biden vote against funding a more important bridge in devastated New Orleans instead .. absolutely they did.

If you don't choose to read my posts .. I don't really give a damn. I'm not here to please democrats or kiss their asses. The truth is undeniable .. so are Senate votes.


1) Yes, in an appropriations bill that provided funding for the Department of Transportation, the Treasury Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary (including all courts and ancillary agencies), the District of Columbia, and other independent agencies, including (1) the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board; (2) the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC); (3) the Election Assistance Commission; (4) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); (5) the Federal Election Commission; (6) the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA); (7) the Federal Maritime Commission; (8) the General Services Administration (GSA); (9) government-wide policy; (10) the Office of Inspector General (OIG); (11) the Electronic Government Fund; (12) allowances and office staff for former presidents; (13) the Federal Citizen Information Center Fund; (14) the Merit Systems Protection Board; (15) Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation; (16) the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund; (17) the National Archives and Records Administration; (18) the National Historic Publications and Records Commission Grants Program; (19) the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA); (20) the Community Development Revolving Loan Fund; (21) the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) (including a specified $1 million rescission); (22) the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation; (23) the Office of Government Ethics; (24) the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), including the Office of Inspector General; (25) the government payment for annuitants, employee health benefits, employee life insurance, and the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund; (26) the Office of Special Counsel; (27) the Selective Service System; (28) the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness; (29) the U.S. Postal Service; and (30) the U.S. Tax Court

2) No, they didn't. They voted to fund that project to the tune of 800+ billion in a separate bill.
 
READ what I stated....

I stated she killed the funds "FROM GOING TO THE BRIDGE"

She could have easily funded the rest with AK dollars. They are flush with cash. Instead she chose to kill the bridge and use the money on other infrastructure needs.

SF, I missed this one.

SF, nobody give a shit what she does with state funds, she kept making the false claim that she said thanks but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere, and she said it along with bragging about cleaning up washington earmarks. It was a lie. The dems called her on it, and she contiuned to tell it. The press called her on it, and she continued to tell it...I don't know if she has even stopped telling it yet. I guess you are depending on what the meaning of is is, but horseshit is horseshit hon.
 
BAC - What you don't seem to get is that you are being played by Tom Coburn just like he planned for you to be played.

You're unreadable at this point.

So your argument is that 'some other bill was "in the works"' and thus it didn't matter that they voted against a bill that would fund the bridge? Sorry, but NO bridge costs $1 trillion that I am aware of. So was this bridge funding a PART of an overall package for Katrina? Did it get passed?

Why not switch the funding from the AK bridge to this one while you have an opportunity to do so?

The bill that was 'in the works' could easily have been re-written to take whatever part of the Trillion dollars directed to the LA bridge and put it elsewhere or eliminated it from the trillion dollar total.

WHY send the money to AK anyway?
 
1) Yes, in an appropriations bill that provided funding for the Department of Transportation, the Treasury Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary (including all courts and ancillary agencies), the District of Columbia, and other independent agencies, including (1) the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board; (2) the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC); (3) the Election Assistance Commission; (4) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); (5) the Federal Election Commission; (6) the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA); (7) the Federal Maritime Commission; (8) the General Services Administration (GSA); (9) government-wide policy; (10) the Office of Inspector General (OIG); (11) the Electronic Government Fund; (12) allowances and office staff for former presidents; (13) the Federal Citizen Information Center Fund; (14) the Merit Systems Protection Board; (15) Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation; (16) the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund; (17) the National Archives and Records Administration; (18) the National Historic Publications and Records Commission Grants Program; (19) the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA); (20) the Community Development Revolving Loan Fund; (21) the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) (including a specified $1 million rescission); (22) the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation; (23) the Office of Government Ethics; (24) the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), including the Office of Inspector General; (25) the government payment for annuitants, employee health benefits, employee life insurance, and the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund; (26) the Office of Special Counsel; (27) the Selective Service System; (28) the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness; (29) the U.S. Postal Service; and (30) the U.S. Tax Court

2) No, they didn't. They voted to fund that project to the tune of 800+ billion in a separate bill.

You're talking about the Twin Spans Bridge, not the New Orleans Bridge.

I appreciate debate over the facts and I accept that I'm not the Oracle of All Knowledge .. but the facts remain the same.
 
SF, I missed this one.

SF, nobody give a shit what she does with state funds, she kept making the false claim that she said thanks but no thanks to that bridge to nowhere, and she said it along with bragging about cleaning up washington earmarks. It was a lie. The dems called her on it, and she contiuned to tell it. The press called her on it, and she continued to tell it...I don't know if she has even stopped telling it yet. I guess you are depending on what the meaning of is is, but horseshit is horseshit hon.

Trust me, I know what horseshit smells like. You have been shoveling an inordinate amount of it upon the board as of late.
 
So your argument is that 'some other bill was "in the works"' and thus it didn't matter that they voted against a bill that would fund the bridge? Sorry, but NO bridge costs $1 trillion that I am aware of. So was this bridge funding a PART of an overall package for Katrina? Did it get passed?

Why not switch the funding from the AK bridge to this one while you have an opportunity to do so?

The bill that was 'in the works' could easily have been re-written to take whatever part of the Trillion dollars directed to the LA bridge and put it elsewhere or eliminated it from the trillion dollar total.

WHY send the money to AK anyway?

It WAS re-written .. but DH calls it a ploy.
 
Trust me, I know what horseshit smells like. You have been shoveling an inordinate amount of it upon the board as of late.

Well, what's sucks for you is that she has been exposed as a liar, and it really hurt them. Of course you'd never admit it, but the good part is - the world doesn't revolve around you. Not even the country!
 
You're talking about the Twin Spans Bridge, not the New Orleans Bridge.

I appreciate debate over the facts and I accept that I'm not the Oracle of All Knowledge .. but the facts remain the same.


The Twin Spans Bridge was the bridge that was the subject of the Coburn Amendment that you are railing against Obama and Biden for voting against. This is the relevant text of the Coburn Amendment:

(1) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``for the construction of a bridge joining the Island of Gravina to the community of Ketchikan in Alaska'' and inserting ``for the reconstruction of the Twin Spans Bridge connecting New Orleans, Louisiana, and Slidell, Louisiana''
 
Did Palin support 'Bridge to Nowhere?'

excerpt --

.. when Sarah Palin was running for governor of Alaska, the project promised to create a lot of Alaskan jobs with a lot of Washington's money. She supported it.

There was so much public outcry, though, that the U.S. Congress eventually refused to fund it. When Palin was elected state governor in 2006, she decided not to spend her own taxpayers' money on it either. The Bridge to Nowhere went from the drawing board to the dustbin.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/mann.ct.palin.bridge/index.html?iref=newssearch

The question is with all the faults and deficiencies that come with Sarah Palin, why in the fuck would Obambi and OBiden attack her for a bill they voted for?

The answer is because democratic voters are every bit as lemming-like as republican voters and they justify and close their eyes to the faults of their own politicians .. and they are as easily played as republicans.
 
By the way, here is the text of the bill that was in the works relating to the funding of the Twin Spans bridge in New Orleans. It originally passed the Senate in early October 2005 and was signed into law December 2005:

For an additional amount for `Emergency relief program' as authorized under 23 U.S.C. 125, $2,750,000,000, to remain available until expended, for necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma: Provided, That of the funds provided herein, up to $629,000,000 shall be available to repair and reconstruct the I-10 bridge spanning New Orleans and Slidell, Louisiana in accordance with current design standards as contained in 23 U.S.C. 125: Provided further, That notwithstanding 23 U.S.C. 120(e) and from funds provided herein, the Federal share for all projects for repairs or reconstruction of highways, roads, bridges, and trails to respond to damage caused by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma shall be 100 percent: Provided further, That notwithstanding 23 U.S.C. 125(d)(1), the Secretary of Transportation may obligate more than $100,000,000 for such projects in a State in a fiscal year, to respond to damage caused by Hurricanes Dennis, Katrina, Rita or Wilma and by the 2004-2005 winter storms in the State of California: Provided further, That any amounts in excess of those necessary for emergency expenses relating to the above hurricanes may be used for other projects authorized under 23 U.S.C. 125: Provided further, That such amounts as may be necessary but not to exceed $550,000,000 may be made available promptly from the funds provided herein to pay for other projects authorized under 23 U.S.C. 125 arising from natural disasters or catastrophic failures from external causes that occurred prior to Hurricane Wilma and that are ready to proceed to construction or are eligible for reimbursement: Provided further, That the amounts provided under this heading are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

It was HR 2863. The total cost of the project, to be paid in full by the federal government, is roughly $803 million. Earlier I erred hugely by saying it was close to 1 trillion. It was not.
 
The Twin Spans Bridge was the bridge that was the subject of the Coburn Amendment that you are railing against Obama and Biden for voting against. This is the relevant text of the Coburn Amendment:

Most excellent.

Let's debate the issue, not each other.

Here is the language of Coburn's Amendment .. that you call a ploy
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=109&amdt=s2165

As you've said, it was defeated, but it was supported by both LA Senators democrat and republican
 
By the way, here is the text of the bill that was in the works relating to the funding of the Twin Spans bridge in New Orleans. It originally passed the Senate in early October 2005 and was signed into law December 2005:



It was HR 2863. The total cost of the project, to be paid in full by the federal government, is roughly $803 million. Earlier I erred hugely by saying it was close to 1 trillion. It was not.

Thanks brother .. good information .. but it does not however, alter the facts presented earlier.

Post a link to your info
 
Back
Top