Dem. Murtha's Imaginary Pork

TheDanold

TheDanold

Unimatrix
After I got done schooling Lorax and blackasscoal on the Dems being worse on pork, I noticed on the site some of the worst pork offenders, and this one really stood out by Democrat Murtha. This would be funny if it weren't our money.

"$1 million to the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, requested by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). No congressional member could confirm the existence of the alleged Center. Amendment failed, 98-326. "
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/07/pork_for_nonexistent_recipient.php

Ok pork for dumb things is bad enough, but pork for things that don't even exist?
 
"After I got done schooling Lorax and blackasscoal on the Dems being worse on pork"

Nothing like a little self-congratulatory pat on the back after wasting so much time on the other thread. You realize that who was worse on pork in the past had no bearing whatsoever on what was being discussed, right?

You probably don't. You'll just furrow your brown in a Neanderthal fashion and continue along your merry, uninformed way...
 
So some Republican is criticizing Murtha for requesting an earmark to establish the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure because it doesn't exist?

Perhaps Representative Flake and Dano could use a vocabulary lesson:

establish - v., to bring into existence

You can criticize Murtha for requesting lots of earmarks, but criticizing him for requesting funds to establish something on the basis that the thing he wants to establish does not exist is just stupid.

And really, Murtha has always been a big time proponent of earmarks and has said since before the 2006 election that he has no intention of stopping. Why you guys cannot grasp that is beyond me.
 
And I see it failed to pass....

I would much rather have pork here than in Iraq.
what ever happened to the 16 bill or so they just lost in Iraq ?
 
Dungheap said:
So some Republican is criticizing Murtha for requesting an earmark to establish the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure because it doesn't exist?

Perhaps Representative Flake and Dano could use a vocabulary lesson:

establish - v., to bring into existence

You can criticize Murtha for requesting lots of earmarks, but criticizing him for requesting funds to establish something on the basis that the thing he wants to establish does not exist is just stupid.

And really, Murtha has always been a big time proponent of earmarks and has said since before the 2006 election that he has no intention of stopping. Why you guys cannot grasp that is beyond me.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHA, did you read it? Where do you see the word "establish"?
"$1 million to the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, requested by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). No congressional member could confirm the existence of the alleged Center. Amendment failed, 98-326. "
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/07..._recipient.php

Again, it is TO the center, not FOR THE EASTABLISHMENT of the center.
What an idiot, gets out the dictionary and everything, most embarassing post for you I'd say. This isn't the first time you fucked up basic reading.
 
Dano - Sorry if I don't accept the Club for Growth as the gospel truth. I sought out more balanced sources of news to find out what actually happened, not what happened according to the blatantly dishonest Club for Growth.

My source was The Hill:

Murtha attempted yesterday to quell criticism of a so-called mystery $1 million earmark to establish the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure, a subsidiary of Concurrent Technology Corporation (CTC), a nonprofit technology innovation center in Johnstown, Pa., that has received millions of dollars in earmarks in recent years.
Click to expand...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...has-claims-on-earmark-request-2007-07-19.html

And really, what's worse is that your source isn't necessarily the Club for Growth, it is Representative Flack. And what pray-tell did his exhaustive search to determine the bonafides of the earmark consist of? From The Hill again:

Anti-earmark crusader Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) challenged the earmark on the House floor Tuesday, asking if the “mysterious” Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure even existed because he and his staff couldn’t find a website for it.
Click to expand...

A google search? How about calling the DoE who clearly knew what the earmark was all about, although they didn't approve it.

Nice try Dano, but once again you are 100% wrong. Your self-righteousness is a nice touch too. Calling me an idiot and claiming I "fucked up basic reading."

Jackass.
 
Last edited:
Dungheap said:
Dano - Sorry if I don't accept the Club for Growth as the gospel truth. I sought out more balanced sources of news to find out what actually happened, not what happened according to the blatantly dishonest Club for Growth.

My source was The Hill:



http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...has-claims-on-earmark-request-2007-07-19.html

And really, what's worse is that your source isn't necessarily the Club for Growth, it is Representative Flack. And what pray-tell did his exhaustive search to determine the bonafides of the earmark consist of? From The Hill again:



A google search? How about calling the DoE who clearly knew what the earmark was all about, although they didn't approve it.

Nice try Dano, but once again you are 100% wrong. Your self-righteousness is a nice touch too. Calling me an idiot and claiming I "fucked up basic reading."

Jackass.
Click to expand...

In other words the article was a little dated and even the Dem in charge didn't know it existed or that it was being established:

"Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), who chairs the spending subcommittee responsible for the project, admitted he didn’t know whether it existed.
“At this time, I do not know,” Visclosky said."

I also noted this part in your article, clearly Dems are really bad at fighting pork and earmarks:
"Republicans have since seized on that admission as evidence that Democrats are not serious about providing true earmark transparency as they agreed to do just weeks ago, after a standoff with House GOP leaders.

Republicans had protested a decision by Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) to not disclose earmarks in spending bills until House and Senate conference negotiations. Obey reversed course and agreed to make public each bill’s earmarks so that members could challenge them on the House floor and vote to have them stricken from the bill.

But since then, even those Democrats who strongly supported Flake’s earmark challenges last year have failed to do so in the same numbers this Congress. "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top