House of Corruption...

[Bonestorm]

This is entirely too funny. Now realclearpolitics is partisan? give me a break. Somehow I doubt a partisan site would publish articles from far right sites like Drudge and far left sites like the Nation.

That is one of the most balanced sites you will find. It provides links to all the major polls and most major publications - right AND left leaning... Not every publication will be on there every day, but when you constantly see articles from the LA times, the San Fran chronicle, and the NY times... you can hardly act like it is partisan.

As for the comments acting like the earmarks are no big deal.... then what the hell was all the bitching about when the Reps were in control???????????

The bitching was about Republicans using the earmark process to personally enrich themselves through pay to play schemes. That's the issue.

The earmark process was particularly ripe for such opportunities, particularly because the process was secretive. The incentive to making the list public is because it would be much easier to identify pay-to-play schemes.

You people are bitching about the amount of the so-called "pork." The fact is that if you completely eliminated the "pork" the federal budget would be virtually unchanged.

 

[Cancel7]

The bitching was about Republicans using the earmark process to personally enrich themselves through pay to play schemes. That's the issue.

The earmark process was particularly ripe for such opportunities, particularly because the process was secretive. The incentive to making the list public is because it would be much easier to identify pay-to-play schemes.

You people are bitching about the amount of the so-called "pork." The fact is that if you completely eliminated the "pork" the federal budget would be virtually unchanged.

Excellent points.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

This is entirely too funny. Now realclearpolitics is partisan? give me a break.

You posted an opinion article, by noted rightwing tool Bob Novak. I'm not in the habit of taking Mr. Novak's word for anything.

You stated... ""And realclearpolitics is not exactly a non-partisan source.""

To which I replied... you are full of shit. Just because the article was written by Novak doesn't mean realclearpolitics is partisan. Also, the point of posting it was the fact that there were over 1300 earmarks on ONE bill. That is FACT... not opinion.

 

[Cancel7]

You stated... ""And realclearpolitics is not exactly a non-partisan source.""

To which I replied... you are full of shit. Just because the article was written by Novak doesn't mean realclearpolitics is partisan. Also, the point of posting it was the fact that there were over 1300 earmarks on ONE bill. That is FACT... not opinion.

Let's end this non-argument right here. It doesn't matter whethr realclearpolitics is biased or not biased. Bob Novak wrote the piece, Bob Novak is a whore.

 

[Bonestorm]

Putting earmarks on a defense bill that are not requested and that have nothing to do with defense... is wrong. If you want those "earmarks" paid for, do it legitimately on their own. Up or down votes.

Too bad your boy Murtha leads the way in bribes spent (I mean earmarks funded)

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/08/03/billions_in_earmarks_added_to_defense_bill/1869/

That the chairman of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee had the highest number of earmarks in the Defense Appropriations bill should be surprising to exactly no one. That the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee had the second highest number of earmarks in the Defense Appropriations bill should be surprising to an equal number of people.

Do you think about this stuff for more than three seconds before you post?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The bitching was about Republicans using the earmark process to personally enrich themselves through pay to play schemes. That's the issue.

The earmark process was particularly ripe for such opportunities, particularly because the process was secretive. The incentive to making the list public is because it would be much easier to identify pay-to-play schemes.

You people are bitching about the amount of the so-called "pork." The fact is that if you completely eliminated the "pork" the federal budget would be virtually unchanged.

No... I am bitching that they said they would clean up the earmarks or at the least tell us who was requesting them, the dollar amounts and who the recipients were. NONE of that is posted anywhere that I can find.

Also, whether it is $1 or $1 trillion dollars... I do not care. The earmark process is flat out wrong. No matter who does it or who it is for. They should stand on their own, they should not be limited to just 5 minutes worth of debate (which includes the time it takes to vote on them) and they should not ever be added on to a bill that has nothing to do with the specific earmarks.

This is bullshit and you know it, but since it is a Dem led Congress... now all of the sudden it isn't as important. Highly hypocritical.

 

[Cypress]

You stated... ""And realclearpolitics is not exactly a non-partisan source.""

To which I replied... you are full of shit. Just because the article was written by Novak doesn't mean realclearpolitics is partisan. Also, the point of posting it was the fact that there were over 1300 earmarks on ONE bill. That is FACT... not opinion.

You stated... ""And realclearpolitics is not exactly a non-partisan source.""

To which I replied... you are full of shit.

A list of the top read articles on Real Clear Politics, right from their home page.

Looks like all these articles are pro-conservative, or anti-liberal:

I await your apology

LAST 24 HOURS

Obama Just Another Liberal on a Leash
- George Will, Houston Chronicle

A Bad Case of Malignant Narcissism
- Mark Steyn, Orange County Register

House of Corruption?
- Robert Novak, Chicago Sun-Times

Meet the Global Warming McCarthyites
- Jay Ambrose, New York Post

LAST 7 DAYS
Republicans Start to Smell Blood
- Toby Harnden, Daily Telegraph

Perceptions of Iraq War Are Starting to Shift
- Michael Barone, RCP

The Democrats' Scapegoat?
- Robert Novak, Chicago Sun-Times

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That the chairman of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee had the highest number of earmarks in the Defense Appropriations bill should be surprising to exactly no one. That the ranking member of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee had the second highest number of earmarks in the Defense Appropriations bill should be surprising to an equal number of people.

Do you think about this stuff for more than three seconds before you post?

Do you?????

The POINT is that he is abusing his power more so than anyone. What about that is hard for you to grasp? I did not say it was "surprising"... just hypocritical.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You stated... ""And realclearpolitics is not exactly a non-partisan source.""

To which I replied... you are full of shit.

A list of the top read articles on Real Clear Politics, right from their home page.

Looks like all these articles are pro-conservative, or anti-liberal:

I await your apology

you truly are a moron... who cares about the "top read" articles???? The point is the site links to every major poll. It posts articles from sources as far left as the Nation all the way to the far right crap on Drudge. Just because more conservative articles are read only means more people read the more conservative articles... it doesn't mean the site itself is biased.

So, I in turn will await your apology for trying to spin your shit yet again.

 

[Bonestorm]

SF - You seem to be mistaking "publicly available" for "available to Superfreak on the internet at precisely the moment he wants the information." The two are not the same. I'm sure you could get the list if you made a little more effort than a google search.

Secondly, you may want to eliminate earmarks altogether, but the Democrats never ran on that platform. The fact that they have not eliminated earmarks doesn't make them hypocritical. It just means they haven't done what you think they should do, nothing more.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Real Clear Politics Monday
Rove on Leaving the White House & Election '08 - Paul Gigot, WSJ
How Does Obama Woo 'Downscale Dems'? - Andrew Romano, Newsweek
House of Corruption? - Robert Novak, Chicago Sun-Times
What the Heartland Loves About Rudy - Peter Boyer, The New Yorker
Free Trade: Past vs. Future Interests - Michael Barone, RealClearPolitics
The NAFTA Superhighway - Christopher Hayes, The Nation
Skip Iowa Next Time - Ryan Sager, New York Sun
The Coming Urban Terror - John Robb, City Journal
Pols Tiptoe Around Urban Killing Fields - Stanley Crouch, NY Daily News
Bush's Stance on Pakistan: For Democracy - Mort Kondracke, Roll Call
Should U.S. Attack Al Qaeda in Pakistan? - Dennis Ross, The New Republic
War's Reality is Too Messy for Purists - Ruth Ann Dailey, Pitt Post-Gazette
Salute and Disobey: Has Bush Disarmed His Generals? - Foreign Affairs
Subprime Meltdown Will Work Itself Out - Sebastian Mallaby, Wash Post
Subprime Crisis is Worse Than You Think - James Cramer, NY Magazine
Hollywood's Terrorists: Mormon, Not Muslim - Michael Medved, USA Today
In New Media Age, Candidates Pick Spots Carefully - Howard Kurtz, WP
HorseRaceBlog: (Over)Analyzing Ames / The RCP Blog: Daily 2008

Editorials
Irresponsible Threats - New York Times
25,000 'Superior' Teachers - Chicago Tribune
Primary Scheduling Getting Out of Hand - Nashua Telegraph
Virtual Security - Houston Chronicle

Political News & Analysis
Clinton, Obama Q2 Hauls Are Equal After Revisions - New York Times
Huckabee Faces Pressure To Lure Voters After Win - Des Moines Register
Giuliani Favors Same-Sex Marriage Less Than Before - Boston Globe
Florida's GOP Bucks National Committee - Orlando Sentinel
Transcripts & Speeches
Fox News Sunday: Romney Interview After Straw Poll
Face The Nation: Mike Huckabee, David Yepsen On Ames
Meet The Press: Harold Ford, Markos Moulitsas
Late Edition w/Wolf Blitzer: Interview w/Pakistani Amb. To U.S.
Special Report w/Brit Hume: Roundtable: Subprime Loan Problems
Opinion BuzzTracker (What's this?)

Tell me again how partisan the SITE is....

 

[Bonestorm]

Superfreak - "Hypocritical" doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[Cypress]

you truly are a moron... who cares about the "top read" articles???? The point is the site links to every major poll. It posts articles from sources as far left as the Nation all the way to the far right crap on Drudge. Just because more conservative articles are read only means more people read the more conservative articles... it doesn't mean the site itself is biased.

So, I in turn will await your apology for trying to spin your shit yet again.

I don't give a crap about their links to polls. Daily Kos links to polls too. Does that make Daily Kos non-partisan? LOL

The opinion provided on RC, is overwhelming conservative, from what I see. Why should I trust their OPINION articles, anymore than you would trust opinon pieces from DailyKos?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Damo - You seem to be mistaking "publicly available" for "available to Damocles on the internet at precisely the moment he wants the information." The two are not the same. I'm sure you could get the list if you made a little more effort than a google search.

Secondly, you may want to eliminate earmarks altogether, but the Democrats never ran on that platform. The fact that they have not eliminated earmarks doesn't make them hypocritical. It just means they haven't done what you think they should do, nothing more.

They are hypocrits for running on a platform to make the earmarks more transparent. They have not done so. You are flat out wrong that the info shouldn't be found with a quick google search. It should be readily available on the Congressional websites.... which would be of course found when one does a google search.

 

[Cypress]

I don't give a crap about their links to polls. Daily Kos links to polls too. Does that make Daily Kos non-partisan? LOL

The opinion provided on RC, is overwhelming conservative, from what I see. Why should I trust their OPINION articles, anymore than you would trust opinon pieces from DailyKos?

Here's the link to RCP's reader articles.

A quick cursory reviews, shows all of them I can see, to be conservative, indeed there is a lot of extremist rightwing ranting in there.


http://realclearpolitics.com/readerarticles/

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't give a crap about their links to polls. Daily Kos links to polls too. Does that make Daily Kos non-partisan? LOL

The opinion provided on RC, is overwhelming conservative, from what I see. Why should I trust their OPINION articles, anymore than you would trust opinon pieces from DailyKos?

You are a fucking moron if you truly want people to believe that realclearpolitics is ANYTHING like dailycrap. But I suppose compared to YOU, the NATION is probably right wing.

Again, the article stated FACT with regards to the earmarks... not opinion.

 

[uscitizen]

Umm the nation is right wing, they elected Bush twice.

 

[Cypress]

You are a fucking moron if you truly want people to believe that realclearpolitics is ANYTHING like dailycrap. But I suppose compared to YOU, the NATION is probably right wing.

Again, the article stated FACT with regards to the earmarks... not opinion.

I just gave you the links.

Pretty much almost all of their opinon columns are rightwing.

Then, Linking up to their reader articles, is like traveling through the minds of extremist rightwing paranoia.

Its a site that caters to the rightwing dude. You're free to continue to deny it, in the face of overwhelming evidence. Its what you do: thats why you continue to support the iraq war

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here's the link to RCP's reader articles.

A quick cursory reviews, shows all of them I can see, to be conservative, indeed there is a lot of extremist rightwing ranting in there.


http://realclearpolitics.com/readerarticles/

How completely disingenuous.... WHO gives a crap about how READERS "vote" on articles? IT has NOTHING to do with it. It may show a bias of the READERS, but not the site. It may also have to do with the fact that it is well known many liberal voters simply are too ignorant to know HOW to vote.

 

[Cancel7]

House Reveals Earmarks In Military Spending Bill For 2008 Totaling Over $3 Billion

August 3, 2007 4:11 p.m. EST


Jessica Pupovac - AHN
Washington, D.C. (AHN) - A Congressional watchdog group reported Friday that U.S. representatives have added over $3 billion in earmarks to the 2008 military spending bill. This is the first year in which new House rules are mandating partial disclosure of the earmarks prior to the bill's passage.

The majority of the ad-ons are targeted for weapons research, development and testing, including $21.8 million sponsored by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA), to go to his home-state FATS Inc. for "electronic combat and counter-terrorism training." Rep. Dan Hunter (R-CA) also added $19 million for an "affordable weapons system" and $1.5 million for a southwest border fence.

Another $186 million is allocated for a "space radar."

However, the 1,337 allocations also include a number of projects that seemingly have little to do with defense, including $2.5 million to the Christian Sarkine Autism Treatment Center, $3 million to the Center for Genetic Origins of Cancer at the University of Michigan, $1.5 million for an undisclosed project at the National Bureau for Asian Research

The Hill reports that the chairman for the defense appropriations subcommittee, Rep. John Murtha (D-MA), made the costliest ad-ons, totaling $150.5 million. In second place was the panel's ranking member, Rep. Bill Young (R-FL), at $117.2 million. Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) added $95 million and Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) $44 million. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed $37.3.

The bill allocates $459.6 billion to the Department of Defense, not including the $141 million requested for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House is expected to take up the bill on Friday.


http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008098131