Time to put the brakes on the Hillary express

A Conservative Dem from the South is the ONLY Democrat to score over 20% on voting against pork (and the Liberals probably all hate the guy anyway), what a pathetic party...
 
TheDanold said:
A Conservative Dem from the South is the ONLY Democrat to score over 20% on voting against pork (and the Liberals probably all hate the guy anyway), what a pathetic party...
Click to expand...

Both parties are somewhat pathetic. The GOP sponsored 2 of the most pork-laden bills in history in energy & transportation.

Working within the framework of what we have, there is no question to any objective mind that the Democrats represent the best HOPE for change. By nominating & electing Hillary, they obviously diminish that hope a great deal.

In fact, much of what I HOPE the Dems can accomplish involves undoing actions that were sponsored and forwarded by the GOP, including much of what you listed, as well as the Iraq War.

To argue that the GOP represents the best change from what they have already established as a party is just kind of sad...
 
TheDanold said:
A Conservative Dem from the South is the ONLY Democrat to score over 20% on voting against pork (and the Liberals probably all hate the guy anyway), what a pathetic party...
Click to expand...


I wondered how in the hell do you have the nerve OR lack of wisdom to profess democrats a pathetic party without acknowledging the even more pathetic and destructive republicans .. then I noticed your pride in being a Goldwater conservative and my answer was right there in front of me.
 
blackascoal said:
I wondered how in the hell do you have the nerve OR lack of wisdom to profess democrats a pathetic party without acknowledging the even more pathetic and destructive republicans .. then I noticed your pride in being a Goldwater conservative and my answer was right there in front of me.
Click to expand...

No moron, the reason I pronounce the Dem party pathetic on pork is because of the facts:
"Sixteen congressmen scored a perfect 100%, voting for all 50 anti-pork amendments. They are all Republicans.
The average Republican score was 43%. The average Democratic score was 2%.
The average score for appropriators was 4%. The average score for non-appropriators was 25%.
Kudos to Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) who scored an admirable 98%-the only Democrat to score above 20%. "
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08...owth_repor.php

2% for the Dems compared to 43% for the Repubs, pathetic versus ok (not great).
You lose you emotional tool.
 
TheDanold said:
Nice save, but she (he?) was responding to my calling the Dem party pathetic on pork voting, that's the context.
Click to expand...

To me, it seemed pretty clear that he was broadening the context in his response. I could be wrong. Just as you MINIMIZED the context to pork from my response a few posts back where I listed several issues (the others which you chose not to address), it looked like BAC was talking about the parties overall.

BAC - were you just talking about pork?
 
Onceler said:
Blackascoal - were you talking about only pork in your response to Dano, or about the parties in general?
Click to expand...

I thought that was obvious.

I was talking about the parties in general, given that I've read his diatribes about democrats on far more than pork.

Perhaps I should have written my comment in crayon.
 
blackascoal said:
I thought that was obvious.

I was talking about the parties in general, given that I've read his diatribes about democrats on far more than pork.

Perhaps I should have written my comment in crayon.
Click to expand...

Thanks; that's what I thought, and what I assume anyone over the age of 12 would have understood from your remarks...
 
blackascoal said:
I thought that was obvious.

I was talking about the parties in general, given that I've read his diatribes about democrats on far more than pork.

Perhaps I should have written my comment in crayon.
Click to expand...
No moron, perhaps you shouldn't have written in obvious response to me calling the Dem party pathetic on pork. How the fuck else would anyone who understands English take it?

You 2 can play lawyer and twist shit as you like, but you were nailed on that and you know it.
The Dem party is pathetic on pork, shown clearly by the facts.
 
There is nothing 'lawyerly" about pointing out that BAC's post was CLEARLY, irrefutably about the broader context of the parties, but that you chose to interpret it as being solely focused on pork, as that's the only area where you feel you have an advantage (and you don't, btw, since the original context of the broader discussion had to do w/ the Democrats at least trying to legislatively limit pork, which was a more high-profile effort than anything the GOP could muster during their time in power).

It just shows that you only hear what you want to hear, and not the truth. It's actually a pretty serious psychological issue with you. Oh, and that you pick the...what is it you call it again? Oh, yeah - the "weakest point" of an argument to focus your attacks on....

Busted.
 
TheDanold said:
No moron, perhaps you shouldn't have written in obvious response to me calling the Dem party pathetic on pork. How the fuck else would anyone who understands English take it?
Click to expand...

Good question. How would anyone who understands english misinterpret my comment? I don't believe you did and you knew what I was saying. You simply didn't have a response for it.

Now that you know what I meant feel free to take this time to state that you do not believe that democrats are more pathetic than are republicans. Feel free to express just how utterly uber pathetic you think republicans are.

You 2 can play lawyer and twist shit as you like, but you were nailed on that and you know it.
The Dem party is pathetic on pork, shown clearly by the facts.
Click to expand...

How about this FACT .. let's call it "The Bridge to Nowhere"

The Republican pork barrel
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...ticles/2005/08/04/the_republican_pork_barrel/

AT $286.4 BILLION, the highway bill just passed by Congress is the most expensive public works legislation in US history. In addition to funding the interstate highway system and other federal transportation programs, it sets a new record for pork-barrel spending, earmarking $24 billion for a staggering 6,376 pet projects, spread among virtually every congressional district in the land. The enormous bill -- 1,752 pages long -- wasn't made public until just before it was brought to a vote, and so, as The New York Times noted, ''it is safe to bet that none of the lawmakers, not even the main authors, had read the entire package."

That didn't stop them from voting for it. It passed 412 to 8 in the House, 91 to 4 in the Senate.

Huge as the bill was, it wasn't quite huge enough for Representative Don Young of Alaska, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. ''It's not as big as what he'd like," a committee spokesman said, ''but is still a very good bill and will play a major role in addressing transportation and highway needs."

One wonders what more Young could have wanted. The bill funnels upward of $941 million to 119 earmarked projects in Alaska, including $223 million for a mile-long bridge linking an island with 50 residents to the town of Ketchikan on the mainland. Another $231 million is earmarked for a new bridge in Anchorage, to be named -- this is specified in the legislation -- Don Young's Way. There is $3 million for a film ''about infrastructure that demonstrates advancements in Alaska, the last frontier." The bill even doffs its cap to Young's wife, Lu: The House formally called it ''The Transportation Equity Act -- a Legacy for Users," or TEA-LU.

Christmas didn't come early just for Alaska. Meander through the bill's endless line items and you find a remarkable variety of ''highway" projects, many of which have nothing to do with highways: Horse riding facilities in Virginia ($600,000). A snowmobile trail in Vermont ($5.9 million). Parking for New York's Harlem Hospital ($8 million). A bicycle and pedestrian trail in Tennessee ($532,000). A daycare center and park-and-ride facility in Illinois ($1.25 million). Dust control mitigation for rural Arkansas ($3 million). The National Packard Museum in Ohio ($2.75 million). A historical trolley project in Washington ($200,000). And on and on and on.

If Carl Sandburg had lived to see this massive avalanche of bacon greasing its way down Capitol Hill, he would have named Congress, not Chicago, the hog butcher for the world. Or perhaps he would simply have seconded P.J. O'Rourke's timeless observation in ''Parliament of Whores": ''Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

Arizona Senator John McCain, who voted no, called the bill a ''monstrosity" and wondered whether it will ever be possible to restore fiscal sanity to Congress. If ''the combination of war, record deficits, and the largest public debt in the country's history" can't break lawmakers' addiction to spending, he asked, what can? ''It would seem that this Congress can weather any storm thrown at it, as long as we have our pork life-saver to cling to."

McCain is a Republican, and it might surprise younger readers to learn that spending discipline was once a basic Republican principle. Hard to believe in this era of bloated Republican budgets and the biggest-spending presidential administration in 40 years -- but true. Once upon a time Republicans actually described themselves with pride as fiscal conservatives. That was one of the reasons they opposed the promiscuous use of pork-barrel earmarks, which are typically used to bypass legislative standards, reward political favorites, and assert political control over state and local affairs.

For example, Ronald Reagan vetoed the 1987 highway bill because it included 121 earmarks and was $10 billion over the line he had drawn in the sand. ''I haven't seen this much lard since I handed out blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair," he said. President Bush is a great admirer of Reagan's record in foreign affairs. Too bad he shows so little interest in following the Gipper's fiscal lead as well.

When Bush ran for president in 2000, he described his Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, as a reckless high-roller who would unbalance the budget. ''If the vice president gets elected," Bush said, ''the era of big government being over is over."

Five years later, what is over is the GOP reputation for fiscal sobriety. Republicans today are simply the other big-government party -- just as capable of squandering public funds, and just as eager to fill barrels with pork, as their fellow-spendthrifts across the aisle.
Click to expand...

The republican Congress spent money like drunken sailors .. and that's a fact.

Surely you find this behavior PATHETIC
 
blackascoal said:
Good question. How would anyone who understands english misinterpret my comment? I don't believe you did and you knew what I was saying. You simply didn't have a response for it.

Now that you know what I meant feel free to take this time to state that you do not believe that democrats are more pathetic than are republicans. Feel free to express just how utterly uber pathetic you think republicans are.



How about this FACT .. let's call it "The Bridge to Nowhere"

The Republican pork barrel
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...ticles/2005/08/04/the_republican_pork_barrel/



The republican Congress spent money like drunken sailors .. and that's a fact.

Surely you find this behavior PATHETIC
Click to expand...
Voting records show Dems spending more.
You bring up one item and neglect that the stats clearly show the Dems being far worse.

I'm not going to call the Repubs pathetic on pork, they are just ok or below average with their score of 43%, the Dems are pathetic with their score of 2%
 
TheDanold said:
Voting records show Dems spending more.
You bring up one item and neglect that the stats clearly show the Dems being far worse.

I'm not going to call the Repubs pathetic on pork, they are just ok or below average with their score of 43%, the Dems are pathetic with their score of 2%
Click to expand...

You're running again. Please don't tell me you still think I'm talking only about pork.

Read this real slowly ...

Now that you know what I meant feel free to take this time to state that you do not believe that democrats are more pathetic than are republicans. Feel free to express just how utterly uber pathetic you think republicans are.

Stop running, address the goddamn comment.

You're real quick to call others "morons" .. but you run like a sissy when your illogic catches up to your brain. That article was about FAR more than "one item" which demonstrates you running again.
 
Last edited:
TheDanold said:
No moron, perhaps you shouldn't have written in obvious response to me calling the Dem party pathetic on pork. How the fuck else would anyone who understands English take it?

You 2 can play lawyer and twist shit as you like, but you were nailed on that and you know it.
The Dem party is pathetic on pork, shown clearly by the facts.
Click to expand...

three words: bridge to nowhere

dano should know that people in glass houses should not throw stones.
 
blackascoal said:
You're running again. Please don't tell me you still think I'm talking only about pork.

Read this real slowly ...

Now that you know what I meant feel free to take this time to state that you do not believe that democrats are more pathetic than are republicans. Feel free to express just how utterly uber pathetic you think republicans are.

Stop running, address the goddamn comment.

You're real quick to call others "morons" .. but you run like a sissy when your illogic catches up to your brain. That article was about FAR more than "one item" which demonstrates you running again.
Click to expand...

The Dems are more pathetic than Repubs, I don't care which or how many items you managed to cherry pick to lyingly plead a case that Repubs are worse.

One more time you illterate shit:

"Sixteen congressmen scored a perfect 100%, voting for all 50 anti-pork amendments. They are all Republicans.
The average Republican score was 43%. The average Democratic score was 2%.
The average score for appropriators was 4%. The average score for non-appropriators was 25%.
Kudos to Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) who scored an admirable 98%-the only Democrat to score above 20%. "
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08...owth_repor.php

There were 50 anti-pork amendments and the average Dem voted for 2% of them, the Dems are far more pathetic on pork.
Not sure how you equate posting facts that kick your ass badly as "running" but then again I'm assuming Liberals make any sense...at all...ever
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top