MikeForsythe 0 #1 September 24, 2008 HERETime and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #2 September 24, 2008 Quote If you choose to check, you'll find there is [url "http://www.factcheck.org/outrageous_exaggerations.html">rather more to the story. "Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) tried to divert the Gravina funds to a bridge in need of repair over Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans. McCain was not present to vote on Coburn’s amendment proposing this change, which did not pass. Instead, Congress removed Gravina’s earmarks, tossing that money into Alaska’s general transportation pot to be used however the state chose. McCain wasn’t there for that vote, either."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #3 September 24, 2008 QuoteQuote If you choose to check, you'll find there is [url "http://www.factcheck.org/outrageous_exaggerations.html">rather more to the story. "Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) tried to divert the Gravina funds to a bridge in need of repair over Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans. McCain was not present to vote on Coburn’s amendment proposing this change, which did not pass. Instead, Congress removed Gravina’s earmarks, tossing that money into Alaska’s general transportation pot to be used however the state chose. McCain wasn’t there for that vote, either." What does that have to do with Obama/Biden's voting aye? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #4 September 24, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote If you choose to check, you'll find there is [url "http://www.factcheck.org/outrageous_exaggerations.html">rather more to the story. "Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) tried to divert the Gravina funds to a bridge in need of repair over Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans. McCain was not present to vote on Coburn’s amendment proposing this change, which did not pass. Instead, Congress removed Gravina’s earmarks, tossing that money into Alaska’s general transportation pot to be used however the state chose. McCain wasn’t there for that vote, either." What does that have to do with Obama/Biden's voting aye? www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/whats_the_full_story_on_the_bridge.html The final appropriations bill, on which they voted "aye" and which McCain missed altogether, did NOT contain an earmark for the "bridge to nowhere".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #5 September 24, 2008 Quote www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/whats_the_full_story_on_the_bridge.html The final appropriations bill, on which they voted "aye" and which McCain missed altogether, did NOT contain an earmark for the "bridge to nowhere". I'm really trying to see your side of the story, but where are you getting that Obama/Biden were against it. From your link: "Palin supported it even after McCain denounced it, then blamed "inaccurate portrayals" when she canceled it for lack of money. Obama and Biden voted for the big transportation bill that contained it. McCain's vote was one of four against. Our time line gives full details" "July 2005: Congress votes on a bill authorizing funding for highways. The bill includes funds earmarked for the Gravina bridge and the less-famous Knik Arm bridge. Both bridges go to low-population areas and are labeled "bridges to nowhere." Sen. McCain makes an impassioned speech on the floor decrying both bridges and dozens of other projects he considers unnecessary. Biden and Obama vote for the $286.4 billion highway bill, with the Gravina bridge and the other projects included. McCain and only three others vote against it. The highway bill passes 91 - 4 with five not voting." "October 2005: Sen. Tom Coburn proposes an amendment to a bill making appropriations for transportation. The amendment would strip the earmarked funds from the Gravina and Knik Arm bridges and commit them to the rebuilding of the Twin Spans bridge in Louisiana, which was damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Obama and Biden vote against the amendment. McCain is not present. The amendment fails 82 - 15 with three not voting." Help me understand why Obama/Biden are free of guilt. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MikeForsythe 0 #6 September 24, 2008 You really should read the whole article and maybe ask some family or friends what it means and if Obama/Biden are being hypocrites. By the way, how much in earmarks has Obama asked for vs. McCain?Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #7 September 24, 2008 QuoteYou really should read the whole article and maybe ask some family or friends what it means and if Obama/Biden are being hypocrites. Judging from your posts, it appears that you do not understand what hypocrisy means.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #8 September 24, 2008 sounds to me like this is more double talk by Obama. but then again politicians are good for this crap. this is a perfect example of why a line item veto is needed for the president. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #9 September 24, 2008 QuoteQuote www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/whats_the_full_story_on_the_bridge.html The final appropriations bill, on which they voted "aye" and which McCain missed altogether, did NOT contain an earmark for the "bridge to nowhere". I'm really trying to see your side of the story, but where are you getting that Obama/Biden were against it. From your link: "Palin supported it even after McCain denounced it, then blamed "inaccurate portrayals" when she canceled it for lack of money. Obama and Biden voted for the big transportation bill that contained it. McCain's vote was one of four against. Our time line gives full details" "July 2005: Congress votes on a bill authorizing funding for highways. The bill includes funds earmarked for the Gravina bridge and the less-famous Knik Arm bridge. Both bridges go to low-population areas and are labeled "bridges to nowhere." Sen. McCain makes an impassioned speech on the floor decrying both bridges and dozens of other projects he considers unnecessary. Biden and Obama vote for the $286.4 billion highway bill, with the Gravina bridge and the other projects included. McCain and only three others vote against it. The highway bill passes 91 - 4 with five not voting." "October 2005: Sen. Tom Coburn proposes an amendment to a bill making appropriations for transportation. The amendment would strip the earmarked funds from the Gravina and Knik Arm bridges and commit them to the rebuilding of the Twin Spans bridge in Louisiana, which was damaged by Hurricane Katrina. Obama and Biden vote against the amendment. McCain is not present. The amendment fails 82 - 15 with three not voting." Help me understand why Obama/Biden are free of guilt. Why did you snip the sentence that reads: "Instead, the revised appropriations bill strips the earmarks from the bridges" Oh, because it destroys your position, that's why.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #10 September 24, 2008 Quote sounds to me like this is more double talk by Obama. but then again politicians are good for this crap. this is a perfect example of why a line item veto is needed for the president. What part of "Instead, the revised appropriations bill strips the earmarks from the bridges" don't you understand? Here, read it for yourself. The bill Obama and Biden voted for (and McCain skipped) contains the words: "Provided further, That the descriptions for High Priority Projects #406, the Gravina Island bridge, and #2465, the Knik Arm bridge, in section 1702 of Public Law 109–59 are hereby deleted"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #11 September 24, 2008 Quote Why did you snip the sentence that reads: "Instead, the revised appropriations bill strips the earmarks from the bridges" Oh, because it destroys your position, that's why. Because July comes before October. The first bill, in July, had no revision. Obama and Biden voted for it then. Then they voted against Coburn's amendment. Then the revised appropriations bill stripped it. I expected a snide remark but you're obviously misunderstanding the timeline. There's no argument defending them. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #12 September 25, 2008 QuoteThe first bill, in July, had no revision. Obama and Biden voted for it then. Then they voted against Coburn's amendment. Then the revised appropriations bill stripped it.. Do you think that Senators Obama and Biden based their votes on two bridge projects that made up less than 1/1000th of the entire transportation bill? Personally, I hope they didn't.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #13 September 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe first bill, in July, had no revision. Obama and Biden voted for it then. Then they voted against Coburn's amendment. Then the revised appropriations bill stripped it.. Do you think that Senators Obama and Biden based their votes on two bridge projects that made up less than 1/1000th of the entire transportation bill? Personally, I hope they didn't. Probably not, but that is pretty much the definition of pork. Even so, they did vote against the amendment to remove said pork. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #14 September 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe first bill, in July, had no revision. Obama and Biden voted for it then. Then they voted against Coburn's amendment. Then the revised appropriations bill stripped it.. Do you think that Senators Obama and Biden based their votes on two bridge projects that made up less than 1/1000th of the entire transportation bill? Personally, I hope they didn't. Probably not, but that is pretty much the definition of pork. Even so, they did vote against the amendment to remove said pork. Another misleading and incorrect statement. The Coburn amendment did NOT remove pork, it simply diverted it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #15 September 25, 2008 QuoteQuote Why did you snip the sentence that reads: "Instead, the revised appropriations bill strips the earmarks from the bridges" Oh, because it destroys your position, that's why. Because July comes before October. The first bill, in July, had no revision. Obama and Biden voted for it then. Then they voted against Coburn's amendment. Then the revised appropriations bill which they voted for and McCain skipped stripped it. . You seem to have a really hard time understanding the process.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #16 September 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote Why did you snip the sentence that reads: "Instead, the revised appropriations bill strips the earmarks from the bridges" Oh, because it destroys your position, that's why. Because July comes before October. The first bill, in July, had no revision. Obama and Biden voted for it then. Then they voted against Coburn's amendment. Then the revised appropriations bill which they voted for and McCain skipped stripped it. . You seem to have a really hard time understanding the process. What am I not understanding? They voted for the bill before it was ever altered. The argument could end right there. But... they voted against the amendment. Then the revised bill came out. They had already voted, twice. Once for the bill. Then against the amendment. Try to hold back a snide remark and explain to me what I'm not understanding. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
birdlike 0 #17 September 25, 2008 Quote Try to hold back a snide remark and explain to me what I'm not understanding. I fear that you are asking for far more than you are going to get. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #18 September 25, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Why did you snip the sentence that reads: "Instead, the revised appropriations bill strips the earmarks from the bridges" Oh, because it destroys your position, that's why. Because July comes before October. The first bill, in July, had no revision. Obama and Biden voted for it then. Then they voted against Coburn's amendment. Then the revised appropriations bill which they voted for and McCain skipped stripped it. . You seem to have a really hard time understanding the process. What am I not understanding? They voted for the bill before it was ever altered. The argument could end right there. But... they voted against the amendment. Then the revised bill came out. They had already voted, twice. Once for the bill. Then against the amendment. Try to hold back a snide remark and explain to me what I'm not understanding. Let's try again: The Coburn amendment did NOT eliminate the earmark, it just diverted it elsewhere. QuoteYou wrote:Probably not, but that is pretty much the definition of pork. Even so, they did vote against the amendment to remove said pork. Claiming that voting for the Coburn amendment was a vote against pork (or vice versa) is just plain FALSE and the entire premise of the OP is silly.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
