Thread: The Republicans Bullshit Meter Just Overheated.

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

That's quite the pack of lies they're tellin! They say she was for it until the national ridicule came....eh?

They must be in some sort of a time warp? Or Professor Peabody's Way Back Machine? Look at the dates above, how exactly could she be for the bridge to nowhere, then turn against it only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere." when the project was dumped a FULL YEAR before she even took office as Governor? How pathetically funny it is to see the liberals on their hands and knees, sobbing while they scratch and claw at the ground for anything they can use to smear her in a feeble attempt to save the Messiah. It would be belly laugh funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Poor babies! :hissy:

I'm not asking you to go back in time, but if you insist be my guest. If you read the article in its proper context you will notice that the author used it as a springboard to expose the amount of money requested from the government of the great state of Alaska. It exposes her being a fraud as a reformer and being the governor of a state that has per capita requested more money from the federal government than any other state in nation.

Also look at the little sum of 27 million dollars she tried to get while she was the mayor of Wasilla. Pretty smart actually. She goes in front of the electorate saying she's going to cut spending and meanwhile she is trying to squeeze the federal government.

I have also seen the show that you are referring to, and if you care to get in the time machine and go back into the past be my guest. However, don't plan on coming back because I'm pulling the plug.

Originally Posted by Professor Peabody

That's quite the pack of lies they're tellin! They say she was for it until the national ridicule came....eh?

They must be in some sort of a time warp? Or Professor Peabody's Way Back Machine? Look at the dates above, how exactly could she be for the bridge to nowhere, then turn against it only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere." when the project was dumped a FULL YEAR before she even took office as Governor? How pathetically funny it is to see the liberals on their hands and knees, sobbing while they scratch and claw at the ground for anything they can use to smear her in a feeble attempt to save the Messiah. It would be belly laugh funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Poor babies! :hissy:

Thank you for bringing out the fact that shows us that the lie is the one that says she was lying.

Let's look at what she said again:

"I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

So did the accusers deny that she vetoed wasteful spending? No, they did not that was never addressed. I see no reason to doubt that she vetoes wasteful spending. In fact our good friend from Alaska on this thread specifically mentioned that she responsibly cut spending and made lots of people unhappy. What the accusers will do is find one area where she did not cut wasteful spending and then use that to show that she lied. That is the lie. Now if she said that she hat cut every single instance of wasteful spending one could possibly make a case for then that would hold.


Did they demonstrate that she did not champion the end of abuses of earmark spending? No they did not. They demonstrated that she received some earmarks but for all we know they were responsible earmarks and not abuses.

Let's talk about an earmark. An earmark is when a bill includes language that specifies a particular project or recipient that will get some of the money. So if congress passes a road building bill an earmark would be a part of it that says that I95 would be included in that bill and get fixed.

Yes there are abuses and there are far too many of them. But individual congressmen should know more about the needs of their state than the group and if I95 needs fixing then this would just guarantee that a bill that might be useless to some congressmen's state otherwise would get his vote. I like what McCain said about earmarks. He said that if someone tries to put an earmark across his desk he will make them famous for it. That way we can all look at the situation and decide if the earmark was responsible or abuse.


Did she say no the the bridge? Well Professor Peabody says that the bridge was nixed before she came into office. We also know that the money for the bridge was offered to her again because she requested that it be "un-earmarked" and turned into funds that could be used for any project and not just for the bridge.

Originally Posted by lakeman

Thank you for bringing out the fact that shows us that the lie is the one that says she was lying.

Let's look at what she said again:

"I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

So did the accusers deny that she vetoed wasteful spending? No, they did not that was never addressed. I see no reason to doubt that she vetoes wasteful spending. In fact our good friend from Alaska on this thread specifically mentioned that she responsibly cut spending and made lots of people unhappy. What the accusers will do is find one area where she did not cut wasteful spending and then use that to show that she lied. That is the lie. Now if she said that she hat cut every single instance of wasteful spending one could possibly make a case for then that would hold.


Did they demonstrate that she did not champion the end of abuses of earmark spending? No they did not. They demonstrated that she received some earmarks but for all we know they were responsible earmarks and not abuses.

Let's talk about an earmark. An earmark is when a bill includes language that specifies a particular project or recipient that will get some of the money. So if congress passes a road building bill an earmark would be a part of it that says that I95 would be included in that bill and get fixed.

Yes there are abuses and there are far too many of them. But individual congressmen should know more about the needs of their state than the group and if I95 needs fixing then this would just guarantee that a bill that might be useless to some congressmen's state otherwise would get his vote. I like what McCain said about earmarks. He said that if someone tries to put an earmark across his desk he will make them famous for it. That way we can all look at the situation and decide if the earmark was responsible or abuse.


Did she say no the the bridge? Well Professor Peabody says that the bridge was nixed before she came into office. We also know that the money for the bridge was offered to her again because she requested that it be "un-earmarked" and turned into funds that could be used for any project and not just for the bridge.

You last paragraph sums it up quite nicely. She said thanks-but-no thanks and kept the money. Why didn't miss reformer give it back. Even more hypocrisy from the right

Originally Posted by steezer

You last paragraph sums it up quite nicely. She said thanks-but-no thanks and kept the money. Why didn't miss reformer give it back. Even more hypocrisy from the right

It wasn't an earmark. It was money used to build infrastructure. It would be foolish for her to reject the money that would just be used in other states then. Now if she could have returned the money to the taxpayers like she did in Alaska she might have taken that option.

Originally Posted by lakeman

It wasn't an earmark. It was money used to build infrastructure. It would be foolish for her to reject the money that would just be used in other states then. Now if she could have returned the money to the taxpayers like she did in Alaska she might have taken that option.

What a bridge and miss reformer didn't return the money? The taxpayers she most dearly cares for? Keep spinning it.

P.S. Thanks for the laughs.

Originally Posted by steezer

I'm not asking you to go back in time, but if you insist be my guest. If you read the article in its proper context you will notice that the author used it as a springboard to expose the amount of money requested from the government of the great state of Alaska. It exposes her being a fraud as a reformer and being the governor of a state that has per capita requested more money from the federal government than any other state in nation.

Also look at the little sum of 27 million dollars she tried to get while she was the mayor of Wasilla. Pretty smart actually. She goes in front of the electorate saying she's going to cut spending and meanwhile she is trying to squeeze the federal government.

I have also seen the show that you are referring to, and if you care to get in the time machine and go back into the past be my guest. However, don't plan on coming back because I'm pulling the plug.

You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you know nothing about what you are talking about and have to cut and paste something you think supports you then when pressed on it you stumble over it worse than Obama without a teleprompter. the lie is the report you are"sharing".But to be fair let's see if this really is an issue because if it is it will be brought out by the Obama campaign. Right now it is a bunch of lib hatchet men and bounty hunters who get paid to not only lie but cause other to unwittingly lie for them. I know it is not your fault because it is obvious you do not know any better.
Brace yourself it is going to be a long four years for ya!

How come none of the news outlets did a fact check on the speeches at the DNC? I don't recall reading any articles fact checking Obama or Biden?

Originally Posted by Heel31ok

You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you know nothing about what you are talking about and have to cut and paste something you think supports you then when pressed on it you stumble over it worse than Obama without a teleprompter. the lie is the report you are"sharing".But to be fair let's see if this really is an issue because if it is it will be brought out by the Obama campaign. Right now it is a bunch of lib hatchet men and bounty hunters who get paid to not only lie but cause other to unwittingly lie for them. I know it is not your fault because it is obvious you do not know any better.
Brace yourself it is going to be a long four years for ya!

Saying someone's wrong over and over again doesn't make them in the least bit wrong. Credible proof, not dramatic and indignant rhetoric, will determine accuracy and you haven't offered any proof to counter steezer's argument.

Originally Posted by steezer

What a bridge and miss reformer didn't return the money? The taxpayers she most dearly cares for? Keep spinning it.

P.S. Thanks for the laughs.

show us where this was abuse.Please! The money was given for general purposes to be used as seen fit which is not abuse. The Bridge cost too much in relation to the benefit so it was rejected.No spin she kept the money and should have.I see no sign of abuse for taking it. What was the abuse? It is not about the money it is about the abuse. So what was it?

Originally Posted by Bourne

Saying someone's wrong over and over again doesn't make them in the least bit wrong. Credible proof, not dramatic and indignant rhetoric, will determine accuracy and you haven't offered any proof to counter steezer's argument.

I am glad you agree with that.Exactly, still waiting on credible proof.Any one willing to see would see this is BS.
The point is earmark abuse and there is none here. It would be if money was given for the bridge and then used for something else like the money a certain katrina victim city did . So I am am waiting for the abuse part of the story.