Thread: The Republicans Bullshit Meter Just Overheated.

I thought this was a great article on how Palin and her supporters dismiss the truth in their attempt to do whatever it takes to get elected even if it means lying. Here is an example from the article:

PALIN: "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."
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."


So if she's a breath of fresh air then why does it smell like pig shit.

US Elections - Times Online - WBLG: Palin and supporters stretch truth on Obama

Also, did you notice no one at the RNC talked about bridges or infrastructure. Last spring there was some discussion in the local papers about taking the conventioneers out for a bridge tour of Minnesota. That was at a time when 4 bridges were out across the Mississippi River. I didn't even hear a mention of the new I35 bridge which is almost done. Highways are getting bad in Minnesota too. Also 2-3 weeks before the RNC a big chunk of overpass dropped on a car in I35E in St. Paul. Tim Pawlenty vetoed every piece of highway and transportation legislation that came to his desk, at least 4 bills, I believe the 5th bill was passed over his veto.

Nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada of substance was discussed. And McCain said he was the real change agent, why would he want to change the things he helped create.

Originally Posted by 2lane

Also, did you notice no one at the RNC talked about bridges or infrastructure. Last spring there was some discussion in the local papers about taking the conventioneers out for a bridge tour of Minnesota. That was at a time when 4 bridges were out across the Mississippi River. I didn't even hear a mention of the new I35 bridge which is almost done. Highways are getting bad in Minnesota too. Also 2-3 weeks before the RNC a big chunk of overpass dropped on a car in I35E in St. Paul. Tim Pawlenty vetoed every piece of highway and transportation legislation that came to his desk, at least 4 bills, I believe the 5th bill was passed over his veto.

Nothing, zero, zip, zilch, nada of substance was discussed. And McCain said he was the real change agent, why would he want to change the things he helped create.

That's what happens when you have a government monopoly on transportation infrastructure.

Originally Posted by Defensor

That's what happens when you have a government monopoly on transportation infrastructure.

No that's what you get when you have highly partisan elected officials working hard proving government can't work.

Originally Posted by steezer

So if she's a breath of fresh air then why does it smell like pig shit.

First let me say, that while it was no doubt wise to reject the Bridge in Ketchikan on grounds of its expense to our less robust countrymen, your understanding of its purpose is woefully deficient. I will mercifully assume that this is due to ignorance and not duplicity.

You might gain some small increased understanding of why the bridge was proposed if you ever had the experience of crossing the busy shipping channel from Ketchikans's airport to the mainland on a small ferry in the summer. I have on a number of occasions and can attest to the usefulness and added safety that a bridge might offer.

The question was raised as to whether our Governor truly exercises fiscal responsibility.

Many tens of thousands of dollars in funding that were supposed to come to my village from the State this year were canceled by Governor Palin. This was an unpopular but responsible decision in light of the State's budget shortfalls.

As to why the Sate of Alaska would seek a large share of federal funds, the Federal Government owns or controls well over half the land in Alaska, and foolishly and intrusively restricts how we may exploit our own resources. It occurs to me that the rest of the country owes us royalty and rental fees out of sheer decency.

The Lesser 49 States might begin by submitting funds sufficient to offset the revenues we are being denied us from extracting petroleum from the ANWR wasteland.

Originally Posted by steezer

So if she's a breath of fresh air then why does it smell like pig shit.

It would seem, by all evidence, that you are experiencing this olfactory sensation because you have lodged your cephalic protuberance in your rectal vault.

The Democrats Bullshit Meter Just Overheated.

Obama continues to appose school vouchers to kiss up to the unions,
but was himself educated in private schools and sends HIS children to
private school. So basically failing public schools are good enough for you
common people to be stuck with while he clearly knows private schools
are better.

"CHANGE"

Originally Posted by Oftencold

The Lesser 49 States might begin by submitting funds sufficient to offset the revenues we are being denied us from extracting petroleum from the ANWR wasteland.

'Xsqueeze me? You bozos don't NEED revenue! a) you've got no people, b) your entire state (practically) is a wasteland, as you say, and c) you oughta be payin' US to keep Big Oil off your land. Revenues denied "us" - what a joke. How much of that do you think YOU'd get? Why don't you get a life and come on down to sunny Southern Galifornia? Your entire State's gonna melt pretty soon anyway (global toaster-oven, don't you know)...

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

'Xsqueeze me? You bozos don't NEED revenue! a) you've got no people, b) your entire state (practically) is a wasteland, as you say, and c) you oughta be payin' US to keep Big Oil off your land. Revenues denied "us" - what a joke. How much of that do you think YOU'd get? Why don't you get a life and come on down to sunny Southern Galifornia? Your entire State's gonna melt pretty soon anyway (global toaster-oven, don't you know)...

Sir, you seem to be a nice enough fellow, and you did after all include two smiles in you post. So I shall be gentle.

First does this look like a wasteland to you? By the way, I created a great deal of this website for the Forest Service. My back yard is a vast temperate rain forest.

We do indeed have fewer people than some minor states. We do not find this, on the whole, to be a problem.

We generally like Big Oil, as anyone wishing to drive a car, take air transport, enjoy the use of plastics, electricity or modern pharmaceuticals should.

California on the other hand, well I have people that I consider friends there, so I shall pass that topic over.

As for me getting a share of the oil revenues, oh dear.

2008 $2069.00
2007 $1654.00
2006 $1106.96
2005 $845.76
2004 $919.84
2003 $1107.56
2002 $1540.76
2001 $1850.28
2000 $1963.86
1999 $1769.84

Have you never heard of the Alaska Permanent Fund?

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

'Xsqueeze me? You bozos don't NEED revenue! a) you've got no people, b) your entire state (practically) is a wasteland, as you say, and c) you oughta be payin' US to keep Big Oil off your land. Revenues denied "us" - what a joke. How much of that do you think YOU'd get? Why don't you get a life and come on down to sunny Southern Galifornia? Your entire State's gonna melt pretty soon anyway (global toaster-oven, don't you know)...

The funny part is despite their low population, Alaskan cruise revenues bring in, according to a 2004 state study, $210 million/year. 4 billion/year comes from fishing around central puget sound. The Alaskan labor dept. says that 33,000 new jobs were created in dec 2007 yet the unemployment rate is 6.7%. Since construction around the country has taken a hit, so have job losses in Alaska.

2008 July unemployment rates rose to 6.9% with 27% accounting for Wade Hampton, the poorest area in Alaska. Yet, employment growth is actually growing.

IMO, I don't believe there's any reason why she should have been sending lobbyists to grab some earmarks, especially when the state has been growing employment opportunities over the past years.

Originally Posted by Oftencold

Sir, you seem to be a nice enough fellow, and you did after all include two smiles in you post. So I shall be gentle.

First does this look like a wasteland to you? By the way, I created a great deal of this website for the Forest Service. My back yard is a vast temperate rain forest.

We do indeed have fewer people than some minor states. We do not find this, on the whole, to be a problem.

We generally like Big Oil, as anyone wishing to drive a car, take air transport, enjoy the use of plastics, electricity or modern pharmaceuticals should.

California on the other hand, well I have people that I consider friends there, so I shall pass that topic over.

As for me getting a share of the oil revenues, oh dear.

2008 $2069.00
2007 $1654.00
2006 $1106.96
2005 $845.76
2004 $919.84
2003 $1107.56
2002 $1540.76
2001 $1850.28
2000 $1963.86
1999 $1769.84

Have you never heard of the Alaska Permanent Fund?

Wow, I'm honored. Seriously. That post took you more than a minute to put together. And yes, I was teasin'.

So, hm.... you guys get revenue, and we don't. No wonder the Guvinator won't let 'em drill off the coast. Ha!

Well now - this IS interesting. So, how come you guys end up paying 5.80 for gas when you're pumping it AND refining it right next door?

What is your state tax for a gallon of gas?