King of Pork?

[Doomsday101]

Who is the biggest earmarker of them all? According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., takes the cake, with 60 earmarks worth $123 million in the latest spending bill before the Senate.

But he's hardly alone. The budget watchdog group has released its latest list breaking down the earmarks, lawmaker-by-lawmaker, in the $410 billion bill set to come up for a vote by the end of the day. The bill would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, with an 8.5 percent increase over last year and billions of dollars in pet projects.

Here's a breakdown of the top 20 earmarking senators and the value of their solo earmarks:

1) Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. -- $122,804,900

2) Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. -- $114,484,250

3) Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. -- $85,691,491

4) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. -- $76,899,425

5) Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. -- $75,908,475

6) Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska -- $74,000,750

7) Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa -- $66,860,000

8) Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. -- $53,133,500

9) Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. -- $51,186,000

10) Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii -- $46,380,205

11) Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. -- $39,228,250

12) Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. -- $36,547,100

13) Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt. -- $36,161,125

14) Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. -- $35,577,250

15) Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa. -- $27,169,750

16) Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. -- $26,628,613

17) Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. -- $25,320,000

18) Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis. -- $23,832,000

19) Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. -- $21,952,250

20) Former Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. -- $19,588,625

[jimmy40]

Who is the biggest earmarker of them all? According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., takes the cake, with 60 earmarks worth $123 million in the latest spending bill before the Senate.

But he's hardly alone. The budget watchdog group has released its latest list breaking down the earmarks, lawmaker-by-lawmaker, in the $410 billion bill set to come up for a vote by the end of the day. The bill would fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, with an 8.5 percent increase over last year and billions of dollars in pet projects.

Here's a breakdown of the top 20 earmarking senators and the value of their solo earmarks:

1) Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. -- $122,804,900

2) Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. -- $114,484,250

3) Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. -- $85,691,491

4) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. -- $76,899,425

5) Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. -- $75,908,475

6) Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska -- $74,000,750

7) Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa -- $66,860,000

8) Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. -- $53,133,500

9) Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. -- $51,186,000

10) Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii -- $46,380,205

11) Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. -- $39,228,250

12) Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. -- $36,547,100

13) Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt. -- $36,161,125

14) Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. -- $35,577,250

15) Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa. -- $27,169,750

16) Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. -- $26,628,613

17) Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. -- $25,320,000

18) Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis. -- $23,832,000

19) Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. -- $21,952,250

20) Former Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. -- $19,588,625

Looks like our senators here in Texas suck.

[Doomsday101]

Looks like our senators here in Texas suck.

I hope our senators keep sucking because this pork needs to come to an end. If these projects can't stand on their own for passage then chances are it was not needed that badly. In the meantime if a state wants to build a library or civi center then do it with local funds

[JBond]

The RINO virus is quickly turning into a pandemic.

[sbark]

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-john-murtha-has-been-taking-your.html

Over the course of the past decade, Rep. John P. Murtha has earmarked millions of dollars for the Electro-Optics Center at Penn State University — money that has, in turn, gone to clients of the PMA Group, the Murtha-linked lobbying shop that was raided in November as part of a federal criminal probe

But sources familiar with the EOC’s operations say Murtha has used the center as a “front” for PMA and other lobbyists and contractors with ties to the Pennsylvania Democrat.

At least 10 PMA lobbying clients have received funding via the EOC, officials at the center acknowledged. Sources familiar with the EOC’s operations said the total that went to PMA clients ran into the “tens of millions of dollars.”

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Murtha has received $2.38 million in campaign contributions from PMA and its clients over the past 10 years.

......I'd say this kind of stuff is alot more rampant thru out all the politicians, there is reason for earmarks, politicians dont do anything without a reason, and its hard to beleive "goodwill" is a common reason........

Its like all the politicians are in a mad rush to get their share...like its nearing the last chance to be able to...:eek:

[burmafrd]

Murtha is a real piece of garbage. He is right down there with Byrd as being the worst of the worst.

[JBond]

Murtha is a real piece of garbage. He is right down there with Byrd as being the worst of the worst.

Don't forget the murderer Teddy Kennedy. Democrats love to support these types of nut jobs. It really is pathetic.

[BrAinPaiNt]

:laugh1:

Let's see

3 of the top five are Republicans.
6 of the top 10 are Republicans.


So of the top ten that amounts to $767,348,996

The Republicans account for 6 of those with a total of $454,404,466 which is 59.4% of the top ten earmarks in money spent.

I guess that fiscal conservative thing still is not working.

[JBond]

:laugh1:

Let's see

3 of the top five are Republicans.
6 of the top 10 are Republicans.


So of the top ten that amounts to $767,348,996

The Republicans account for 6 of those with a total of $454,404,466 which is 59.4% of the top ten earmarks in money spent.

I guess that fiscal conservative thing still is not working.

The RINOS are a problem, no doubt. I have wanted them gone from the party for a long time. I miss the days when Reagan would veto budgets that had a dozen earmarks out of principle.

The Rinos/liberals are spending less than half a billion. The real issue is what the heck are they spending the other $409.5 billion on?

Missouri just got it's first "stimulus" check for 223 million. The problem is, it was mandated that all of it must be used to fund medicaid. I'm not sure how that will stimulate the economy. The newest pork bill is much the same.

[BrAinPaiNt]

The RINOS are a problem, no doubt. I have wanted them gone from the party for a long time. I miss the days when Reagan would veto budgets that had a dozen earmarks out of principle.

The Rinos/liberals are spending less than half a billion. The real issue is what the heck are they spending the other $409.5 billion on?

Missouri just got it's first "stimulus" check for 223 million. The problem is, it was mandated that all of it must be used to fund medicaid. I'm not sure how that will stimulate the economy. The newest pork bill is much the same.

I am curious what each earmark has in it's spending as well.

I also have to wonder though if we take away the left/right politics out of the equation and actually try to be neutral.....

If you elect someone into office for your state. And the people of the state ask their rep to try and get funding for this project or that project...is it not that reps job to put fourth those wishes? Again take away the left or right of it...Is it not the reps job to put fourth what the people might want or ask for.

Does not mean the rep has to vote for it after it is in, but he, or she, is the states and in turn the people of the states...rep after all.

I heard an interview with Ron Paul one time where someone asked him about some funding he requested (not sure if it was an earmark or not) and he essentially said the people of the state elected him so if they have some issues they want brought forward he would do that...even if he did not agree with the issue and would eventually vote against it...at the very least he would bring the issue forward.

Just something interesting to think about.

[ABQCOWBOY]

:laugh1:

Let's see

3 of the top five are Republicans.
6 of the top 10 are Republicans.


So of the top ten that amounts to $767,348,996

The Republicans account for 6 of those with a total of $454,404,466 which is 59.4% of the top ten earmarks in money spent.

I guess that fiscal conservative thing still is not working.


This is all fine and I don't dispute any of this. Just as long as we make the distinction that this is Republican, it is not Conservative Senators. These guys are not what the GOP is about. These guys are Democrates running in the Republican Party.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I am curious what each earmark has in it's spending as well.

I also have to wonder though if we take away the left/right politics out of the equation and actually try to be neutral.....

If you elect someone into office for your state. And the people of the state ask their rep to try and get funding for this project or that project...is it not that reps job to put fourth those wishes? Again take away the left or right of it...Is it not the reps job to put fourth what the people might want or ask for.

Does not mean the rep has to vote for it after it is in, but he, or she, is the states and in turn the people of the states...rep after all.

I heard an interview with Ron Paul one time where someone asked him about some funding he requested (not sure if it was an earmark or not) and he essentially said the people of the state elected him so if they have some issues they want brought forward he would do that...even if he did not agree with the issue and would eventually vote against it...at the very least he would bring the issue forward.

Just something interesting to think about.

So long as it is not to the detriment of the Nation itself. In 1865, the rights of the States became linked to the good of the Nation. Now, I am not saying that the States are subserviant to the Government but, I am saying that you have to be responsible for the Good of the Nation.

Heck, California is always in the Red and they always squeeze the Feds and the rest of the Nation to help support there rediculous life styles. I think that's wrong and I think their should be legislature to stop it but, so long as it is allowed, states like California are going to take advantage of it. That being said, these states, IMO, are wrong for doing this. They are creating a harsh burden for our children to endure and that's not right. You want to prosecute somebody? You want to investigate somebody? Do it to all those who are going along with this fiasco.

This is WRONG.

[BrAinPaiNt]

This is all fine and I don't dispute any of this. Just as long as we make the distinction that this is Republican, it is not Conservative Senators. These guys are not what the GOP is about. These guys are Democrates running in the Republican Party.

Yes they are Republicans no matter how you decide to label them.

Last I heard there are not two major parties called the Democrats and the Conservatives. And like so many in here like to say...they vote for Republican because it is better than Democrats...hence voting for McCain this past election.

This also seems to harken back to a little debate we had about how you just could not believe that almost half (actually I think it was less than half at 40%) of the earmarks came from Republicans....but this top twenty list would seem to indicate that that percentage seems to be about spot on.

Of the top 20, 8 of them are from republicans which would average out to 40%.

(stands and pats self on back :D )

You also say that these are not what the Republican party is about but apparently they are because they are the ones who got voted in under the Republican Ticket.

I mean some of us voted for Ron Paul, who happened to be the most conservative of the candiates for the republican party primary for president and we were laughed at and scoffed at while those complaining about McCain winded up voting for him because...he was the republican candidate.

[BrAinPaiNt]

So long as it is not to the detriment of the Nation itself. In 1865, the rights of the States became linked to the good of the Nation. Now, I am not saying that the States are subserviant to the Government but, I am saying that you have to be responsible for the Good of the Nation.

Heck, California is always in the Red and they always squeeze the Feds and the rest of the Nation to help support there rediculous life styles. I think that's wrong and I think their should be legislature to stop it but, so long as it is allowed, states like California are going to take advantage of it. That being said, these states, IMO, are wrong for doing this. They are creating a harsh burden for our children to endure and that's not right. You want to prosecute somebody? You want to investigate somebody? Do it to all those who are going along with this fiasco.

This is WRONG.

Wrong or not...the people voted them in and I am sure they ask for many of these things and the people voted in are the Reps for those states.

So where do you draw the line?

Do you vote in someone for your state that does the opposite of what you ask?

Do you just do away with states reps all together?

How do you go about it.

I guess you can just vote them out the next election and it would seem many republicans did get voted out in the past two elections. So I guess the people got what they wanted in some ways.

[jimnabby]

The RINOS are a problem, no doubt.

Huh? By what possible standard are guys like Inhofe and McConnell RINOs?

I miss the days when Reagan would veto budgets that had a dozen earmarks out of principle.

You mean the days from your little fantasy world? Can you find a single reference to Reagan vetoing a spending bill because of earmarks? Reagan did try to take on earmarks in 1987 through a different avenue, but in the end he backed down and let them through.

Seriously, JBond, do you ever make a post that doesn't contain serious errors of fact?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Wrong or not...the people voted them in and I am sure they ask for many of these things and the people voted in are the Reps for those states.

So where do you draw the line?

Do you vote in someone for your state that does the opposite of what you ask?

Do you just do away with states reps all together?

How do you go about it.

I guess you can just vote them out the next election and it would seem many republicans did get voted out in the past two elections. So I guess the people got what they wanted in some ways.

That's right. America voted em in and now, we have live with the results.

I don't think anybody is going to let that fact be forgotten.

[Doomsday101]

:laugh1:

Let's see

3 of the top five are Republicans.
6 of the top 10 are Republicans.


So of the top ten that amounts to $767,348,996

The Republicans account for 6 of those with a total of $454,404,466 which is 59.4% of the top ten earmarks in money spent.

I guess that fiscal conservative thing still is not working.

I don't excuse any of them republican or democrat. I do know McCain has been more than talk when it comes to not taking pork projects even organization such as Taxpayers for Common Sense have claimed McCain does not do it.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes they are Republicans no matter how you decide to label them.

Last I heard there are not two major parties called the Democrats and the Conservatives. And like so many in here like to say...they vote for Republican because it is better than Democrats...hence voting for McCain this past election.

This also seems to harken back to a little debate we had about how you just could not believe that almost half (actually I think it was less than half at 40%) of the earmarks came from Republicans....but this top twenty list would seem to indicate that that percentage seems to be about spot on.

Of the top 20, 8 of them are from republicans which would average out to 40%.

(stands and pats self on back :D )

You also say that these are not what the Republican party is about but apparently they are because they are the ones who got voted in under the Republican Ticket.

I mean some of us voted for Ron Paul, who happened to be the most conservative of the candiates for the republican party primary for president and we were laughed at and scoffed at while those complaining about McCain winded up voting for him because...he was the republican candidate.

First of all, in that discussion, I made it very clear that being Republican is not being Conservative. I also made it very clear that those who support this very foolish way of governing will eventually pay for their errors.

What is funny hear is that it's clear that certain Republicans were bought off. They don't represent the Conservatives. They are RINO's and, with the exception of Domincie, who's hasn't voted on anything since 12/11/08, are being bought and paid for. This is not the same as what the Democrats are doing and have done. This is one bill. Take a look at all of these bills and find out where the money is going or has gone.

Doesn't it strike anybody odd that this is the only Bill that the Press has picked up on and is reporting, state by state as to where the money has gone?

[Doomsday101]

First of all, in that discussion, I made it very clear that being Republican is not being Conservative. I also made it very clear that those who support this very foolish way of governing will eventually pay for their errors.

What is funny hear is that it's clear that certain Republicans were bought off. They don't represent the Conservatives. They are RINO's and, with the exception of Domincie, who's hasn't voted on anything since 12/11/08, are being bought and paid for. This is not the same as what the Democrats are doing and have done. This is one bill. Take a look at all of these bills and find out where the money is going or has gone.

Doesn't it strike anybody odd that this is the only Bill that the Press has picked up on and is reporting, state by state as to where the money has gone?

I agree and I think that played a part in the republican party losing power many of them were no better than the free spending Democrats. Republicans need to get back to the true conservative principals

[JBond]

You mean the days from your little fantasy world? Can you find a single reference to Reagan vetoing a spending bill because of earmarks? Reagan did try to take on earmarks in 1987 through a different avenue, but in the end he backed down and let them through.

Seriously, JBond, do you ever make a post that doesn't contain serious errors of fact?

Because you are incapable of finding it yourself, I have provided a link to all presidential vetoes. I expect my apology shortly. Happy reading.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/presvetoes17891988.pdf

[tyke1doe]

That's right. America voted em in and now, we have live with the results.

I don't think anybody is going to let that fact be forgotten.

To those who don't benefit from the pork, it's loathsome.

To those who benefit from the pork, it's awesome.

Don't think for a moment that those who bring the fat back to their district are going to get ousted. In actuality, it's the money they bring back to their district which helps convince their constituents they should be re-elected.

[JBond]

I am curious what each earmark has in it's spending as well.

I also have to wonder though if we take away the left/right politics out of the equation and actually try to be neutral.....

If you elect someone into office for your state. And the people of the state ask their rep to try and get funding for this project or that project...is it not that reps job to put fourth those wishes? Again take away the left or right of it...Is it not the reps job to put fourth what the people might want or ask for.

Does not mean the rep has to vote for it after it is in, but he, or she, is the states and in turn the people of the states...rep after all.

I heard an interview with Ron Paul one time where someone asked him about some funding he requested (not sure if it was an earmark or not) and he essentially said the people of the state elected him so if they have some issues they want brought forward he would do that...even if he did not agree with the issue and would eventually vote against it...at the very least he would bring the issue forward.

Just something interesting to think about.

I agree with some of what you are saying here. The Senate was originally designed as watch dog group to keep an eye on the house and President according to the Federalist papers. There is a reason they were not elected by a popular vote. They were appointed by the state legislators.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I don't excuse any of them republican or democrat. I do know McCain has been more than talk when it comes to not taking pork projects even organization such as Taxpayers for Common Sense have claimed McCain does not do it.

Yes McCain deserves a great deal of credit. I commend him for continuing to fight this issue.

No...I am not joking or being sarcastic in case anyone was wondering.

[ABQCOWBOY]

To those who don't benefit from the pork, it's loathsome.

To those who benefit from the pork, it's awesome.

Don't think for a moment that those who bring the fat back to their district are going to get ousted. In actuality, it's the money they bring back to their district which helps convince their constituents they should be re-elected.

And this, right here, is what's wrong with the Democratic Party. They assume that because they love Pork, the rest of the world will too.

You could not be more wrong.

[Jordan55]

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/galt3.jpg:laugh1:

Let's see

3 of the top five are Republicans.
6 of the top 10 are Republicans.


So of the top ten that amounts to $767,348,996

The Republicans account for 6 of those with a total of $454,404,466 which is 59.4% of the top ten earmarks in money spent.

I guess that fiscal conservative thing still is not working.

Strong point, the Rino's got to go, but of course your President could stand on his pledge and veto this BS bill, you know the one where he pledged to cut the pork spending to make government accountable but the argument being made is this is last years affair which makes him wash his hands of the facts, but the truth is it's being passed this year and signed by Pontius pilate or Dameon. How ever you want to view him. Anybody know of a good survivalist camp? I don't feel good about the future of this country. GD politicians there all crooks:bang2:

[BrAinPaiNt]

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/galt3.jpg

Strong point, the Rino's got to go, but of course your President could stand on his pledge and veto this BS bill, you know the one where he pledged to cut the pork spending to make government accountable but the argument being made is this is last years affair which makes him wash his hands of the facts, but the truth is it's being passed this year and signed by Pontius pilate or Dameon. How ever you want to view him. Anybody know of a good survivalist camp? I don't feel good about the future of this country. GD politicians there all crooks:bang2:

Just for the record he is YOUR president just as much as he is mine...Since I imagine you did not vote for him and I know for a fact that I did not vote for him.
:laugh2:

Now as far as survivalist camps go...you want to get your freak on go for it. I am not that far gone yet...I might have a unibomber beard but I don't feel like living in a cabin somewhere working on bombs.

[Jordan55]

Just for the record he is YOUR president just as much as he is mine...Since I imagine you did not vote for him and I know for a fact that I did not vote for him.
:laugh2:

Now as far as survivalist camps go...you want to get your freak on go for it. I am not that far gone yet...I might have a unibomber beard but I don't feel like living in a cabin somewhere working on bombs.


No I need to save my fingers to till the land and I'm not sharing! Who's to say the Amish might not have it right

I am not that far gone yet

Just a few more stimlus packages and you just might reconsider:D Go ahead put your faith in Nancy and Harry, you know they are looking out for you:rolleyes:

[ScipioCowboy]

I may be in the minority here, but I have considerable difficulty separating the so-called RINOs (i.e. neocons) from the "real" Republicans. At what point is a party defined by the real world actions of its elected officials rather than the idealized pontifications of its members?

Although it's a depressing prospect, perhaps we simply must face reality: The party of Ronald Reagan is on extended hiatus. Heck, the parties of Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul cannot be found either.

In my honest opinion, this is a crucial point in history when a third party has a real opportunity to capture the conservative base, both Christians and secularists alike. If the Libertarians would assume a pro life stance, they would grow in leaps and bounds overnight, and mount legitimate challenge to any one of the major parties.

[BrAinPaiNt]

No I need to save my fingers to till the land and I'm not sharing! Who's to say the Amish might not have it right

I am not that far gone yet

Just a few more stimlus packages and you just might reconsider:D Go ahead put your faith in Nancy and Harry, you know they are looking out for you:rolleyes:

Well considering I would rather smack the smirk off Pelosi's faith...I don't think I put too much faith in her to do anything except to have that idiotic wide eyed look.

:laugh2:

[Jordan55]

The bill is coming due


http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/cartoons/toon030909.gif

[BrAinPaiNt]

The bill is coming due


http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/cartoons/toon030909.gif

Is that Cheney?

[Jordan55]

I may be in the minority here, but I have considerable difficulty separating the so-called RINOs (i.e. neocons) from the "real" Republicans. At what point is a party defined by the real world actions of its elected officials rather than the idealized pontifications of its members?

Although it's a depressing prospect, perhaps we simply must face reality:

In my honest opinion, this is a crucial point in history when a third party has a real opportunity to capture the conservative base, both Christians and secularists alike. If the Libertarians would assume a pro life stance, they would grow in leaps and bounds overnight, and mount legitimate challenge to any one of the major parties.

Scipio, you will get no argument from me, we have all been conned.
But here is the biggest con job implemented by liberal media on American Public
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/urkel.jpg
I'm just looking for fiscal responsibility, or were going the way of GM

[Jordan55]

Is that Cheney?:lmao2:

Brain, you got me, you really got me! Kinks fan here, the implosion is coming to city near you, was my point. but the Cheney comment was brilliant, ok let's not go that far it was good:lmao:

Where's that fan with the Guacamole hitting it!

[burmafrd]

Its time for the Conservatives to either retake control of the Republican Party or start a new one. RINO's must go.

[tyke1doe]

And this, right here, is what's wrong with the Democratic Party. They assume that because they love Pork, the rest of the world will too.

You could not be more wrong.

Then why do we keep electing the same guys over and over again?

Sorry, but idealists don't make it in office, which is why the Ron Pauls and Ralph Naders of the world are just spinning their wheels.

The system is stacked against you. Idealists can't get their agenda through because they don't have the overall support of the American people (if they did they'd crash the party), and on the outside chance they get in, their strong principles/convictions would work against them because politics is the art of compromise.

[ChldsPlay]

:laugh1:

Let's see

3 of the top five are Republicans.
6 of the top 10 are Republicans.


So of the top ten that amounts to $767,348,996

The Republicans account for 6 of those with a total of $454,404,466 which is 59.4% of the top ten earmarks in money spent.

I guess that fiscal conservative thing still is not working.

Oh come on, why stop at 10? How about 16? Because 10 out of the top 16 are Democrats. That's $968,661,084 total. Making the Republican total 46.9% It's amazing how changing a few numbers swings things around a bit. Not that this excuses the 6 RINOs.

[burmafrd]

Well thats Brain. He refuses to acknowledge the difference between conservatives and republicans. Its not like the Democratic Party where its pretty much illegal to be conservative anymore (and if you are you better keep quiet about it).

[BrAinPaiNt]

Well thats Brain. He refuses to acknowledge the difference between conservatives and republicans. Its not like the Democratic Party where its pretty much illegal to be conservative anymore (and if you are you better keep quiet about it).

:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

Funny stuff from mr if you are not with me...you are a libby.

You go get em .:laugh2: :laugh2:

[burmafrd]

Emoticons are the indication of a weak mind.

[burmafrd]

just curious brain- are you so lost to it that you do not see the difference between COnservatives and RINO's? Or conservatives and anyone else regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Emoticons are the indication of a weak mind.

Which would be a step up from your inane ramblings.

[burmafrd]

And a BIG step up from your drivel

[BrAinPaiNt]

And a BIG step up from your drivel

:laugh1:

I really hope you are just joking around because you have to be the most ironic poster on this forum ever to say something like that considering that one sided idiotic drivel you post on a daily basis.

:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:

Yes...see the emoticons. Ooohh look at em libby look at em.

:laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:

[ABQCOWBOY]

Then why do we keep electing the same guys over and over again?

Sorry, but idealists don't make it in office, which is why the Ron Pauls and Ralph Naders of the world are just spinning their wheels.

The system is stacked against you. Idealists can't get their agenda through because they don't have the overall support of the American people (if they did they'd crash the party), and on the outside chance they get in, their strong principles/convictions would work against them because politics is the art of compromise.

This is not about who is in office. It is about the people. That's the problem. Politicians don't think it's about the people any longer. Obama won on it being about the people but at the end of the day, it is really only about certain kinds of people. That's the problem isn't it?

[BrAinPaiNt]

This is not about who is in office. It is about the people. That's the problem. Politicians don't think it's about the people any longer. Obama won on it being about the people but at the end of the day, it is really only about certain kinds of people. That's the problem isn't it?

You are right...it's the politicians putting themselves in front of the people...even in this guys case.

[Doomsday]

Lets see the economy is in the crapper so lets increase the budget by 8.5 percent. Unreal! Stuff like this makes it pretty clear to me that people in both parties really dont give a crap what they do to this country. In the end it is going to bankrupt this nation. These people are too consumed with greed and power to even care about the ramifications of their actions.

[Jordan55]

Lets see the economy is in the crapper so lets increase the budget by 8.5 percent. Unreal! Stuff like this makes it pretty clear to me that people in both parties really dont give a crap what they do to this country. In the end it is going to bankrupt this nation. These people are too consumed with greed and power to even care about the ramifications of their actions.

Right On! Doomsday, Hey Brain, you might want to consider that survivalist camp
I'm thinking the Dakotas or Montana and you might want to aquire a taste for Buffalo, get out of the big cities it's everyone for themselves:eek:
There is a sheet cloud coming!

[BrAinPaiNt]

Right On! Doomsday, Hey Brain, you might want to consider that survivalist camp
I'm thinking the Dakotas or Montana and you might want to aquire a taste for Buffalo, get out of the big cities it's everyone for themselves:eek:
There is a sheet cloud coming!

I live in WV...why would I want to move to another back woods state? :laugh1:

[Jordan55]

I live in WV...why would I want to move to another back woods state? :laugh1:

Start storing up the kerosene, or maybe you already have some on hand, it's the buffalo my friend, the manure doesn't smell as bad as pig, and as for your avatar it appears you might not look bad in a buffalo coat:lmao2:

[Jordan55]

Brain, I ain't Promising nothing, but remember my man Josie Wales

Ten Bears: These things you say we will have, we already have.
Josey Wales: That's true. I ain't promising you nothing extra. I'm just giving you life and you're giving me life. And I'm saying that men can live together without butchering one another.
Ten Bears: It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men. The words of Ten Bears carries the same iron of life and death. It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life... or death. It shall be life.

Jamie: I wish we had time to bury them fellas.
Josey Wales: To hell with them fellas. Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms.

[jimnabby]

Because you are incapable of finding it yourself, I have provided a link to all presidential vetoes. I expect my apology shortly. Happy reading.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/presvetoes17891988.pdf

Uh, yes, so Reagan vetoed some bills, including some spending bills. We all knew that. Once again, show me where he vetoed one because it contained "a dozen earmarks". Or show me where he vetoed a bill while mentioning earmarks at all.

[Doomsday101]

Uh, yes, so Reagan vetoed some bills, including some spending bills. We all knew that. Once again, show me where he vetoed one because it contained "a dozen earmarks". Or show me where he vetoed a bill while mentioning earmarks at all.

Show me where Regan promised in his campaign of stopping ear marks?McCain said he would stop it and Bama then said he would as well.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Start storing up the kerosene, or maybe you already have some on hand, it's the buffalo my friend, the manure doesn't smell as bad as pig, and as for your avatar it appears you might not look bad in a buffalo coat:lmao2:

We got goats, cows and a llama a little ways down our road. When they run out I got plenty of deer and rabbits.

You can bet I will not be starving.:)

As far as buffalo coats...just give me some buffalo undies, a raccoon hat and beaver skins boots and I will be good to go.:laugh1:

[jimnabby]

Show me where Regan promised in his campaign of stopping ear marks?McCain said he would stop it and Bama then said he would as well.

Not that it's relevant to the current discussion, but in 1987, Reagan said he would stop earmarks. He failed.

[JBond]

Uh, yes, so Reagan vetoed some bills, including some spending bills. We all knew that. Once again, show me where he vetoed one because it contained "a dozen earmarks". Or show me where he vetoed a bill while mentioning earmarks at all.

He did exactly what I claimed he did. Man up and admit your wrong. You know you are. It's OK. I promise I won't bust your balls about it. Just admit you were wrong and we can move on.

As far as more proof, there is tons of it out there. I understand you are to lazy to do the research yourself. But give a little effort would you please, especially before you start shooting of your giant mouth.

[jimnabby]

He did exactly what I claimed he did. Man up and admit your wrong. You know you are. It's OK. I promise I won't bust your balls about it. Just admit you were wrong and we can move on.

As far as more proof, there is tons of it out there. I understand you are to lazy to do the research yourself. But give a little effort would you please, especially before you start shooting of your giant mouth.

Translation: "No, I can't find any evidence to support my claims, so I'll just keep making unfounded assertions."

[JBond]

Translation: "No, I can't find any evidence to support my claims, so I'll just keep making unfounded assertions."

I posted the bills that Reagan vetoed, just as I claimed. Are you just a nut job incapable of a any rational thought? Good grief man, you lost.

[jimnabby]

I posted the bills that Reagan vetoed, just as I claimed. Are you just a nut job incapable of a any rational thought? Good grief man, you lost.

Sigh. I'll try this one more time, slowly, and then I'm out. You claimed:

Reagan would veto budgets that had a dozen earmarks out of principle.

I disputed this claim, noting that while Reagan did in fact veto spending bills, his vetoes were not because of earmarks. Reagan's attempt in 1987 to limit earmarks was separate from the budget process. And he backed down from that attempt rather than sticking to 'principle'.

You posted a document listing Reagan's vetoes, a document in which the word 'earmark' never appears. You claim (absurdly) that this document somehow supports your initial statement. As usual, you are wrong.

[tyke1doe]

Sigh. I'll try this one more time, slowly, and then I'm out. You claimed:



I disputed this claim, noting that while Reagan did in fact veto spending bills, his vetoes were not because of earmarks. Reagan's attempt in 1987 to limit earmarks was separate from the budget process. And he backed down from that attempt rather than sticking to 'principle'.

You posted a document listing Reagan's vetoes, a document in which the word 'earmark' never appears. You claim (absurdly) that this document somehow supports your initial statement. As usual, you are wrong.

Doesn't it just amaze you?

He posts a document with presidential vetos but no where in the document (the section on Reagan I read) has any indication that Reagan veto spending bills with earmarks.

It's like you arguing "There's no such word as 'jiabblean'" and then jbond tossing you a bag of letters saying, "Yes, there is. Here, go look."

[BrAinPaiNt]

Funny thing about this Jimnabby/Jbond argument.

Jbond made a specific statement about a dozen earmarks. Jimnabby is arguing that he has not seen a bill vetoed by Ronald that had A DOZEN EARMARKS.

I don't know the answer to that because I am too lazy to go through all of those links and readings.

The reason I bring all of this up is I had Morning Joe on this morning playing in the background while I was reading on the board.

I don't know the specifics so I am just kind of doing a round about recap and this may not be totally correct because I am human and it was this morning.:)

So basically Joe Scarborough (sp?), Pat Buchanan and some other guy were talking about the current Budget bill and the earmarks in it.

Pat was saying that Obama should have vetoed a bill and told the congress to redo it. The other guy (don't remember who it was) said that they already removed half of the earmarks. Pat said they should remove half of them this time around. Anyway all three were arguing points back and fourth when I was not paying attention and then I think someone asked if Regan ever vetoed a budget bill full of Earmarks.

So pat says that one time he advised Ronny to do that but Ronny did not and he said that Ronny later said there were 4-5 things he wanted to get done and that was the one he did not and regretted it. Now again I did not catch it all so I am not sure if I am retelling this correctly or if I missed a part of it that pat was talking about. He may have just meant Ronny could not stop earmarks and that was what he regretted but I think he said it was in a budget bill that he told ronny to veto because of earmarks but Ronny did not.

So...just adding to the who back and fourth thing and take it with a grain of salt as I might have been mistaken as to what Pat was talking about.

[SuspectCorner]

Start storing up the kerosene, or maybe you already have some on hand, it's the buffalo my friend, the manure doesn't smell as bad as pig, and as for your avatar it appears you might not look bad in a buffalo coat:lmao2:

Looking at his avatar - I thought he was already wearing one. :D