Pork Barrel politics taken to the next level

Originally posted by generalissimo
that doesn't make it anymore acceptable.

"they did it too!" is hardly an excuse.

Of course.

However, my post is tongue in cheek, merely making clear that sh76 is
shredding his clothes (like the Pharisees when they saw Jesus healing
during Sabbath and all those things that eventually were nailed beautifully in
Matthew... 4:7? I can't recall:

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no
attention to the plank in your own eye?

Republicans have no moral height to point fingers until they perform a
serious analysis of conscience. Sh76 is showing himself as a partisan...
a mere cheerleader, not a balanced observer. Hence the tone of his post
and hence my mockery.

Psycho Pawn nailed it in his post after yours.

Originally posted by Seitse
Of course.

However, my post is tongue in cheek, merely making clear that sh76 is
shredding his clothes (like the Pharisees when they saw Jesus healing
during Sabbath and all those things that eventually were nailed beautifully in
Matthew... 4:7? I can't recall:

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no
attention t ...[text shortened]... tone of his post
and hence my mockery.

Psycho Pawn nailed it in his post after yours.

All right. Once more...

with feeling this time...

The point of the article is the difference in degree with the pork dolled out by this bill.

If you don't want to analyze or respond to that, then you're missing the point.

As for being partisan, duh... Who among us is not partisan? You? 😀

In any case, I'm most decidedly not a mere cheerleader. For the most part I believe that I fairly and intelligently analyze most issues, though we're all prone to going too far every now and then.

Edit: Oh, and if you think I'm a Republican shill, you either don't pay attention much to these boards or your reading comprehension level is at same as the understandability of most of your posts.

Originally posted by sh76
All right. Once more...

with feeling this time...

The point of the article is the difference in degree with the pork dolled out by this bill.

If you don't want to analyze or respond to that, then you're missing the point.

As for being partisan, duh... Who among us is not partisan? You? 😀

In any case, I'm most decidedly not a mere cheerleader. Fo ...[text shortened]... our reading comprehension level is at same as the understandability of most of your posts.

When murderers go free I find it hard to call for the head of shoplifters. Wasn't the Iraq war the most giant hog ever to be feasted upon in the entire history of the world? Until we can all wash that chunk down I see no reason to cry for good government. Don't have it now. Haven't had it for a long time. Won't have it in time.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
The problem I have with that is he threw a but in there. "Yeah, the Republicans do the same thing BUT...."

There is no but and in no way, shape or form do Republicans have some sort of moral high ground. Earmarks and favors for Republicans have been standard SOP the entire time they were in power.

But Obama promised to do away with earmarks. What Republican has?

Originally posted by sh76
The article addresses that point. Merely reciting the tu quoque argument without addressing the article's attempted rebuttals to that argument does not really address the point.

[i]What Andrews misses in his tu quoque is that it was a Republican Congress that admonished Tom DeLay for attempting to trade favors for votes. The GOP may have porked up Congress ...[text shortened]... i]

If you think that's not a legitimate argument, fine. Tell us why. Don't just ignore it.

[/i]It's easy for us on the sidelines to criticize the Dems for not hammering Nelson and Co. (Or the GOP if the roles were reversed).

But imagine you are in Congress. There is a major piece of legislation that needs everyone in your party to vote for it or it will fail. If the legislation fails, your party is going to be absolute toast in the upcoming election. The other side's voters will be energized and your side's voters are going to be totally demoralized.

The bill is about to be voted on. Everyone is on board except for a couple people who know how desperate the party is for their votes. They've kidnapped the bill and are holding a gun to the bill's head and are demanding a large ransom. This is a bill you yourself desperately want passed. But you really don't want to reward the kidnappers. But one of the hides on the line in the upcoming elections is your own. What do you do?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
[/i]It's easy for us on the sidelines to criticize the Dems for not hammering Nelson and Co. (Or the GOP if the roles were reversed).

But imagine you are in Congress. There is a major piece of legislation that needs everyone in your party to vote for it or it will fail. If the legislation fails, your party is going to be absolute toast in the upcoming ...[text shortened]... s. But one of the hides on the line in the upcoming elections is your own. What do you do?

Call in Jack Bauer!

Originally posted by whodey
But Obama promised to do away with earmarks. What Republican has?

Show me one time Obama said he would do away with earmarks.

And then when you can't, ask yourself if your source is worth continuing to blindly repeat.

Originally posted by telerion
Call in Jack Bauer!

Corporations will soon be able to act with less restraint politically than citizens. They will no longer need to hide but can openly purchase candidates that accept their offers. The problem in America is not that we are spending money. It is that we are wasting it. We are wasteful because we have no priorities that we all agree upon so we get taken by every snake-oil salesman that promises to solve the latest "dangerous" problem. This won't change by outlawing earmarks. We need to embody values not legislate them.

In a late tribute to the Festival of Zappadan, never forget: "Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex." — Frank Zappa

Originally posted by TerrierJack
Wasn't the Iraq war the most giant hog ever to be feasted upon in the entire history of the world?

Vociferous rightwing critics of 'pork barrel' politics on this board e.g. whodey mostly deny this point blank. And yet, here he is - on another thread - pompously asking for ideas for 'cleaning up politics'.

Originally posted by sh76
All right. Once more...

with feeling this time...

The point of the article is the difference in degree with the pork dolled out by this bill.

If you don't want to analyze or respond to that, then you're missing the point.

As for being partisan, duh... Who among us is not partisan? You? 😀

In any case, I'm most decidedly not a mere cheerleader. Fo our reading comprehension level is at same as the understandability of most of your posts.

OK, let's throw away the side shows and get right down to the meat and potatoes.

Given this scenario:
The Democrats are in filibuster everything mode - The Republicans are one vote shy of breaking the filibuster - ONE single Republican Senator wants something to change his vote - If this bill doesn't pass it will spell absolute disaster for the Republican caucus.

Do the Republicans A: Make some backdoor deal, or B: Let the bill die at great peril to their party because they're made of such great moral fiber.

If you picked A then you're living in the real world. But then you should also recognize that finger pointing by Republicans is an absurd pot & kettle scenario.

If you picked B then you're a partisan hack and I have a great bridge for sale.

Originally posted by sh76
If you don't want to analyze

I lost my interest right at this point.

Pot. Kettle.

You are, man, a cheerleader. Even Ann Coulter sounds more balanced than
you. Seriously, you should read yourself sometimes; you've been watching too much
"Days of our lives".

Originally posted by Seitse
I lost my interest right at this point.

Pot. Kettle.

You are, man, a cheerleader. Even Ann Coulter sounds more balanced than
you. Seriously, you should read yourself sometimes; you've been watching too much
"Days of our lives".

A warning here: There is nothing wrong with being a cheerleader.

So, sh76, do not take it badly. You are who you are and you believe
in what you believe. I respect that.

I just wanted to point out that it is not cool to pretend to be a Locke when
the reality is a John Candy. And vice versa.

You have posted some quality material many times. But this one was
plain drama, bro.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
OK, let's throw away the side shows and get right down to the meat and potatoes.

Given this scenario:
The Democrats are in filibuster everything mode - The Republicans are one vote shy of breaking the filibuster - ONE single Republican Senator wants something to change his vote - If this bill doesn't pass it will spell absolute disaster[/i ...[text shortened]... ario.

If you picked B then you're a partisan hack and I have a great bridge for sale.

A

But:

1) The Democrats made a few backdoor deals; not one

2) The sheer gall of giving one state a permanent Medicare preference over every other state is more than just a backdoor deal; it's a backdoor give away the farm; and it's not a very fair one, at that. I'll bet many of my clients wish Chuck Schumer were Blue Dog right about now.

3) Why was DeLay criticized by Congress for doing less than Reid, but Reid gets a free pass?

4) Hypothetical scenarios and "what ifs?" are no answer to whether something is right or wrong. Next time the GOP does the same, then criticize that too. That's no reason not to criticize this.

Just to be clear, are you disagreeing with Claire Mccaskill (and Russ Feingold, by the way) and saying that this sort of "I'll give your state a truckload of free money if you vote for my bill" is good; or just that I shouldn't criticize it because, given the similar set of circumstances, the GOP may do the same thing?

Am I allowed to criticize a practice EVEN IF the GOP would do that same thing?

Can I criticize a practice that may be perpetrated by BOTH parties as being wrong?

Originally posted by sh76
A

But:

1) The Democrats made a few backdoor deals; not one

2) The sheer gall of giving one state a permanent Medicare preference over every other state is more than just a backdoor deal; it's a backdoor give away the farm; and it's not a very fair one, at that. I'll bet many of my clients wish Chuck Schumer were Blue Dog right about now.

3) Why was ...[text shortened]...

Can I criticize a practice that may be perpetrated by BOTH parties as being wrong?

You absolutely have the right to criticize and frankly I'm pretty pissed about it, too.

I'm also willing to bet behind closed doors the faces in both parties are the opposite of how they appear in public. The Republicans are probably happy about it because it gives them red meat, and the Democrats want to choke the S*** out of him for holding the bill hostage in what amounts to extortion.

But in the public eye the Democrats downplay what actually happened and the Republicans feign outrage. Hey, that's politics.

Back to the discussion - I reiterate that I will even join you in your criticism. But I will also reiterate where I disagree with your article. He doesn't simply criticize what took place, he tries portray Republicans as having moral high ground over Democrats. Not just in this instance, but overall. I can go on all day about corruption and deceit on the right.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It shows that the electoral system is fundamentally flawed. However, until Americans get over their obsession with the Founding Fathers and start to realize what they did right, and more importantly, what they did wrong, nothing is going to change.

changing the electoral system won't get rid of corruption, far from it.