9/27    In response to the previous threads about rubber stamp Democrats.
        My point is not rather we should fund the war or not.  But rahter,
        if we going to fund it, fund it as part of regular budget process
        instead of going through all these supplement spending bills which
        doesn't have the same oversight as regular spending bill.  Further,
        I failed to understand why Democrat would take Bush's veto threat
        about domestic spending while this guy's military spending is going
        completely out of control.   Democrats should just say "fund the war
        via the regular spending bill, or not fund the war at all."
        \_ Ask Pelosi and Reid why they continue to fund it.  The American
           people put them in office for a reason.  They promised to end the
           war and clean up government.  Under their watch, the war has
           actually expanded by 30k troops and corruption is rampant across
           the board.  Oh yay, I so can't wait to vote for that bunch again.
           They've been so effective.
           \_ In what way is "corruption rampant"? Is there more or less
              corruption than with the Republican Congress?
              \_ Hello?  Earmarking the hell out of the budget?  Just like
                 Republicans, except the Democrats promised to cleanup.  So
                 we get corruption+hypocritics instead of 'mere' corruption.
                 There's a reason Congress's popularity rating as a whole is
                 at all time lows.  No one likes a liar (Iraq funding) or
                 a hypocrite (earmarking corruption).
                 \_ give some examples of corrupt earmarking.  earmarking is
                    not inherently corrupt.
                    \_ you're kidding, right?  DiFi's committee granting
                       nobids to her husband's company?  Pelosi granting
                       handouts to her family's companies?  Murtha, well damn,
                       just about anything Murtha has come near.  Look, be
                       serious.  You can't point a finger at the other party
                       and scream 'corruption!' when your own party is doing
                       the same crap.  Glass houses and all that.  If you
                       spent less time prowling for Republican corruption
                       and turned less of a blind eye towards Democratic
                       party corruptions, you'd see the hypocrisy and I for
                       one have had enough.  I will not support corrupt people
                       of either party even if they sometimes agree with me or
                       even vote the way I like most of the time.
                       \_ Please back up your claims.
                          \_ I did.  I'm not going to discuss this further
                             with someone so clearly wearing blinders.  You
                             would google for it yourself if you actually
                             cared and weren't suffering from severe self
                             inflicted blindness.
                             \_ No, you didn't.  You gave allegations.
                                \_ Whatever.  You don't want to know and
                                   wouldn't care if I put it under your
                                   nose.  Bored now.  Bye.
                                   \_ "And I'm taking my ball and going home!"
                                      \_ No, just bored and not looking to get
                                         trolled today.  I gave you more than
                                         enough info to google it if you
                                         cared to know.  You don't.  Story
                                         over.
                                      \_ Wow, fools do mock! -!pp
                                         \_ Your contribution: zero. oktnx
                       \_ You do know that the current Congress has 1/10th
                          as many earmarks in the budget than the GOP Congress
                          immediately preceeding it, right?
                          \_ When it is zero, lemme know.  "Woot!  The one
                             party is not quite as corrupt (yet) as the other
                             party!  Yay for such heroism in government!"
                             \_ Good luck on holding out for your utopian
                                society. Are you going to hold your breath
                                until you get it? Not everyone even is able
                                to agree on what "corruption" in government
                                is, so you will never find one without any.
                                As a previoius poster noted, sometimes there
                                are legitimate uses for an earmark.
                                \_ Name a legitimate use for an earmark.  I'm
                                   not certain you even understand what an
                                   earmark is.  An earmark is a politician
                                   sticking something into a bill to give
                                   money to some local cronies in their
                                   district which usually has nothing at all
                                   to do with the bill.  The bill in question
                                   is typically one of many "must be passed"
                                   pieces of legislation so no one will vote
                                   against it even though it is loaded with
                                   pork.  If the allocation of money was
                                   legitimate it would have it's own bill.
                                   Earmarking = corruption.  Unless you
                                   already hold office or are the recipient
                                   of said funds.
                                   \_ Earmarks can be legitimately used to
                                      fund specific projects.  Don't be
                                      obtuse.  -tom
                                      \_ Name a legitimate earmark.  Just one.
                                         A specific project can and should get
                                         a specific bill, or be part of a
                                         larger related budget.  I expect the
                                         military budget to include funding
                                         for specific weapons and bases.  I do
                                         not expect it to include bridges to
                                         no where, funding for DiFi and Pelosi
                                         family and friends, or anything not
                                         related to the military.  Either you
                                         don't know what an earmark is or
                                         you're being a total idiot
                                         intentionally.  Either way, no one
                                         has posted a single earmarked item
                                         that is legit.  Given how many
                                         billions of dollars in earmarks go
                                         out in each budget, you should be
                                         able to name one legitimate earmark,
                                         if there were any.  There are not.
                                         \_ Here is $1B worth of earmarks
                                            to improve the CA freeway system.
                                            Are you going to claim that all of
                                            them are unneeded?
                                            link:www.csua.org/u/jma
                                            \_ privatized freeway systems
                                               are cost effective and
                                               better utilized.
                                               \_ Better utilized? Wtf does
                                                  that even mean?
                                               \_ So your claim that these
                                                  earmarks are corrupt is
                                                  based on the idea that
                                                  freeways should all be
                                                  tollways??! Hoo-kay, please
                                                  sign your posts with the
                                                  moniker "Libertarian Troll"
                                                  next time, so I will know
                                                  not to waste my time
                                                  researching a reply.
                                            \_ You're kidding right?  Of course
                                               a transportation bill has money
                                               for transportation projects.
                                               Why do you even bother?  I don't
                                               get it.  Do you think no one
                                               will fact check your links? I
                                               specifically said they're
                                               filling the budget with money
                                               for local projects unrelated
                                               to the bill they're attached
                                               to.  Transport money in a
                                               transport bill is not what I
                                               was talking about and you knew
                                               that.
                                               \_ The transportation bill is
                                                  one of the appropriations
                                                  bills that make up the
                                                  "budget".  It is you who do
                                                  not know of what you speak.
                                                  He pointed to a "budget" bill
                                                  with "earmarks" which you
                                                  admit are "valid".  You are
                                                  clearly too short for this
                                                  ride. --scotsman
                                                  \_ I was quite specific about
                                                     this.  If you choose not
                                                     to read it and instead
                                                     pick and choose single
                                                     words out of context to
                                                     'feel big', then do so
                                                     but don't think you've
                                                     actually proven anything.
                                                     \_ You have repeatedly
                                                        mistaken "earmarks" for
                                                        "pork".  When called on
                                                        it, you got all
                                                        defensive and claimed
                                                        that everyone else is
                                                        an idiot.  To earmark
                                                        is to set aside monies
                                                        for a specific project.
                                                        Tom's phraseology is
                                                        right.  Yours is wrong.
                                                        Also, you mentioned
                                                        the "Bridge to Nowhere".
                                                        I assume you meant
                                                        Stevens' $200M joke.
                                                        What bill do you think
                                                        that was to be in?
                                                        Hint: it wasn't in
                                                        Defense.
                                                        --scotsman