obama's earmarks

[Charon]

Crockett,

How much change did Obama bring to Illinois at the state or federal level?

Specifically:
1. Legislative change he actually authored instead of taking credit for after Emil Jones handed it off to him.
2. Endorsements that bucked the State Machine/Combine
3. Significant votes that went against the party

See, I think Obama's a hypocrite running on change when he has not generated any when given the opportunity. Again, as an Illinois resident with one of the most corrupt political systems in America (that also certainly includes state republicans, but the Dale machine is in a class all itself) what did he do to turn things around here?

It's funny Crockett. I bet you shake your head at Republicans who endlessly make excuses for Bush and fail to see the obvious. That don't even try to see the obvious. And yet... certainly, and obviously, that emotional bias isn't limited to Republicans. Obama is an empty suit. He is an insider politician. He does take PAC money and bundled money from the usual suspects. He has the strong support of the "no change" Democratic party of Kennedy and Peolsi and did well before the Hillery deal was decided. The PUMAs know it first hand. It's not like the stodgy beltway Democrats are just now endorsing him for the team win. It's not like he picked Kuchinich to be his running mate instead of liberal insider hack Biden.

Republicans voted Bush in, in no small part and without a lot of deep analysis, as a protest to Clinton. The irony is the Democrats are about to elect their own "Bush" to replace Bush. 4 more years!

Charon

[Masherbrum]

the fact she's a lying hypocrite.

Obama isn't one?   

[Hangtime]

Snopes can't be biased... right?  Left?? LOL!

http://www.afa.net/snopesiswrong.asp

http://shopright.blogspot.com/2007/08/snopes-liberal-bias-democrat.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/968235/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2052060/posts

http://www.modernconservative.com/metablog_single.php?p=217

http://www.modernconservative.com/metablog_single.php?p=219

Damn, this is kinda fun... of course, stooping to CrotchItch's mudslinging level does greatly increase the supply of ammo, which has the amazingly beneficial effect or reducing the requirement for accuracy.

[crockett]

I am sure that there is one floating around about McCain and Palin - but only the immature and gullible swallow these
Might as well start answering those - i need you to deposit these funds for me from Africa emails... they are the gospel too.




 

Well there just happens to be at least one.. but it's a real letter, but of course it's just that persons opinion. The opinion ofg someone who live in her small town.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/kilkenny.asp

[crockett]

Snopes can't be biased... right?  Left?? LOL!

http://www.afa.net/snopesiswrong.asp

http://shopright.blogspot.com/2007/08/snopes-liberal-bias-democrat.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/968235/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2052060/posts

http://www.modernconservative.com/metablog_single.php?p=217

http://www.modernconservative.com/metablog_single.php?p=219

Damn, this is kinda fun... of course, stooping to CrotchItch's mudslinging level does greatly increase the supply of ammo, which has the amazingly beneficial effect or reducing the requirement for accuracy.

So you are linking to conservative blogs that are bashing snopes as proof Snopes is part of the evil liberal media?   

[moot]

Crockett, answer Charon's post.

[Elfie]

You are proving my point.. the entire time we have been giving Israel aid money the total over the years is 52 to 60 billion. So as you say 2.5 billion is a drop in the bucket yet Israel is one of the biggest recipients of our foreign aid money which is considered a earmark.  So where exactly is McCain going to cut the other $197.5 billion dollars..

How is 2.5 billion per year proving your point? That is part of the yearly budget, cutting 2.5 billion to Israel is nothing.

And check my link, the total aid to Israel since 1949 is over 101 billion dollars, yet again you don't know what you are talking about.

Since when is foreign aid considered an earmark? The US gives out hundreds of billions in foreign aid every year, much of it to countries that despise us.

[Hangtime]

So you are linking to conservative blogs that are bashing snopes as proof Snopes is part of the evil liberal media?   

That question proves the point you are incapable of crediting the obvious.

Now... to ram that point home... answer Charons question.

[bj229r]

So you are linking to conservative blogs that are bashing snopes as proof Snopes is part of the evil liberal media?   

For instance, in October, Snopes listed as false the claim, in its own words, that "several [Internet] domain names related to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on America were registered before the attack." CNSNews.com, a news site affiliated with the conservative Media Research Center, had reported in an article by Jeff Johnson that at least 17 domain names such as "worldtradetowerstrike.com," "attackontwintowers.com" and "wterrorattack2001.com" had been registered prior to the attack, some as early as July 2000. The Mikkelsons wrote that "this is a nothing story, promulgated by those looking for something sensational to write about."

They dismissed any notion the sites could be related to the terrorist attacks, declaring: "Given the prominence of New York, the prevalence of violence and horror in our popular entertainment, the millions of domain names registered over the years and the fact that the World Trade Center had already been attacked in 1993 [in the bombing that killed six people], that a handful of expired domain names used one or more of these elements should be no surprise."

But Snopes left out many facts included in the CNSNews piece that may have given the article more credibility. For one thing, the belief that these sites may have been related to the attacks was not mere speculation on the reporter's part, but the view of renowned terrorism expert Neil Livingstone, chief executive officer of the Washington-based counterterrorism and investigation company Global Options LLC. "This wasn't just some man off the street," says Johnson, CNSNews congressional bureau chief. Livingstone has written on terrorism for the New York Times and Washington Post and appeared on Nightline and Meet the Press.

Livingstone was quoted in the article as saying that terrorists like to take credit for their work and might have wanted to set up Websites for a propaganda campaign when they didn't know how successful the attacks would be. Johnson noted that bin Laden says on one of his videotapes that even he didn't think the strikes would be so successful. One of the main points of the article was Livingstone's outrage that the registration companies apparently didn't report the domain names to the FBI.

Snopes made much of the fact that the few date-related domain names did not refer to Sept. 11, but to Aug. 11 and Sept. 29. However, CNSNews had paraphrased Livingstone as saying these two dates "may have indicated the window of opportunity during which the attackers planned to strike."

CNSNews executive editor Scott Hogenson also says that Snopes mischaracterized the article as saying the sites were related to the terrorist attack when the story only raised the question of whether they might have been related to the attack. He tells Insight he e-mailed the Mikkelsons three times to correct the record and never received a reply. "They got it wrong, and they didn't even have the ethical fortitude to respond to detailed, accurate, polite queries. I think that's just low class," Hogenson says.

In a telephone interview with Insight, Barbara Mikkelson saw no need to change the status of the CNSNews report from "false" to "undetermined" or to include Livingstone's comments. "I don't know the man, and I don't know his credentials," she says. "Just because somebody's a known terrorism expert does not necessarily mean he will be right about everything."

As for not getting back to CNSNews, she says, "I don't recall it, and I will point out that we get hundreds of e-mails every day and there are just the two of us." Hogenson responds, "If they don't have time to correct their own mistakes, maybe they should not be in the business of trying to correct others." (When Insight used the e-mail link on the Snopes site to arrange its interview, Barbara Mikkelson got back to us within a day.)

As is usually the case in situations like this, the 'conservative blog' merely points to an article by a writer who isn't seen as fit to quote on New York Times or 60 Minutes--in this case the article was by   John Berlau, an award-winning journalist and director of the Center for Entrepreneurship at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank, in Insight

[crockett]

Crockett,

How much change did Obama bring to Illinois at the state or federal level?

Specifically:
1. Legislative change he actually authored instead of taking credit for after Emil Jones handed it off to him.
2. Endorsements that bucked the State Machine/Combine
3. Significant votes that went against the party

See, I think Obama's a hypocrite running on change when he has not generated any when given the opportunity. Again, as an Illinois resident with one of the most corrupt political systems in America (that also certainly includes state republicans, but the Dale machine is in a class all itself) what did he do to turn things around here?

It's funny Crockett. I bet you shake your head at Republicans who endlessly make excuses for Bush and fail to see the obvious. That don't even try to see the obvious. And yet... certainly, and obviously, that emotional bias isn't limited to Republicans. Obama is an empty suit. He is an insider politician. He does take PAC money and bundled money from the usual suspects. He has the strong support of the "no change" Democratic party of Kennedy and Peolsi and did well before the Hillery deal was decided. The PUMAs know it first hand. It's not like the stodgy beltway Democrats are just now endorsing him for the team win. It's not like he picked Kuchinich to be his running mate instead of liberal insider hack Biden.

Republicans voted Bush in, in no small part and without a lot of deep analysis, as a protest to Clinton. The irony is the Democrats are about to elect their own "Bush" to replace Bush. 4 more years!

Charon

So are you trying to say that supporting McSame would be any different? Maybe Obama will be the biggest flop in history, maybe he was totally suck, but then again maybe he will be good. No one will know until he's in office. On the other hand we already know how bad Bush sucks. The sheer fact that McSame has voted with Bush 90% of the time just shows he will be 4 more years of the same thing Bush has been.

As for 1 & 2 I can't really say because I haven't looked them up and have no info on them.. however bashing him on number 3 seems pretty odd IMO. You are saying 3. Significant votes that went against the party Shouldn't that be a good thing?

While I don't know what the specific votes are, because you list none, shouldn't it be a good thing that he is willing to vote against his own party? Rather than tote the party line even if he thinks it's wrong? That's one of the things that makes Bush such a bad president, because he's a leader for only half this country not the whole country. How many times have you seen Bush reach across the isle and do something against his party?

I've never said Obama is going to bring change and have us all riding unicorns with rainbows in the background. I look at Obama as the best of the worst picks that we have. Obama is by far not my perfect candidate, but I'm also not going to sit back watching all the tards on this forum bashing him left and right while ignoring the faults of their own "chosen one".

The only reason I even get involved in the political topics on this board is to put a bit of balance on the subject because this board has a overwhelming group of blow hard right wingers. The few of us that stand up to talk about the other side get bashed endlessly by the same group that never see anything wrong with their own guy.So do you really think it's that odd that the few of us that do stand up against the blowhards have to keep a firm stance?

In fact if you go back and look at my posts you wont find very many of me talking about how great Obama is and that I think he's going to have us all singing and dancing. What you see me posting is mostly info about the hypicrosy of the right wing. You will however see me respond to false claims about Obama, but you don't see me making posts claiming he's the next best thing to sliced bread.

As I've posted before I'm a registered independent but I lean to the left because of the current political climate and the way the Republican party has been over run by the Religious Right and the Neo Cons it makes me have to lean even further left.

If the Republicans were "actually" conservatives like they "claim" to be then I'd likely lean further to the Right. I'm all for less govt control and less govt spending along with lower taxes, but the truth is that's nothing more than a pipe dream and the current crop of Republicans including McSame sure as hell don't believe in it. Sorry but actions speak louder than words.

At least voting for the Democrats I know what to expect and it's very unlikely any of my personal freedoms will be eroded away.. unlike with the Conservative Christian Right who wants to tell me what I can and can't do in my own home. In short a vote for McSame is a vote aginst your own personal freedoms.

[CHECKERS]

"Screw Obama " !
 

[crockett]

How is 2.5 billion per year proving your point? That is part of the yearly budget, cutting 2.5 billion to Israel is nothing.

And check my link, the total aid to Israel since 1949 is over 101 billion dollars, yet again you don't know what you are talking about.

Since when is foreign aid considered an earmark? The US gives out hundreds of billions in foreign aid every year, much of it to countries that despise us.

I don't think you can see the Forrest for the trees...

The 2.5 billion we send to Israel is a enormous sum of money and it's the highest amount of money we send to any country in form of earmark aid. You can't just pull even that amount out of the govt shoe. So now tell me where he is going to cut 200 billion. I'm' using the example of Israel as was the reporter to show it's a huge amount of money and it's simply impossible for McSame to cut "100's of Billions" of dollars like he claims he will.

This means and even McSame admitted to it, that he will cut defense spending. The simple fact that McCain can't even answer the question on how he will cut the money is just proof he is full of BS on that subject. It's nothing more than a campaign promise just like when Bush Jr promised a flat tax system in "both" elections.

(btw when was the last time you heard Bush talk about his Flat Tax...  oh I know, it was  during his campaign)

The simple truth is, the only things McSame places he addmitted to cut was defense spending and farm subsidies. How ironic that those are the very people who will most likely vote for him blindly. lol I'm betting he's not campaigning on cutting farm subsidies and defense spending, but that's exactlly where his planned cuts will come from and he even admitted it..  

[Elfie]

Your state gets those moneys too, Corkdick. 

  @ Corkdick

[crockett]

Crockett, answer Charon's post.

I assume by several of your posts, that you don't support Obama.. If so does that mean you support McCain? If so why? What do you think he will do for this country? What makes you think he will be any different than Bush, given his voting record?

[bj229r]

The sheer fact that McSame has voted with Bush 90% of the time just shows he will be 4 more years of the same thing Bush has been.

Voting against your own leader 10% of the is significant in this country.(and it hacked me off, as I view it as disloyalty) Joe Lieberman only went against them on ONE thing and was kicked out. One COULD view it differently--polls show Dem senate/house approval in SINGLE digits nationally, as opposed to Bush's low 30's. Obama votes with HIS leadership 100% of the time...I don't see how this can be construed as an asset