1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Palin says no to the Bridge , but only after saying yes, Keeps money

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by pocketfullofshells, Sep 5, 2008.

  1. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
  2. all_arm

    all_arm New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2008
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    nice going on the free republic link. the most conservative website on the internet, even libsmoothie will not be able to blame this on the "liberal" media.

    republicans just aren't fiscal conservatives anymore.
     
  3. Federal Farmer

    Federal Farmer New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    922
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, but we CAN blame it on the STUPID media. Look, I've already gone all through that, WITH cites and sources, and the charges are pure BOVINE EXCREMENT, but then again, y'all can't be bothered with facts, when slander, defamation, and flat out LIES will work for the mindless minions and "useful idiots" of the Dim-O-Crap Party.
     
  4. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    Come on even you hard core REPUBLICANT'S have to admit "Miss Wasilla" was tight with now indited Senator Stevens and was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it.

    I mean come on. This is not a big secret.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2uGDKlhtLE


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lga4GP14llE
     
  5. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    McCain has openly promised to veto any pork laden bills that come across his desk and to make an example out of those who are packing it full of said pork, regardless of the party. Since he would be the President, I think that really trumps any attack on her about pork.
     
  6. Popeye

    Popeye Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Washington state
    Palin is the queen of pork.....Just this year, she sent to her good friend Sen. Ted. Stevens, a proposal for 31 earmarks totaling $197 million — more, per person, than any other state. Suggesting we believe McCain's promises of vetoes is hardly a justification for such an action.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008154532_webpalin02m.html
     
  7. Federal Farmer

    Federal Farmer New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    922
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And you're still trying to pick gnat sh!t out of pepper topgun, and it's just as lame now as it ever was.

    DOT earmarks are NOT "pork barrel" spending, and while I never agreed with those dollars being spent on that particular project, I do concede that the citizens of the State of Alaska DO have the Right to lobby for THEIR federal gasoline tax dollars to be brought back to Alaska for whatever projects THEY choose to spend them on. In fact, the only reason that anything was said about the bridge funding was because of TIMING! It hit at the same time that people were starting to *****, gripe and complain about the cost of the GWOT. If they'd gotten it before 9-11, or waited a couple more years, they'd have gotten the bridge, and NOBODY would have even heard of it, much less complained about it.

    Everybody in America spends $.184 per gallon of gasoline, in federal taxes for DOT infrastructure expendatures, and I don't consider it to be unreasonable for the citizens of ANY State to try to get that money back for use in their own State.

    To be completely honest, my only problem with this particular project comes from the fact that someone was dumb enough to build an airport, on an island, where the only way to get there is by crossing one of the busiest shipping channels in the country!!! If I had been on the Planning Commission, I'd have raised Holy HELL about that! There's a perfectly ideal spot for an airport to the east of Ketchikan between Beaver Falls and Herring Cove, and while it would have been a bit more of a drive, they wouldn't have to worry about taking a ferry, or try to build a $400 million+ pair of bridges across a ship channel.

    Now, as for Governor Palin's reaction, the funding for the bridge was killed by Congress in November of 2005, over a year before she was even elected to office, and by the time she took office, and the decision was made to abandon the project, the reason was simple, they didn't have enough money to build it any longer, and she wasn't going to raise taxes in order TO build it.

    Now, perhaps you'd like to take the time to at least attempt to be intellectually HONEST for a change and do your homework before you start slandering, defaming, and flat out LYING about people for purely political reasons?
     
  8. all_arm

    all_arm New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2008
    Messages:
    164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Florida

    i haven't seen that. based on my understanding, it went like this:


    palin ran on a platform of supporting the bridge (this is known to be true)

    by the time palin got into office, congress had released the money, so that it did not have to be spent solely on the bridge (therefore, there wasn't really anything for her to say 'no' to)

    she took the money for her state anyway, which i have no problem with, and spent it on other things, which i have no problem with.

    the issue is her hypocrisy. she says she was against it, but that wasn't true until it was no longer important, because the bridge no longer had any earmarks allocated to it.
     
  9. Federal Farmer

    Federal Farmer New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    922
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Apparantly you and I were posting at the same time. Please refer to my post directly above yours.
     
  10. GenSeneca

    GenSeneca Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6,245
    Likes Received:
    501
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    ={CaLiCo}= HQ
    "Obama-Hitler"
    Was, as in BEFORE he was involved in any legal issues. You're so disingenuous about this stuff its aggravating... Ends justifies the means for you though, Progressive LIES rule the day!
    So she's not perfect... At least she reversed course and took on the earmarks that were feeding the Corruption of Republicans (Her OWN party) and fought to replace those politicians.

    I'd probably DROP DEAD if a Democrat went against Corruption in their OWN party... Like THAT would ever happen. People like YOU can't even acknowledge the Corruption IN the Democrat party, instead you pretend there is none or equivocate by telling yourself the Republicans are worse.
     
  11. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Fair enough, and if the people of Alaska want that bridge, then it should be. Either way, something else will be figured out. The people of Ketchikan have managed 30 years on the failed promise of a bridge. Whats another 10?

    It was actually Hurricane Katrina aftermath. Senator Coburn, the Junior Senator from Oklahoma that wanted to kill the project. A Republican BTW.
    Before 9/11? Again that airport was put on Gravina Island in the 70s with promise of construction of a bridge. How much before 9-11 do you want to get? 9-11 didnt hinder government spending in the slightest, especially by the GOP.
    Alaska certainly takes its fair share of BS from the lower 48 about spending here. This is without the Governor running for VP, and the Sr. Senator under indictment.
    You obviously havent spent much time in Ketch. There is no land to put an airport on the Ketchikan side. It is surrounded my mountains.
    Hindsight of course is 20/20, but it is worth pointing out that the area you are talking about falls within Tongass Natl Forest and IIRC is apart of Misty Fjords Natl Monument. My point in mentioning this is that I am sure that method was researched at the time, and for any number of reasons it was decided against. Part of the reasonsing is the land designation surrounding Ketchikan.
    HA, we have the money. We can build 100 of them out of pocket. It is the political will power to do so. Its a shame this whole fiasco has come to this, but good intentions 30 years ago make for broken promises and headaches today.
     
  12. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    To me this hits on a separate, but connected issue. Every single government welfare, tax payer hand out, can be justified by someone somewhere.

    The problem is, at some point you have to say, no... we're not going to hand out more money to people that didn't earn it, by taking it from people who did earn it.

    Imagine, if you will, how much money would be available at all levels of our country if our government didn't collect 2 Trillion, 699 Billion dollars from us?

    Nearly 1.9 Trillion of that income is spent on unconstitutional things. Pretend for a moment that $58 Billion dollars was sent back to each state... you think maybe the people of Alaska could afford the stupid bridge? Yeah very likely. The problem is, we have to start drastically cutting government, which means some tough choices.

    Like Social Security has to go. It isn't working, it never worked, it won't work in the future, the politicians have spent the money, no body believes it's going to be there for them when they retire. They constantly cut benefits while raising taxes. When are we going to say enough, and end this stupid failed socialism?

    But see everyone is going to claim that they need this government hand outs for some reason, just like every government hand out. Like alternative fuel hand outs, and research grants that never produce anything, and billions handed out to Ted Turner for Ethanol, and a million here, and a million there, and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Sallie Mae, and every time, we dig ourselves in more dependent on government, and yet when the budget cuts come, as they always do, we cry like we didn't realize socialism doesn't work.

    At some point you have to say enough. If we don't, it's just a matter of time before we end up a 3rd world country, and wondering why everything sucks so bad.
     
  13. Federal Farmer

    Federal Farmer New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    922
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My point was that the bridge WASN'T built Bunz, and I suspect you know that, but you're playing ignorant so that you don't have to deal with the realities of my argument.

    Oh, and one other thing, you can take your snide, and totally disingenuous little shot at the GOP and shove it sideways up your fourth point of contact! Where's your indigination at the DNC controlled Congress and THEIR out of control spending before the "class of '95"? The fact is that the Dim-O-Craps controlled Congress (with the exception of the 6 years between '81 and '87 when the Republicans held the Senate) from 1955 until 1995! So if you really want to try to play your silly-assed little partisan politics game, you'd better be sure you have your facts in order, or I'm going to delight in embarassing you all over the place.

    Of course it does, because most people only look at the population of the State and the amount of money going TO the State, instead of looking at what they're simply getting back as a proportion of what Alaska is contributing TO the general fund.

    I've only been there twice, but the one thing I immediately noticed is how incredibly STUPID it was to put the airport where it is. Even on the flight in, you can clearly see that the land about a mile to the north of Herring Cove (bearing 035 degrees), is perfect for an airport as it's no more hilly than it's current site was before it was developed. Please try to remember Bunz, I'm an Engineer, this is my business, and these are things that I notice immediately.

    As I'm sure you're aware, that entire area, from Ketch in the south, all the way to Yakutat in the north, (with the exception of Glaciar Bay NP) including Juno itself, falls within the Tongass. The reason they put the airport where they did was proximity to Ketch, and with the understanding that the bridge would be built, and that's why I DO have an objection. Building a bridge, across a very busy shipping channel, to the airport is a rediculously expensive undertaking, when simply moving the airport to the site I mentioned would have precluded any need for a bridge, and only required the expansion of Tongass Hwy. along the coast to the airport site.

    Frankly, it would make FAR more sense, and be far more cost effective to build a tunnel under the channel instead of a bridge over it. A twin tube tunnel of two lanes each, of the same type in my home town, could be constructed (and this is a SWAG without having the specifics of the channel itself) could probably be build for roughly half the cost of the bridge, if not less, and a toll system could be emplaced over the next 30 years to recover the cost, operations and maintainance of the tunnels. (feel free to share this idea with your State DOT, and you can even take all the credit)

    Oh really, and where is all of this money you say that the State has to build the bridge? In the general fund? Or are you talking about in the Permanant Fund? If you're talking about the Permanant fund, then you should be well aware of the reasons why that money can't be used for the bridge, unless of course you're willing to forego that nice check that YOU get from the fund EVERY YEAR.

    Aside from that, the fact remains that Governor Palin had NOTHING to do with the decision to kill the bridge project, that decision was made before she even ran for Governor, and the fact that she finally had to acknowledge the futility of attempting to continue in no way makes her a "flip-flopper".
     
  14. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    I don't know. Republican Senator Stevens IS under indictment. And "Miss Wasilla" has been all over helping him out and he her.

    The fact is she did campaign for the bridge to nowhere before she saw it was going to go down and then, only then, voted against it.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ortWIYini3k

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wktt5aI68cg

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAlNfK72hHc
     
  15. Federal Farmer

    Federal Farmer New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    922
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    top gun, you are a PRIMARY example of the strictly partisan political shill that had done more damage to our nation than any external threat we've ever faced. You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the truth when it's staring you right in the face, and instead cling to your half-truths, and outright lies in order to achieve your political goal of destroying the best country on the face of the earth.

    I've presented fact after fact after fact that PROVES, beyond any reasonable doubt that your assertions are nothing but inflamatory rhetoric of the worst kind. Her actions concerning the bridge were the only actions available to her, as the funding for the bridge was killed, in Congress, in 2005, before she was even elected to office, and by the time she DID come to office, the infrastructure funding was insufficient for the construction of the bridge because Congress MANDATED that the money be spent on other project, and projected construction costs had skyrocketed to nearly $400 million dollars, far more than the State had availiable for the project, END OF STORY.

    You also exhibit an astonishing ignorance of how Governance works, because she didn't "vote" to kill the bridge, as Governor, she KILLED it.
     
Loading...

Share This Page