All About McCain

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

You know, unless you're in the selling-airplanes-on-ebay business, your uninformed opinions are meaningless.

I think I already got in trouble for calling someone arrogant and condescending, so I'll avoid that this time.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Yes I can. She's on record supporting the project before it became nationally infamous as the biggest pork-barrel project in history.

Then, and only then, did she turn against it.

In the end she did the right thing and killed it. So for me that makes it a weak argument to use against her. Especially when there are so many other good ones to use.

One of the problems I have discussing politics with people here or IRL is the black and white viewpoints people often have. If they don't like a candidate (ie Palin) then EVERYTHING about them has to be bad. Hell George Bush is in solid contention for worst president in the history of the United States but even he has his good moments. No one (except perhaps Rove) is all evil.

So I feel quite comfortable patting Palin on the back for killing a $200,000,000 bridge project or selling a unnneeded jet while at the same time blasting her for her views on abortion, sex education and scores of other topics.

[mousepod]

I think the reason the Palin "bridge to nowhere" comment is discussed so much is because her "Thanks, but no thanks" line has become a staple of her speech - and the McCain/Palin ads. The context in which the Republicans are framing her comment is not rooted in the truth.

However, I agree that it's silly for the Dems to be focusing on this. It's clearly bait that's been laid out by Rove, er Palin, er McCain... (no... I probably mean Rove) to steer the argument away from the issues that are actually part of the two parties platforms.

bleh.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by mousepod

I think the reason the Palin "bridge to nowhere" comment is discussed so much is because her "Thanks, but no thanks" line has become a staple of her speech - and the McCain/Palin ads. The context in which the Republicans are framing her comment is not rooted in the truth.

However, I agree that it's silly for the Dems to be focusing on this. It's clearly bait that's been laid out by Rove, er Palin, er McCain... (no... I probably mean Rove) to steer the argument away from the issues that are actually part of the two parties platforms.

bleh.

Hummmm...

Yup. That sounds like Rove. "Ok guys, the Dems are going to attack whatever we say. So let's harp on something that actually has a positive element about it. That way their argument sounds weaker."

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

So I feel quite comfortable patting Palin on the back for killing a $200,000,000 bridge project or selling a unnneeded jet while at the same time blasting her for her views on abortion, sex education and scores of other topics.

She didn't kill sh*t. The money still went to Alaska, the money never went back, and she continued to fund the other infrastructure projects that are designed to link in to the bridge. She was for it, she paid lip service to being against it when she realized it would be politically expedient to do so, and never did squat to prevent that money from being funneled from Washington.

And spending/waste/porkbarrel is most certainly a platform issue.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Hell George Bush is in solid contention for worst president in the history of the United States but even he has his good moments. No one (except perhaps Rove) is all evil.

I dunno, I think Cheney is 100% evil, too.

[Tenigma]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

In the end she did the right thing and killed it. So for me that makes it a weak argument to use against her. Especially when there are so many other good ones to use.

You're only seeing half the picture, Moonliner. She didn't say "Thanks but no thanks" until AFTER the Feds said no (and it because obvious this was a bad stance to take), but SHE KEPT THE MONEY. She just used the money earmarked for the bridge porkbarrel project for OTHER stuff in Alaska.

If she was REALLY sincere she would've not taken the money.

PS: I think part of what I find so annoying is that they've decided just to blatantly lie, and keep lying. They think Americans are stupid enough to eventually believe the lies.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

She didn't kill sh*t. The money still went to Alaska, the money never went back, and she continued to fund the other infrastructure projects that are designed to link in to the bridge. She was for it, she paid lip service to being against it when she realized it would be politically expedient to do so, and never did squat to prevent that money from being funneled from Washington.

And spending/waste/porkbarrel is most certainly a platform issue.

So she took $200,000,000 and rather than spend it on a useless bridge she used it on other projects for the state? That bitch.

If the infrastructure projects where needed on their own then fine. However if the cash was used for trash then I'm with you. Do you have a cite for where the money went?

I expect the list of Governors who gave back big bucks ear-marked for their state is fairly small. If you include those that took the cash and then found a better use for it, it's still a short list, and adding in Governors who waited until it was politically correct to use the money for a better use probably still lands her in a better than average demographic.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Tenigma

They think Americans are stupid enough to eventually believe the lies.

And, unfortunately, they are right.

[Tenigma]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

So she took $200,000,000 and rather than spend it on a useless bridge she used it on other projects for the state? That bitch.

If the infrastructure projects where needed on their own then fine. However if the cash was used for trash then I'm with you. Do you have a cite for where the money went?

I expect the list of Governors who gave back big bucks ear-marked for their state is fairly small. If you include those that took the cash and then found a better use for it, it's still a short list, and adding in Governors who waited until it was politically correct to use the money for a better use probably still lands her in a better than average demographic.

If your parents tell you they're willing to give you $1000 to get some new furniture for your place, but after a lot of people complain that your place is already fully furnished and you don't need any new furniture, should you then take that $1000 and spend it on whatever you want?

But the main point here is that one of her huge campaign slogans is "thanks but no thanks," not "thanks, I'll spend your money on something else."

If she is trying to pass herself off as a reformer, then yes. I believe she should've not taken the money.