Quote :

"Congress loads up $20 billion in pork Mar 14, 2007 by Charles Hurt , The Examiner Peanut storage in Georgia is among the pork projects loaded by Congress. WASHINGTON - Congress has loaded up President Bush's request for "emergency" spending on the Iraq war with more than $20 billion in "pork" for members' districts. Money for peanut storage in Georgia, spinach growers in California, menhaden in the Atlantic Ocean and even more office space for the lawmakers themselves is included in what has ballooned into a $124 billion war bill. "This emergency supplemental bill has more ornaments hanging over our many branches of government than the White House Christmas tree," Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said. Originally, Bush asked for $105 billion in emergency funding. Democratic leaders say they want to grant the request to continue funding the war despite their desire to end it. "We have provided all of the money the president requested- and more," boasted House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer. That includes $74 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach growers and $100 million for citrus growers. It also includes $16 million to convert the old Food and Drug Administration building in southwest D.C. into more office space for the Capitol. That "emergency" expenditure comes at a time when taxpayers already shell out $600 million "more than double the original estimate" for a mammoth expansion of the Capitol, which includes 160,000 feet of new office space. Lewis accused House leaders of trying to "paper over Democrat divisions on the war in Iraq by delivering billions of dollars in unrelated and unauthorized spending that is somehow given an emergency designation." Hoyer denied the charge from Lewis, who himself was famous for his own pork spending when he served as Appropriations Committee chairman under Republican control. "They are a strange group to talk about buying votes," Hoyer chuckled. "This is the crowd that took pork barrel spending to new levels of irresponsibility." The 172-page spending bill will get its first public airing today at an Appropriations Committee meeting, where panel members expect to approve it. Rep. Mark Kirk, an Illinois Republican who sits on the committee, said he will try amending the bill today. First, he wants to strip out the non-emergency, member-requested spending and force it to go through the normal appropriations process. Under newly approved Democratic rules, that would require offsets to pay for the new spending. Kirk also wants to entirely eliminate money for spinach farmers. "Spinach farmers in California should not be getting emergency war spending money," he said. "

Democrats...Republicans...doesn't matter.. Spend! Spend! Spend!
Now I bet if you ask them to cut back, the politicians will threaten to cut vital services first before peanut storage. What do you think?

3/16/2007 9:32:32 AM

Inefficiency at its finest

3/16/2007 9:34:14 AM

our government never ceases to dissapoint......they're all crazy.

[Edited on March 16, 2007 at 9:38 AM. Reason : gg on the thread title]

3/16/2007 9:37:48 AM

WHY IS THIS HORSE SHIT ALLOWED?

AND WHY THE HELL DOESN'T THE TV MEDIA COVER THINGS LIKE THIS RATHER THAN BRITNEY EFFIN SPEARS


MAYBE SALISBURYBOY IS RIGHT, AND IT IS A CONSPIRATORIAL MANIPULATION OF THE PUBLIC TO NOT TALK ABOUT THINGS LIKE THIS IN COMMON TERMS SO THAT PEOPLE MIGHT BE MOTIVATED TO GET PISSED ABOUT IT

3/16/2007 9:46:22 AM

Oh, come on, $20 billion; that's only $66.67 dollars for every man, women, and child in America.

3/16/2007 9:52:28 AM

What's the point of being a politician if you can't unfairly tax the population and then squander it?

3/16/2007 10:00:52 AM

whats the point of voting if all the candidates are the same

3/16/2007 10:03:07 AM

There's pork spending for a reason.

I'm sure it's great when you're getting the money.

3/16/2007 10:03:23 AM

^there is not place for that in an "emergency war fund bill" unless we're planning on dropping pig shit bombs in Iraq.

3/16/2007 10:04:53 AM

It's a shame that most of our country is mroe concerned with Britney Spears or who is winning american idol




they should require a basic political knowledge test before they allow people to even vote

3/16/2007 10:05:34 AM

Without peanut storage, the terrorists win.

3/16/2007 10:12:40 AM

3/16/2007 10:16:10 AM

So whats the pork? $20 billion on our own country.... or another $104 billion for a needless war to rebuild a country that we have already spent $250 billion to destroy?

3/16/2007 2:58:24 PM

^but why tuck it in an emergency war fund bill?....I don't have a problem with a lot of the things that politicians do, its the way the things get done that makes me .

3/16/2007 3:01:19 PM

Quote :

"So whats the pork? $20 billion on our own country.... or another $104 billion for a needless war to rebuild a country that we have already spent $250$750 billion to destroy?"

3/16/2007 3:48:25 PM

haliburton is an american company so all that money we've given them is going right back to us. That makes it ok.

3/16/2007 4:03:04 PM

^ Not anymore they aren't

http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=10853

3/16/2007 4:20:04 PM

Yes, they are, lets try to keep up

/message_topic.aspx?topic=465926

[Edited on March 16, 2007 at 4:42 PM. Reason : a]

3/16/2007 4:42:03 PM

Quote :

"they should require a basic political knowledge test before they allow people to even vote"

No.

Worst idea ever.

3/16/2007 10:52:12 PM

actually, it'd be a damned good idea. except the politicians would fuck it up

3/16/2007 11:09:18 PM

Quote :

"No. Worst idea ever. "

why is that?

3/16/2007 11:10:07 PM

We passed the Voting Rights Act for a reason, y'all.

People who work two jobs and don't have time to stay informed should still be allowed to vote if they manage to find the time.

People who can't read and write should still be allowed to vote.

People who got a shitty public education and can't name the three branches of the government should still be allowed to vote.

I firmly believe this.

3/16/2007 11:25:01 PM

yes. people who don't have time to make a good decision should go out and pollute our government with the morons we have now. great idea.

unfortunately, there's hardly any other fair way to do it that wouldn't be exploited by the politicians.

3/16/2007 11:29:46 PM

If you want reform, the best way is to have very stringent ethics and reporting rules, with heavy punishment.

3/16/2007 11:37:18 PM

^ nope. politicians will just make loopholes in the legislation, find the loopholes, or just ignore the legislation. it takes enforcement, something politicians have never been good at.

3/16/2007 11:41:42 PM

Quote :

"It's a shame that most of our country is mroe concerned with Britney Spears or who is winning american idol they should require a basic political knowledge test before they allow people to even vote "

this is a reform of the media, not the electorate

3/16/2007 11:46:58 PM

Quote :

"People who work two jobs and don't have time to stay informed should still be allowed to vote if they manage to find the time."

I wonder how many of these folks find the time to know who is winning on American Idol?

Your intention to include the ignorant in our country's decision-making is based on feel-good emotion and not reason. Voting blindly for the sake of being able to slap a "I Voted" sticker on your warm carcass is a slap in the face of those who died for that right to vote.

We owe it to our ancestors and the idea of liberty to stay informed and vote with reasoned purpose. If that love of country doesn't move you enough to even put forward the slightest effort to stave off ignorance, then you have no moral credentials to vote.

If we are so moved to let everyone vote simply becasue they have a pulse, then we need to return to the founder's original set-up. The Constitution allows the people to vote only for the House of Representatives. Selection of the Senate should be returned to state legislatures. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the people should directly elect a president. With this federal system, the uniformed rabble could only directly elect congressmen whose proposed bills could be voted down by the senate or vetoed by the president.

Our govermental system does not work on autopilot. It was designed to be watched over at all times by a cynical citizenry always on the lookout for creeping tyranny. If we drop our guard or become uninterested, power-hungry wolves will run amock.

3/17/2007 12:07:14 AM

Quote :

"yes. people who don't have time to make a good decision should go out and pollute our government with the morons we have now. great idea."

If they're just voting at random with no regard for what/who they're voting for, then it doesn't matter. They all cancel one another out.

If they have a reason, then they have a reason, and they should be allowed to vote. By looks, name, gender, race/ethnicity, party affiliation, etc...plenty of people who do have this "general political knowledge" do that too anyway.

3/17/2007 12:07:15 AM

...

[Edited on March 17, 2007 at 12:07 AM. Reason : Double post]

3/17/2007 12:07:16 AM

^^ cancelling each other out assumes that the morons are equally distributed, something which can't be assumed. as well, it also assumes that there are actually quality candidates from whom to chose, an also false assertion.

3/17/2007 2:40:28 PM

Quote :

"Democratic leaders say they want to grant the request to continue funding the war despite their desire to end it."

I didn't read all of the article (I couldn't stomach it), did the Democrats even bother to explain why they did this? I thought they were all vehemently against Bush.

And BridgetSPK, you are being awfully naive and idealistic. It's not unreasonable to ask that the people who vote for our leaders should be well informed/educated about said leaders and the system in which they operate. This attitude of "everyone must vote for the sake of having the right to vote" is asinine; if you don't even know what platform the candidates are running on, why should you be allowed to vote? You don't know what you're voting for, so how can you make an intelligent decision? In a country where you can pass around a petition to women to have them end women's suffrage, I doubt that most people have the most basic of tools that are necessary to vote for a candidate that will truly represent them the best.

3/17/2007 3:42:47 PM

I'd rather people that are more concerned with Entertainment Tonight than the world around them not have the ability to vote for the people that lead this nation

3/17/2007 10:33:38 PM

Quote :

"umbrellaman: And BridgetSPK, you are being awfully naive and idealistic. It's not unreasonable to ask that the people who vote for our leaders should be well informed/educated about said leaders and the system in which they operate. This attitude of "everyone must vote for the sake of having the right to vote" is asinine; if you don't even know what platform the candidates are running on, why should you be allowed to vote? You don't know what you're voting for, so how can you make an intelligent decision? In a country where you can pass around a petition to women to have them end women's suffrage, I doubt that most people have the most basic of tools that are necessary to vote for a candidate that will truly represent them the best."

You do realize that this would mean only a small portion of the population gets to vote, right? And most of them would have no problems voting "for a candidate that will truly represent them the best." But who would represent the people who didn't get to vote?

You're the naive one.

[Edited on March 19, 2007 at 4:16 PM. Reason : sss]

3/19/2007 4:16:43 PM

why should those people have a say in the matter anyway?


since when is voting for president a right in this country?

3/19/2007 4:18:55 PM

Quote :

"why should those people have a say in the matter anyway?"

Because if they don't have a say, the government will become a tool for some and not a tool for the people. We already have enough of this as it is.

Quote :

"since when is voting for president a right in this country?"

You know American history. Congratulations?

It's not clear that we're even talking about the presidency.

But still, congratulations.

3/19/2007 4:24:43 PM

Quote :

"WHY IS THIS HORSE SHIT ALLOWED?"

umm...because congress controls the money
dont like it? vote them out of office...oh wait you dont live in the district where the member sent all that money for peanut storage and the people in that district are pigs in shit

thats why it's "allowed"

Quote :

"^but why tuck it in an emergency war fund bill?"

because it's guaranteed to pass

[Edited on March 19, 2007 at 4:31 PM. Reason : .]

3/19/2007 4:30:34 PM

^^

Quote :

"Because if they don't have a say, the government will become a tool for some and not a tool for the people. We already have enough of this as it is."

I already think the government is a tool for some and not for the rest

hence my opinion already

Quote :

"It's not clear that we're even talking about the presidency"

I was talking about the president when it comes to that stuff, but the whole thing about people voting for just anyone because of the party when they don't know their ass from a hole in ground bothers me too

all of these people that get their news from People magazine and Entertainment Tonight go out in droves to vote for a "leader" come election time and don't bother to know shit the rest of the time

OMG IMMA VOTE FOR SO AND SO FOR PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE IS GONNA GIVE ME SOME STUFF THAT HE TOOK FROM THOSE MEAN PEOPLE AND HE LOOKS GOOD ON TV TOO

it's only fair!!!!


[Edited on March 19, 2007 at 4:33 PM. Reason : ...]

3/19/2007 4:31:52 PM

Quote :

"pwrstrkdf250: I already think the government is a tool for some and not for the rest hence my opinion already"

Yes, I'm saying we have enough of that as it is. No need to make it worse by restricting voting rights.

Quote :

"pwrstrkdf250: I was talking about the president when it comes to that stuff, but the whole thing about people voting for just anyone because of the party when they don't know their ass from a hole in ground bothers me too"

1. What stuff?
2. Plenty of well-informed, well-educated people vote straight ticket. In fact, I'm pretty sure you admitted to voting straight ticket in this last election. Should we revoke your rights cause you voted based on party?

Quote :

"pwrstrkdf250: all of these people that get their news from People magazine and Entertainment Tonight go out in droves to vote for a "leader" come election time and don't bother to know shit the rest of the time"

So what's your problem here? That a lot of people vote every four years and don't vote in other elections? Why does that bother you? Didn't you just say that you wish these people voted less? And now you're saying you wished they vote in other elections, too?

Quote :

"pwrstrkdf250: OMG IMMA VOTE FOR SO AND SO FOR PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE IS GONNA GIVE ME SOME STUFF THAT HE TOOK FROM THOSE MEAN PEOPLE AND HE LOOKS GOOD ON TV TOO it's only fair!!!!"

Black people don't vote.

I've told you this about a half dozen times now.

So lay off the cutesy impersonations of this huge group of black Democratic voters. It just doesn't exist.

3/19/2007 4:56:56 PM

only I know who I voted for(guess what, I don't hate all democrats)

...and I also know what to say in here to rile your ilk up and start an entertaining thread

Quote :

"Black people don't vote. I've told you this about a half dozen times now. So lay off the cutesy impersonations of this huge group of black Democratic voters. It just doesn't exist."

...and what in the fuck did that have to do with black people

jesus christ you're quick to bring race into something

I type "imma" 95% of the time instead of "I am" or "I'm"


and what I am saying is that people vote based on what entertainment tonight and people magazine tell them... in most any election they choose to vote

Quote :

"Yes, I'm saying we have enough of that as it is. No need to make it worse by restricting voting rights"

then why do you openly endorse politicians and policies that are nothing but vote buyer schemes and rights violations and spew hatred for those that think these policies are WRONG and UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

your morally superior feel good high horse... get off of it, he's tired and wants a break



[Edited on March 19, 2007 at 5:13 PM. Reason : ]

3/19/2007 5:03:17 PM

Quote :

"pwrstrkdf250: only I know who I voted for(guess what, I don't hate all democrats) ...and I also know what to say in here to rile your ilk up and start an entertaining thread"

I'm pretty sure you did vote straight ticket in the last election cause I tried to get on your case about it.

And we can all rile people up, by the way. In this case, I'm not riled.

Quote :

"pwrstrkdf250: ...and what in the fuck did that have to do with black people jesus christ you're quick to bring race into something I type "imma" 95% of the time instead of "I am" or "I'm" and what I am saying is that people vote based on what entertainment tonight and people magazine tell them... in most any election they choose to vote"

Cause you're always complaining about how Democrats pander to black people and make promises to them. So yeah, when you impersonate someone by saying, "HE IS GONNA GIVE ME SOME STUFF THAT HE TOOK FROM THOSE MEAN PEOPLE..." I feel comfortable assuming you're talking about black people.

Quote :

"pwrstrkdf250: then why do you openly endorse politicians and policies that are nothing but vote buyer schemes and rights violations and spew hatred for those that think these policies are WRONG and UNCONSTITUTIONAL?"

I don't think the Voting Rights Act is a vote buying scheme or a rights violation.

We are still talking about voting rights...?

If you're moving this conversation in a new direction, you'll need to be more specific so I can follow you there.

[Edited on March 19, 2007 at 5:24 PM. Reason : To be clear...]

3/19/2007 5:23:28 PM

wow, you assume a whole lot


no I wasn't talking about black people in particular, just stupid people in general


but if thats how you want it

and yeah, the politicians and policies you support are pretty much all about vote buying schemes for political gain

3/19/2007 11:35:53 PM

^I think I'm following you, but could you elaborate?

Cause I'm not aware of some huge vote buying epidemic in the Democratic party. I imagine some of that goes on in both parties though. To me, Republican promises to lower taxes seem like the most blatant move to buy votes. Meanwhile, Democrats are the greedy, big government bastards that want to take all your money!!!

3/20/2007 2:37:37 AM

I find it hilarious that as a murder is happening, Earthdogg is more concerned with a jaywalker.

(this is in relation to the whole thread)

3/20/2007 3:03:05 AM

who would represent the people that don't "get a chance to vote?" who cares? if they can't take the time to learn about the decision they are about to make, then why should anyone care?

if such people want to be heard, then they can take the time to actually be informed. Then they'll be heard. sounds like a pretty simple proposition to me...

3/20/2007 1:33:05 PM

^
Very well put

[Edited on March 20, 2007 at 2:14 PM. Reason : .]

3/20/2007 2:13:36 PM

i saw a few days ago that bush called for congress to pass a stripped version of the bill.....I think he was refering to the troop withdrawal guideline in the original but not sure....anyone know if the spending outlined above was an issue too?

3/20/2007 2:35:02 PM

oh crap. somebody's agreeing with me in here... imma go call my dog to see if he is living w/ a cat now...

3/20/2007 2:36:03 PM

Quote :

"who would represent the people that don't "get a chance to vote?" who cares? if they can't take the time to learn about the decision they are about to make, then why should anyone care?"

Who cares? Anybody who believes in this representative democracy cares.

3/20/2007 2:57:31 PM

well, obviously those people don't care enough about a fucking representative democracy then, SINCE THEY CAN'T CARE ENOUGH TO BE INFORMED... idiot

3/20/2007 3:07:29 PM

3/20/2007 3:14:34 PM