GOP poised to name "Prince of Pork" head of appropriations committee.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Curious you'd refer to the "porking" in such a negative light. This is what you and your masters want, are you not happy?

Liberals want government spending and are open about it. They aren't preaching small government while growing it through the back door with pork and earmarks.
GOP wants to teabag you from one end while porking you from the other.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Oh, I get it now.

So while you love the spending this guy has been doing (the pork), you don't like that his party wants to cut down on that, and he's been doing it, aka being a politician.

Got it.

So basically you just want the party to be honest about blowing money they don't have, instead of blowing money they don't have while saying it's bad to do so.

How......enlightened of you......
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Oh, I get it now.

So while you love the spending this guy has been doing (the pork), you don't like that his party wants to cut down on that, and he's been doing it, aka being a politician.

Got it.

So basically you just want the party to be honest about blowing money they don't have, instead of blowing money they don't have while saying it's bad to do so.

How......enlightened of you......

Honesty is considered too "enlightened" when it comes to GOP :D
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
The message I got was that you're attacking this guy for doing what you and your masters do/want to do. Wouldn't that by called hypocrite instead of Apologist?

You're even confused about words now....
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
The message I got was that you're attacking this guy for doing what you and your masters do/want to do. Wouldn't that by called hypocrite instead of Apologist?

You're even confused about words now....

He is talking small government while peddling pork. I am calling him out on that, you aren't.

Here he is railing on "culture of overspending" and "ending earmarks" :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2ByFziFX98

It's just precious. :)
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
But he's spending it on infrastructre and nature, how can you not be happy with that, 'by whatever means necessary'????
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
But he's spending it on infrastructre and nature, how can you not be happy with that, 'by whatever means necessary'????

I love the spin now. Democrats didn't win in November on a platform of lowering spending and making government smaller. Republicans did.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
But he's spending it on infrastructre and nature, how can you not be happy with that, 'by whatever means necessary'????

Sure. Aside from the hypocrisy.
But what does it mean for the conservative movement when the guys who claim to represent them and preach small government, not only expand it, but also get a free pass? Means that vote liberal or vote conservative, you are going to get big government :) So might as well vote for the people who aren't lying about it.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I do not be naive folks, we all know the GOP is the party of fiscal restrain even if they outspend democrats in practice. But in terms of earmarks, the GOP has pledged to end earmarks and probably will. Its no problems, just end earmarks by renaming earmarks as something else, can't reuse the name of revenue sharing, but any other phrase will do as well.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,560
8
0
You kids realize earmarks on the whole appropriate money that was already allocated for a state right? All they do is allow the politician to direct that money where he or his constituency wants it to go...

You guys argue semantics way too much....


You may not like what Sense has written in this post but his observations are spot on....case in point...how long did it take Rand Paul to 180 his position on earmarks and then 180 again?

Take a look at experiened politicians like Dick Lugar....he has brought the money home to his constituents and they love him for it...

John Mcain and those before him jumped on the term pork because it tested well in focus groups.....

If you dont know how the system works there are many good books you can read.....
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
I love the spin now. Democrats didn't win in November on a platform of lowering spending and making government smaller. Republicans did.

Spin, what spin??? This guy is doing exactly what the Dem's get sloppy juicy just thinking about, and senseamp is taking exception with it.

I mean, senseamp isn't a Rep., so why is he PO'd? He ought to be juicing his/her pants that all those stimulus bucks are getting spent on those infrastructure projects and sh1t. Heck, this thread should be an Atta Boy thread, not one about something so minor as Do as I say, not as I do. Or more appropriately, Think I do as I say, Don't pay attention to what I really do.

Democrat's didn't win in November not because didn't they preach lower spending and making government smaller, they didn't win because they're too F'ing stupid to get any clear, concise, and meaningful legislation passed while having a supermajority. In short, they didn't deserve to win because they're motherF'ing incompetent.

Had they actually done anything, they'd have not lost so bad. You'd think for being on the backburner for 6 years, and then having Congress for the past 2, they'd have been all set to Go Go Go....but apperantly not. To incompetent.

American's were fed up with incompetence, someone actually preaching they'd try to reign in Washington was just icing on the cake.

Chuck
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
Sure. Aside from the hypocrisy.
But what does it mean for the conservative movement when the guys who claim to represent them and preach small government, not only expand it, but also get a free pass? Means that vote liberal or vote conservative, you are going to get big government :) So might as well vote for the people who aren't lying about it.

That might all be true (I have no idea what message this guy runs on, just because major parts of his party advocate one thing, doesn't mean he MUST do that instead of whatever he wants), however, you're assuming I - and others - want to vote for someone who doesn't lie about it.

Look, the Dem's had two years under Bush, and then a year+ now under O'Bummer. They absolutely suck as a party. They literally could not be any worse.

O'Bummer clearly isn't a Leader. Reid is incompetent, the rest of the Dem's in the senate are incompetent, and Pelosi is so huge headed, she doesn't realize that the country drop kicked her straight in her agenda's @ss yet still won't gracefully bow out.

Face it, your party is a disaster, they literally cannot be trusted to govern, they're that bad.

Don't worry though, the Republicans really aren't that much better, but at least with more of them in, hopefully, god willing, there'll be gridlock. At least gridlock will hopefully not let these imbeciles make things worse, although, I really don't put anything past a politician. They're like lawyers, accountants, and stock brokers all mixed into one, and then, on top, they need to get re-elected.

Perhaps that's something they can take on bi-partisanly: Term limits for Congress. No doubt the entirety of America could get behind that....

Chuck
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
That might all be true (I have no idea what message this guy runs on, just because major parts of his party advocate one thing, doesn't mean he MUST do that instead of whatever he wants), however, you're assuming I - and others - want to vote for someone who doesn't lie about it.

Look, the Dem's had two years under Bush, and then a year+ now under O'Bummer. They absolutely suck as a party. They literally could not be any worse.

O'Bummer clearly isn't a Leader. Reid is incompetent, the rest of the Dem's in the senate are incompetent, and Pelosi is so huge headed, she doesn't realize that the country drop kicked her straight in her agenda's @ss yet still won't gracefully bow out.

Face it, your party is a disaster, they literally cannot be trusted to govern, they're that bad.

Don't worry though, the Republicans really aren't that much better, but at least with more of them in, hopefully, god willing, there'll be gridlock. At least gridlock will hopefully not let these imbeciles make things worse, although, I really don't put anything past a politician. They're like lawyers, accountants, and stock brokers all mixed into one, and then, on top, they need to get re-elected.

Perhaps that's something they can take on bi-partisanly: Term limits for Congress. No doubt the entirety of America could get behind that....

Chuck

LOL, Democrats are not perfect by any stretch, but about are governing about as well as to be expected the reality of the economic disaster they inherited from GOP and continuing GOP sabotage of any economic recovery for political gain using the filibuster. You are already seeing the fruits of the gridlock you so much desire. Gridlock means we are going to stay in this mess longer than we need to. Any power in the hands of GOP, including power to obstruct has been a clearly demonstrated unmitigated disaster for the US, and will continue to be so. But continue dreaming that they are going to lead us out of the mess they themselves created.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
A 2yr moratorium on earmarks won't make any difference. If the GOP was truly serious about earmarks they'd get a lot tougher than putting them on a 2yr hiatus.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
Just a reminder that the GOP had a moratorium on earmarks and Ron Paul, of all people, broke that moratorium LOL
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,221
654
126
Republicans want a 2 year moratorium and many Democrats say that earmarks don't matter and don't intend to cut them. Do you really give a shit about earmarks?

No, the point is - do REPUBLICANS really give a shit about earmarks? Doesn't seem like it.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
No, the point is - do REPUBLICANS really give a shit about earmarks? Doesn't seem like it.
So let me get this straight...you don't care about earmarks, yet you think those wanting to invoke a 2 year moratorium somehow means that they really don't care either. In your zeal to infer hypocrisy, you have become blind to your own. Truly pathetic.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,221
654
126
So let me get this straight...you don't care about earmarks, yet you think those wanting to invoke a 2 year moratorium somehow means that they really don't care either. In your zeal to infer hypocrisy, you have become blind to your own. Truly pathetic.

When did I make a statement about how I feel about earmarks? This thread is about the GOP & earmarks. Stop trying to divert.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
When did I make a statement about how I feel about earmarks?
I asked the question "Do you really give a shit about earmarks?" and the first word of your response was "No" and then you then went on to criticize Republicans as to somehow not giving a shit either.

This thread is about the GOP & earmarks. Stop trying to divert.
WTF...there's no diversion. I'm talking about the fucking "GOP & earmarks" and asking you directly how you personally feel about earmarks and the GOP's proposal.

So let me rephrase the question..."Do you personally support a 2 year moratorium on earmarks?" "Why or why not?"
 
Last edited: