Comments on: Same old b.s. part 2 http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/same-old-bs-part-2/ Just another WordPress.com weblog Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:15:33 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: concernedcitizen http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/same-old-bs-part-2/#comment-45 concernedcitizen Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:22:08 +0000 http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/?p=242#comment-45 whatever.....i just told you why. whatever…..i just told you why.

]]> By: scottfeldstein http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/same-old-bs-part-2/#comment-44 scottfeldstein Wed, 11 Feb 2009 00:49:46 +0000 http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/?p=242#comment-44 Well because you're very stridently attacking the president I voted for and the policies which I support--yet when pressed to substantiate your charge of "pork" all you really have is some defined-by-you example of "implied" pork. Come on. If you don't like the guy's policies, let's hear why. Stop demonizing the man in lieu of real arguments against his proposals. Well because you’re very stridently attacking the president I voted for and the policies which I support–yet when pressed to substantiate your charge of “pork” all you really have is some defined-by-you example of “implied” pork.

Come on. If you don’t like the guy’s policies, let’s hear why. Stop demonizing the man in lieu of real arguments against his proposals.

]]> By: concernedcitizen http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/same-old-bs-part-2/#comment-43 concernedcitizen Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:18:51 +0000 http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/?p=242#comment-43 why does my opinion bother you so much? why does my opinion bother you so much?

]]> By: scottfeldstein http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/same-old-bs-part-2/#comment-42 scottfeldstein Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:14:29 +0000 http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/?p=242#comment-42 And your demonstration of this pork, this lie? IMPLIED pork. I mean, come on. And your demonstration of this pork, this lie? IMPLIED pork.

I mean, come on.

]]> By: concernedcitizen http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/same-old-bs-part-2/#comment-41 concernedcitizen Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:12:31 +0000 http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/?p=242#comment-41 i'm not out to get anybody. if he wants to spend money on projects, go ahead. i think there is some value to public works projects and stimulating the economy. but when he stands in front of the nation and preaches that there will be no pork, that's what i have a problem with. lying. i’m not out to get anybody. if he wants to spend money on projects, go ahead. i think there is some value to public works projects and stimulating the economy. but when he stands in front of the nation and preaches that there will be no pork, that’s what i have a problem with. lying.

]]> By: scottfeldstein http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/same-old-bs-part-2/#comment-40 scottfeldstein Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:09:00 +0000 http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/?p=242#comment-40 Look, it's a spending bill. That's is main purpose--to spend money on goods and services. There's no way to do a spending bill without spending. Does spending now equal "implied pork"? How convenient. If you have to redefine terms in order to tag something with a label, you're probably just talking through your hat. "Implied pork." Heh. You're just out to get the guy and the spending bill that you don't like. Look, it’s a spending bill. That’s is main purpose–to spend money on goods and services. There’s no way to do a spending bill without spending. Does spending now equal “implied pork”? How convenient. If you have to redefine terms in order to tag something with a label, you’re probably just talking through your hat. “Implied pork.” Heh.

You’re just out to get the guy and the spending bill that you don’t like.

]]> By: concernedcitizen http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/same-old-bs-part-2/#comment-38 concernedcitizen Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:58:18 +0000 http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/?p=242#comment-38 in what regard? in what regard?

]]> By: scottfeldstein http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/same-old-bs-part-2/#comment-37 scottfeldstein Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:55:42 +0000 http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/?p=242#comment-37 Dude, that's pretty weak. Dude, that’s pretty weak.

]]> By: concernedcitizen http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/same-old-bs-part-2/#comment-36 concernedcitizen Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:42:47 +0000 http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/?p=242#comment-36 scott, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. even though the project isn't specifically called out in the bill, the one in illinois was the only one proposed in the county. for me, that counts as (i think i might copyright this) "implied pork" scott,
you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. even though the project isn’t specifically called out in the bill, the one in illinois was the only one proposed in the county. for me, that counts as (i think i might copyright this) “implied pork”

]]> By: scottfeldstein http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/same-old-bs-part-2/#comment-35 scottfeldstein Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:39:45 +0000 http://dkdemo.wordpress.com/?p=242#comment-35 What the president means is that there are no earmarks attached to the bill, as one would typically see coming out of the appropriations committee. Absent the earmarking process, you can't really say that any of it is pork (spending introduced by a member of congress specifically to benefit his own constituency at the expense of taxpayers nationwide). What the president means is that there are no earmarks attached to the bill, as one would typically see coming out of the appropriations committee. Absent the earmarking process, you can’t really say that any of it is pork (spending introduced by a member of congress specifically to benefit his own constituency at the expense of taxpayers nationwide).

]]>