# tea party caucus requests 1 billion in earmarks



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

Tea Party Caucus Takes $1 Billion In Earmarks - Hotline On Call


Have you integrity to denounce them?


Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.

According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

You shitlips wont anser this one huh?


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2010)

There are not really "earmarks" if you refuse to call them earmarks.

Problem solved.


----------



## hboats (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> You shitlips wont anser this one huh?



Wow, I'm glad to see that you gave a whole 2 minutes for "shitlips" to respond.  How very generous of you.

Don't you think you should probably give people just a little time to read the link you gave?  Or are we just to take your word for what it says?

Rick


----------



## cyint (Dec 2, 2010)

Business as usual? Is this surprising?


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

Note the right wont comment on this development


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> You shitlips wont anser this one huh?



We kneed it, and all that the corporations will give us too. It's hard to keep up wit da unions.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

willow is on board of course.

anyone else from the right willing to come here and defend what they have been screaming against?


----------



## Trajan (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Note the right wont comment on this development



its been 15 minutes, and you know what,  get the dog out from behind the keyboard....no no no no... hold up PUT the dog behind the KB,  that has to be an improvement. ...either way you are a minute from ignore anyway.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

Fuck you , put me on ignore you fucking shitlipped chicken shit who  cant even comment on teh fact that these assholes sold out your ideals in about two seconds.

You ignore all kinds of facts so why would I fucking care if you ignored me.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> You shitlips wont anser this one huh?



Wow you gave a whole two minutes to reply.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

Cant comment on the issue huh?


You see what fucking iditos you are making of yourselves?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Tea Party Caucus Takes $1 Billion In Earmarks - Hotline On Call
> 
> 
> Have you integrity to denounce them?
> ...




Bachmann and 13 of her Tea Party Caucus colleagues did not request any earmarks in the last Fiscal Year, according to CAGW's annual Congressional Pig Book. But others have requested millions of dollars in special projects.

Those people are in the clear.

These guys are done for;

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), for one, attached his name to 69 earmarks in the last fiscal year, for a total of $78,263,000. The 41 earmarks Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) requested were worth $65,395,000. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) wanted $63,400,000 for 39 special projects, and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) wanted $93,980,000 set aside for 47 projects.

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) takes the prize as the Tea Partier with his name on the most earmarks. Rehberg's office requested funding for 88 projects, either solely or by co-signing earmarks requests with Sens. Max Baucus (D) and Jon Tester (D), at a cost of $100,514,200. On his own, Rehberg requested 20 earmarks valued at more than $9.6 million.


----------



## Moon (Dec 2, 2010)

The article talks about earmarks requested during FY 2010, which ended September 30th, 2010.  The Tea Party caucus was formed in July by Michelle Bachmann, so it's not like the caucus was around for the entire year.  One thing the article fails to show is when these earmarks were requested, so it's entirely possible some or even all were requested before the caucus was even formed.  

Is it possible that some members joined just because they thought it would be good to be associated with the Tea Party movement?  Sure, and they will likely be weeded out by the actual Tea Party members.  I'm much more interested in seeing what they do going forward than looking backward and screeching "Gotcha!".  YMMV.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> You shitlips wont anser this one huh?



you're pathetic


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Fuck you , put me on ignore you fucking shitlipped chicken shit who  cant even comment on teh fact that these assholes sold out your ideals in about two seconds.
> 
> You ignore all kinds of facts so why would I fucking care if you ignored me.



What are the alleged earmarks for? If they help in job creation and ultimately pay for themselves in the long run then I don't see the problem.


----------



## Moon (Dec 2, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Tea Party Caucus Takes $1 Billion In Earmarks - Hotline On Call
> ...



I like this guy.  He shows on the list as having requested $65 million in earmarks, but is obviously living up to the principles of the Tea Party.  How many others like this are on the list?  I don't know, and the article isn't honest enough to say.



> Alexander, for one, "stands with his fellow Republicans in the House in supporting the current earmark ban. Since joining the Tea Party Caucus in July, he has not submitted any earmark requests and has withdrawn his outstanding requests that were included in the most recent Water Resources Development Act," said Jamie Hanks, his communications director.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 2, 2010)




----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> willow is on board of course.
> 
> anyone else from the right willing to come here and defend what they have been screaming against?



we pay taxes, we deserve the money more than ewe do.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 2, 2010)

How much are regualr r's wasting, and what about the d's?

They just listed the t's, where's an honest comparison?


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Fuck you , put me on ignore you fucking shitlipped chicken shit who  cant even comment on teh fact that these assholes sold out your ideals in about two seconds.
> 
> You ignore all kinds of facts so why would I fucking care if you ignored me.



A MELTDOWN OF MONUMENTAL PROPORTIONS RIGHT HERE AT CHRISTMAS TIME. OH MY OH MY OH MY OH MY.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 2, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck you , put me on ignore you fucking shitlipped chicken shit who  cant even comment on teh fact that these assholes sold out your ideals in about two seconds.
> ...



hence the argument of earmarks overall. some people believe that they do create jobs and add to the economy, some believe that they are waste. its a truly fundamental argument.

this issue here is that the Tea Party campaigned on reigning in spending and cutting the deficit. what we end up seeing though is business as usual. its just a lot of political double speak. 

i am not for or against earmarks, as the account for less than 1% of the overall budget. I understand their usefulness at times, but i also believe that some people abuse the power by forcing them into bills in exchange for a yes vote.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

Look at them ALL defending was they excoreiated the democrats for.


Thanks for proving you have no itegrity just like your leaders


----------



## Moon (Dec 2, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> How much are regualr r's wasting, and what about the d's?
> 
> They just listed the t's, where's an honest comparison?



Honesty when talking about Tea Party folks??


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> You shitlips wont anser this one huh?



Do you actually read and understand your "articles" before commenting on them?

Are you aware that you are exactly what you call those on the right? You are a tool for the left that simply regurgitates information without understanding what the information is actually saying.

LOL...the TP Caucus did not becoime in existance until the FY 2010 was nearly at a close.

LMAO....you fell for it once again TM.

You are turly pathetic.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Look at them ALL defending was they excoreiated the democrats for.
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving you have no itegrity just like your leaders



wE LIE TOO, DON'T FORGET THAT..


----------



## Meister (Dec 2, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> How much are regualr r's wasting, and what about the d's?
> 
> They just listed the t's, where's an honest comparison?



Where's TDM's response to this?  She cries about the "no answer in 2 minutes"  It's been over 5 min's with this honest question.


----------



## Moon (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Look at them ALL defending was they excoreiated the democrats for.
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving you have no itegrity just like your leaders



How many of the people on that list signed up for earmarks after they joined the Tea Party caucus?


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


So they were for earmarks before they were against them?


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

Bachmann and 13 of her Tea Party Caucus colleagues did not request any earmarks in the last Fiscal Year, according to CAGW's annual Congressional Pig Book. But others have requested millions of dollars in special projects.

Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), for one, attached his name to 69 earmarks in the last fiscal year, for a total of $78,263,000. The 41 earmarks Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) requested were worth $65,395,000. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) wanted $63,400,000 for 39 special projects, and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) wanted $93,980,000 set aside for 47 projects.

Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) takes the prize as the Tea Partier with his name on the most earmarks. Rehberg's office requested funding for 88 projects, either solely or by co-signing earmarks requests with Sens. Max Baucus (D) and Jon Tester (D), at a cost of $100,514,200. On his own, Rehberg requested 20 earmarks valued at more than $9.6 million.

More than one member can sign onto an earmark. Still, there are 29 caucus members who requested on their own or joined requests for more than $10 million in earmark funding, and seven who wanted more than $50 million in funding.


----------



## Moon (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> 
> So they were for earmarks before they were against them?



So people can't change their positions ever?  I guess that means you believe Robert Byrd was a KKK loving, racist piece of shit until the day he died then.  Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 2, 2010)

2010 Pig Book Summary

For fiscal year 2011, House Democrats are not requesting earmarks that go to for-profit entities; House Republicans are not requesting any earmarks (although there are both exceptions and definitional questions); not surprisingly, the Senate has rejected any limits on earmarks.  None of these reforms are sufficient to eliminate all earmarks, so CAGW expects there will still be a 2011 Pig Book.

Did a search for dems pork spending in 2010;
Pork Database

5070 record(s) for a total of $5,048,602,943

Is that over $5 Billion in pork?

WEEE  And I thought we were out of money!


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

Its YOU guys who came out against ear marks you fucktard.


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> 
> So they were for earmarks before they were against them?



Actually, yes....NO ONE is denying that all elected officials were jumping on the earmark bandwagon.
However, now all of a sudden, the debt is becoming a real issue and one that is being discussed and analyzed everyday...
So many....mostly on the right...have decided that the earmark thing must end.

And by the way...Obama was against the surge until it worked....then he was not only for it and wanted to use it in A-stan...but he also took credit for it.

Just sayin'.

You truly are pathetic.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> You ignore all kinds of facts so why would I fucking care if you ignored me.



 if only.....because folks like you have nothing else going for them.

Personally this thread in particular has sown it up for me, I think you have a neurotic disorder, a phobia where in the forum is that 'object or situation', you _seek_ negative reinforcement  ( and I am sure this is not the only place either ) by exhibiting mindless vulgar arrogance.
You crave it because you feel to insecure or are just to ill-equipped(?) to acquire any positive corroboration otherwise but cannot make due without_ any _attention. Of which in any case, you will no longer get from me.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> ...



hahahah

He was also against Gitmo, and the Patriot act, and increaseing taxes, and, and , and...


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Its YOU guys who came out against ear marks you fucktard.



So I am curious TM....are you FOR earmarks?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 2, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > You ignore all kinds of facts so why would I fucking care if you ignored me.
> ...



ouch!

But thinking about it, you are probably right.

She doesn't respond to sincere posts ever, except to blow it into an attack of some kind by intentionally mis-reading it.

Maybe she likes the abuse.   

USMB >  < Truthmatters


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Its YOU guys who came out against ear marks you fucktard.
> ...



They are like 1% of the budget and many are good ideas.

I examine them one by one for vailidity.

Your team on the other hand uses them and then spews against them like they were the CAUSE of our deficits when it was really two unpaid for wars and deregulation of the lending industry.


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



She feels she can confirm her sentiments by arguing with the right. She does not debate. She simply tries to show that anyone who thinks differently than her is an idiot or a liar or both.

That is why she does not enter a civil debate with her own thoughts.

I know many like her and they are all the same. So unsure of their own sentiments that the prefer to discredit others of different sentiments.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 2, 2010)

As I have predicted.  How long before those who voted for the baggers say "well they are not really conservatives"?


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



lol....really? I wonder how many winter coats that "1%" of the budet would buy the poor.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Its YOU guys who came out against ear marks you fucktard.
> ...



Naah I think she just likes to rub your nose in it.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

Tea party caucus is going to get a pass for anything they do from these fools


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> As I have predicted.  How long before those who voted for the baggers say "well they are not really conservatives"?



You are too smart and too wise to comment on something without knowing the facts.

The TP Caucus came into existance a month before the end of FY 2010....the stats offered are disingenuos.

No one denied that many in the TP caucus were on the earmark bandwagon before they decided enough was enough.

TM sucked you right in USC.......she is making you look silly.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > You shitlips wont anser this one huh?
> ...


Yet you haven't replied.


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Tea party caucus is going to get a pass for anything they do from these fools



No more of a pass than any other caucus.
They screw up, they will hear from me.

Your "data" is spun.....and now that you know it you refuse to admit the err of your ways and you continue to support it.

Whatever works for you.


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Why should he? Many of us already replied with the truth about what TM posted. 
It would be redundant for LSL to reply with the same thing.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 2, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



No, what you see here is a report that doesn't give any specifics.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 2, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



On the contrary.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



WTF?????


How can you have others reply for your support of this bailing on the earmarks by the tea party?????


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > As I have predicted.  How long before those who voted for the baggers say "well they are not really conservatives"?
> ...



No matter how silly I get I will still be brilliant whan compared to baggers.
You see I can admit to being wrong unlike most baggers.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Bachmann and 13 of her Tea Party Caucus colleagues did not request any earmarks in the last Fiscal Year, according to CAGW's annual Congressional Pig Book. But others have requested millions of dollars in special projects.
> 
> Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), for one, attached his name to 69 earmarks in the last fiscal year, for a total of $78,263,000. The 41 earmarks Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) requested were worth $65,395,000. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) wanted $63,400,000 for 39 special projects, and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) wanted $93,980,000 set aside for 47 projects.
> 
> ...



They are making their wish lists for NOTHING??????


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics)


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Do you read the responses?

NO ONE BAILED.....

the data is regarding earmarks during the FY 2010....the TP Caucus came into existance one month before FY 2010 ENDED...

No one deny's that all politiicans, including those in the TP Caucus put in for earmarks in the past....but the platform of the caucus was NO MORE EARMARKS MOVING FORWARD!

Until 2011 budget is tapped into, this is a non debate......YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING.

It is like a drug user following rehab saying "no more drugs" and then someone calling him a liar becasue they found out he was using drugs years earlier.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 2, 2010)

Bullcrap!
The TP came into existence in Jan or so of 2009.
Remember hos they got thei tea bagger nickname?
Send a tea bag to your congressperson.

You can use that cacus word if you want to try and evade truth, but was any candidate running for congress on the tea party ticket?
I did not see any on my ballot.


----------



## sangha (Dec 2, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Bullcrap!
> The TP came into existence in Jan or so of 2009.
> Remember hos they got thei tea bagger nickname?
> Send a tea bag to your congressperson.
> ...



If teabaggers didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Bullcrap!
> The TP came into existence in Jan or so of 2009.
> Remember hos they got thei tea bagger nickname?
> Send a tea bag to your congressperson.
> ...



OK...

The Tea Party Caucus doesnt exist.

Whatever....if it makes you feel better, go for it.


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Bullcrap!
> The TP came into existence in Jan or so of 2009.
> Remember hos they got thei tea bagger nickname?
> Send a tea bag to your congressperson.
> ...



FYI....I dont recall seeing anyone running on the Black ticket.

But there is a Black caucus.

Go ahead...now spin that into me being a racist.


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

sangha said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Bullcrap!
> ...



Really?

Give me a lie a tea partyer said to you.

Typical "I dont agree with them so they are idiots and liars" rhetoric.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Bullcrap!
> ...



LOL, who PM'd you with that thought?

Blacks have existed for tens of thousands of years.

Is there a jewish Caucus?


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



No one PMed me with that thought.
I will take that comment as you questioning my intelligence.
Thanks for that....good to know moving forward.

A caucus is for those with a common cause.

The Black politicians have (had) a cause.
The Tea Partyers have a cause.
The Jews did not have a cause as it pertains to politics.....but if they did, there would be reason for a Jewish Caucus.

Enough said.


----------



## sangha (Dec 2, 2010)

Someone got stumped!!


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

sangha said:


> Someone got stumped!!



Not me. I can go on forever. I can support my comments and support my side of the debate.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


Did they need a caucus or formal organization in order to live up to their stated principles?


----------



## Moon (Dec 2, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Bullcrap!
> The TP came into existence in Jan or so of 2009.
> Remember hos they got thei tea bagger nickname?
> Send a tea bag to your congressperson.
> ...



This thread is about the article posted in the OP.  Perhaps you should read it before commenting further.

From the first sentence:  





> Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus...



The topic is the actions of the members of the House of Representatives who are also members of the Tea Party Caucus, which was formed in July 2010 and has approximately 52 members.

Carry on.


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



So far they have.
None who is part of the cuacus has put in for an earmark since the caucus was developed.
Yes, many did beforehand....no one denied this....but since, no, none have.

The "no earmarks" is a platform they just all agreed to take recently.

TM simply took old actions and applied it to a new "mandate".

Based on her assumption....I guess anyone who did not use hands free before the law was passed is now guilty of breaking the law even if they have used the hands free since the law was passed....


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

then why are they making out wish lists for earmarks?


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Bachmann and 13 of her Tea Party Caucus colleagues did not request any earmarks in the last Fiscal Year, according to CAGW's annual Congressional Pig Book. But others have requested millions of dollars in special projects.
> 
> Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), for one, attached his name to 69 earmarks in the last fiscal year, for a total of $78,263,000. The 41 earmarks Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) requested were worth $65,395,000. Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) wanted $63,400,000 for 39 special projects, and Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) wanted $93,980,000 set aside for 47 projects.
> 
> ...



remember


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

Tea Party Caucus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 are 52 members of the Tea Party Caucus, all Republicans.[8]

1.Robert Aderholt (AL-4)
2.Todd Akin (MO-2)
3.Rodney Alexander (LA-5)
4.Michele Bachmann (MN-6)
5.Joe Barton (TX-6)
6.Roscoe Bartlett (MD-6)
7.Gus Bilirakis (FL-9)
8.Rob Bishop (UT-1)
9.Michael Burgess (TX-26)
10.Paul Broun (GA-10)
11.Dan Burton (IN-5)
12.John Carter (TX-31)
13.Howard Coble (NC-6)
14.Mike Coffman (CO-6)
15.Ander Crenshaw (FL-4)
16.John Culberson (TX-7)
17.John Fleming (LA-4)
18.Trent Franks (AZ-2)
19.Phil Gingrey (GA-11)
20.Louie Gohmert (TX-1)
21.Tom Graves (GA-9)
22.Ralph Hall (TX-4)
23.Gregg Harper (MS-3)
24.Wally Herger (CA-2)
25.Pete Hoekstra (MI-2)
26.Lynn Jenkins (KS-2)
27.Walter Jones (NC-3)
28.Steve King (IA-5)
29.Doug Lamborn (CO-5)
30.Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9)
31.Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL)
32.Kenny Marchant (TX-24)
33.Tom McClintock (CA-4)
34.Gary Miller (CA-42)
35.Jerry Moran (KS-1)
36.Sue Myrick (NC-9)
37.Randy Neugebauer (TX-19)
38.Mike Pence (IN-6)
39.Tom Price (GA-6)
40.Denny Rehberg (MT-AL)
41.Phil Roe (TN-1)
42.Ed Royce (CA-40)
43.Steve Scalise (LA-1)
44.Pete Sessions (TX-32)
45.John Shadegg (AZ-3)
46.Adrian M. Smith (NE-3)
47.Lamar Smith (TX-21)
48.Cliff Stearns (FL-6)
49.Todd Tiahrt (KS-4)
50.Zach Wamp (TN-3)
51.Lynn Westmoreland (GA-3)
52.Joe Wilson (SC-2)


----------



## G.T. (Dec 2, 2010)

aaahahahaha. 

Anti-earmark Tea Party Caucus takes $1 billion in earmarks - Yahoo! News


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Bachmann and 13 of her Tea Party Caucus colleagues did not request any earmarks in the last Fiscal Year, according to CAGW's annual Congressional Pig Book. But others have requested millions of dollars in special projects.
> ...



*ALL DONE BEFORE THEY COMMITTED TO NO LONGER PUTTING IN FOR EARMARKS*

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?


----------



## VaYank5150 (Dec 2, 2010)

How can this be?  Did they lie to the weak minded?


----------



## sangha (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Wingnuts believe politicians when they make promises


----------



## hboats (Dec 2, 2010)

Already posted and moved to the Tea Party forum where it belongs.

Rick


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 2, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Yes they must have a figurehead or two telling them how to think.


----------



## G.T. (Dec 2, 2010)

I didn't even know they had their own forum. My bizzle. This is politics though. 110%. 

I'm not going to hold them accountable really, just give them a giggle.


----------



## VaYank5150 (Dec 2, 2010)

Why shoud it be moved there?  These folks will be trying to influence our entire Federal Government, and such they are obviously liars, or at the very least hypocrites, it obviously equates to "politics"...


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> then why are they making out wish lists for earmarks?



They aren't.

According t the link inside your link.  The entire GOP has 0 earmarks for 2011.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2010)

There's something missing here.  How many of the $1B were actually awarded?

And when were these actually requested?


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Bachmann and 13 of her Tea Party Caucus colleagues did not request any earmarks in the last Fiscal Year, according to CAGW's annual Congressional Pig Book.But others have requested millions of dollars in special projects.
> ...



Read jarhead and then admitt your mistake


----------



## hboats (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Comprehension isn't truthdoesn'tmatter's strong suit.

Making false claims and then sticking to them even after they've been blown to hell and back by FACTS is though.

Rick


----------



## G.T. (Dec 2, 2010)

Why were they doing them to begin with? If this is how they believe Government should be, why weren't they standing on principle, _BEFORE?_


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



You just dont get it.
No....you dont WANT to get it.

*Those others requested those earmarks BEFORE they commited to not request earmarks.*


----------



## G.T. (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



That gives them a pass?


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Why were they doing them to begin with? If this is how they believe Government should be, why weren't they standing on principle, _BEFORE?_



Becuase they deviated from their beliefs....
They recognized the err of their ways....sure, I have my doubts about them...but I admire their willingness to admit they were in the wrong.
Lets see if they really mean it.
So far, so good.


----------



## sangha (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



WIngnuts believe politicians when they make promises 

They think their Nanny State representatives in Congress will take care of them


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



A pass?

A politican recognizing the err of his ways and correcting them?

Yes...if he proves to be legit about it.


----------



## G.T. (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Why were they doing them to begin with? If this is how they believe Government should be, why weren't they standing on principle, _BEFORE?_
> ...



If you say so man. I'd say you're caught up in the game of right vs. left too much and you are being had. A fiscal conservative who was for earmarks before he was against them....................................should be replaced by your Voting party.


----------



## Common Sense (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> Those others requested those earmarks BEFORE they commited to not request earmarks.



so answer me this. if these "tea party" members believe in being fiscally conservative, shouldnt they have denounced earmarks prior to joining the tea party and sought to eliminate them rather than embracing them? this to me seems like a reversal of policy. thus im assuming they are more than willing to change to their policy on many issues if it is politically correct and helps them stay in office.

i would much rather respect someone who stands on their principles, rather than change them all the time.


----------



## sangha (Dec 2, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Those others requested those earmarks BEFORE they commited to not request earmarks.
> ...



Teabaggers haven't changed their principles. That would require that they had principles in the first place.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 2, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Why were they doing them to begin with? If this is how they believe Government should be, why weren't they standing on principle, _BEFORE?_



Simple.

No one on either side in any party has demanded ethics from anyone on thier side.

It's always that other teams fault, they are the bad guys when they do it, but we have pure ideals when we do it.

If you check TMs link it will show you that some in the t's have no marks at all.  If you check the link that is the source of the info, you wll see that the entire GOP has no earmarks for 2011


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

House Republicans defend earmarks against Democrat threat to delete them?  Hot Air


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

sangha said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Really?
Is that what I have been saying?


----------



## G.T. (Dec 2, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Why were they doing them to begin with? If this is how they believe Government should be, why weren't they standing on principle, _BEFORE?_
> ...




I see it as unprincipled people who should have been booted out of office for their wrong-doing, started sucking voters' asses and changing their _OWN OBVIOUS BELIEFS_, in order to get re-elected. I'd rather pass on guys like that.


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Why were they doing them to begin with? If this is how they believe Government should be, why weren't they standing on principle, _BEFORE?_
> ...



NONE for 2011....

This thread is nothing but a rant for TM....and so many on the left fell rigtht into it as they triued to defend a bogus post.

Yep...TM made you all look silly...

Except GT....at least he was questioning why the change in heart and not the deviation from a commitment.


----------



## sangha (Dec 2, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Why were they doing them to begin with? If this is how they believe Government should be, why weren't they standing on principle, _BEFORE?_
> ...



Even the wingnuts know the teabaggers won't act ethically unless someone else demands it.


----------



## sangha (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



Yes


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Oh OK I get what you are saying.

That they will refrain from earmarks now even though they were for them before they were against them.


Hell boehner defended them in the past when it was polically expediant.


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

G.T. said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I dont disagree...

But lets be real here....how was a politician able to win if the opposition said "vote for me and you get all this stuff but vote for him and all of the OTHER rstates will get all this stuff and not you"


----------



## sangha (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



Wingnuts don't care about their principles. They only care about winning elections. They will eagerly toss their principles and their promises in order to get elected

And the teabaggers believe everything they promise


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Yes...so did just about every other republican...and that is why they lost the house and the senate...

IN the meantime, where is the same outrage for all of those epople in congress that voted for the iraq war before they were against it?

Do you really believe that they did not change their stance for political expediency?

You are a fool if you think not.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

That is the deal with this earmarks issue , its hot air.

The are basically saying they will not fight for their states share of the federal pie.

We all know that is not going to get them anywhere.


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

sangha said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Actually....wingnuts are stuck on principles...thus why they are called wing nuts.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

There was that bit of doctered evidence by the Bush admin.

They lied to congress about the war with bad intell


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> That is the deal with this earmarks issue , its hot air.
> 
> The are basically saying they will not fight for their states share of the federal pie.
> 
> We all know that is not going to get them anywhere.



Well...that is a valid point and one worthy of a debate.

But what you started was by no means a valid debate.

It was accusing someone of breaking a promise even though their actions were before the promise was made.

That is disingenuous.


----------



## sangha (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...



In wingnut world "being for earmarks before being against them is "stuck on principles"


----------



## G.T. (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...




Well, because the voting public felt strongly squeezed Economically this time around, so much so that they'll blame anyone/anything, and so the persons running for office yelling "balance budgets reduce debts" sound the best to people who don't really delve much into politics, which is basically me aside from these boards. 

A man who's over 40 and still changing his principles around is not a man. He's a shill for power. A man like that can have his pic on my dartboard, and I shoot all bull's eyes, or.....hrrmm.........donkey/elephant eyes. 

The Tea Party to me is a farce because it's by and large made up of the same base the right's always had.............and in the economic storm we had, it was simple to pick up straggling independants with a message like that. Good for them and all, but it's just another power grabbing force who would end up giving in to Corporate Interests in the long-run. 

McConnell, Boehner, those guys? I can see the arrogant douche-ness right in their eyeballs. Same for Palin. Same for Pelosi, etc. etc. etc. They're not fooling me.


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> There was that bit of doctered evidence by the Bush admin.
> 
> They lied to congress about the war with bad intell



Yes...so they claimed but were never able to prove.

Imagine that....all of those countries and all of THEIR intel saying the exact same thing as Bush's intel...

I wonder how Bush was able to doctor the intel of Australia...and GB....and so many other couintries.

And with all of that world wide doctoring....all we have to go by is what Pelosi claims but was unable to prove.

Sure....sounds valid.


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

sangha said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Nope....

Palin is a wingnut. Pelosi is a wingnut
Boehner is a hypoicrite. Obama is a hypocrite.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 2, 2010)

Please read both links provided.  The info provided by the first page is a half assed collection of some facts.  Shocking, I know.

NAME                EARMARKS        AMOUNT

Aderholt (R-AL)        69        $78,263,000
Akin (R-MO)             9        $14,709,000
Alexander (R-LA)       41        $65,395,000
Bachmann (R-MN)         0                  0
Barton (R-TX)          14        $12,269,400
Bartlett (R-MD)        19        $43,060,650
Bilirakis (R-FL)       14        $13,600,000
R. Bishop (R-UT)       47        $93,980,000
Burgess (R-TX)         15        $15,804,400
Broun (R-GA)            0                  0
Burton (R-IN)           0                  0
Carter (R-TX)          26        $42,232,000
Coble (R-NC)           19        $18,755,000
Coffman (R-CO)          0                  0
Crenshaw (R-FL)        37        $54,424,000
Culberson (R-TX)       22        $33,792,000
Fleming (R-LA)         10        $31,489,000
Franks (R-AZ)           8        $14,300,000
Gingrey (R-GA)         19        $16,100,000
Gohmert (R-TX)         15         $7,099,000
S. Graves (R-MO)       11         $8,331,000
R. Hall (R-TX)         16        $12,232,000
Harper (R-MS)          25        $80,402,000
Herger (R-CA)           5         $5,946,000
Hoekstra (R-MI)         9         $6,392,000
Jenkins (R-KS)         12        $24,628,000
S. King (R-IA)         13         $6,650,000
Lamborn (R-CO)          6        $16,020,000
Luetkemeyer (R-MO)      0                  0
Lummis (R-WY)           0                  0
Marchant (R-TX)         0                  0
McClintock (R-CA)       0                  0
Gary Miller (R-CA)     15        $19,627,500
Jerry Moran (R-KS)     22        $19,400,000
Myrick (R-NC)           0                  0
Neugebauer (R-TX)       0                  0
Pence (R-IN)            0                  0
Poe (R-TX)             12         $7,913,000
T. Price (R-GA)         0                  0
Rehberg (R-MT)         88       $100,514,200
Roe (R-TN)              0                  0
Royce (R-CA)            7         $6,545,000
Scalise (R-LA)         20        $17,388,000
P. Sessions (R-TX)      0                  0
Shadegg (R-AZ)          0                  0
Adrian Smith (R-NE)     1           $350,000
L. Smith (R-TX)        18        $14,078,000
Stearns (R-FL)         17        $15,472,000
Tiahrt (R-KS)          39        $63,400,000
Wamp (R-TN)            14        $34,544,000
Westmoreland (R-GA)     0                  0
Wilson (R-SC)          15        $23,334,000

TOTAL                 764     $1,049,783,150
As you can see, some of the R's that became T's dropped all earmarks.

Now if you go here; 2010 Pig Book Summary

You will find this info;

For fiscal year 2011, House Democrats are not requesting earmarks that go to for-profit entities; House Republicans are not requesting any earmarks (although there are both exceptions and definitional questions); not surprisingly, the Senate has rejected any limits on earmarks.  None of these reforms are sufficient to eliminate all earmarks, so CAGW expects there will still be a 2011 Pig Book.

Now if you search here; Pork Database

You can do a vast search for pork in 2010 and get some good info.

I search for Dem pork, 2010

5070 record(s) for a total of $5,048,602,943

that's $5 Billion dollars wasted on pet projects.  But it's OK, b/c the dems aren't against wasting money.


[sorry for all the colors, I've been responding to shaman]


----------



## G.T. (Dec 2, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> Please read both links provided.  The info provided by the first page is a half assed collection of some facts.  Shocking, I know.
> 
> NAME                EARMARKS        AMOUNT
> 
> ...




pple whining about colors are wussies.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

Jarhead said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > There was that bit of doctered evidence by the Bush admin.
> ...





Dude their lies were proven by the lack of any evidence of the claimed WMDs


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

House GOP Still Requesting Earmarks : Roll Call


Several House Republicans have projects included on a list of 2011 earmark requests released by the Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, just two weeks after the GOP Conference adopted a one-year moratorium on the spending practice. 

But the Members listed are raising questions about whether their requests actually count as earmarks under the new ban, adopted by Republicans on March 11. 

Republican Reps. Henry Brown (S.C.), Anh &#8220;Joseph&#8221; Cao (La.), Ron Paul (Texas), Bill Posey (Fla.), Bill Young (Fla.) and Don Young (Alaska) are among the lawmakers requesting funding for specific projects on the Appropriations Committee list.


----------



## Jarhead (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



So the whole world lied about their intel?
Do you not believe there was good reason to think there may have been WMD's?

Ugh...I'm wasting my time.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

hey fool , the intell that many of those sstatements were based on was the Bush lies.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 2, 2010)

White Paper Justifying Iraq War Written Three Months before Intel Report Arrived | Dissident Voice


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> hey fool , the intell that many of those sstatements were based on was the Bush lies.



So all the quotes from clinton and clintons time are also lies?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> House GOP Still Requesting Earmarks : Roll Call
> 
> 
> Several House Republicans have projects included on a list of 2011 earmark requests released by the Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, just two weeks after the GOP Conference adopted a one-year moratorium on the spending practice.
> ...



Now if you go here; 2010 Pig Book Summary

You will find this info;

For fiscal year 2011, House Democrats are not requesting earmarks that go to for-profit entities; House Republicans are not requesting any earmarks (although there are both exceptions and definitional questions); not surprisingly, the Senate has rejected any limits on earmarks. None of these reforms are sufficient to eliminate all earmarks, so CAGW expects there will still be a 2011 Pig Book.


----------



## shintao (Dec 2, 2010)

I thought the Tea Party was for NO NEW TAXES, a pledge we heard Bush Sr. make years back. And yet they are the big spenders, they are no better than Republicans on earmarks, or Raising your Taxes!!! I would say the T-Party voters were lied to, and to have any credibility at all, they should demand those congressional members resign. Is there going to be a price paid for their lies and deceit? I doubt it, whacky T-Party members will just make up excuses for their taxing behaviors like everybody else does. Clean up the government?? LMAO!!!


Members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus may tout their commitment to cutting government spending now, but they used the 111th Congress to request hundreds of earmarks that, taken cumulatively, added more than $1 billion to the federal budget.

According to a Hotline review of records compiled by Citizens Against Government Waste, *the 52 members of the caucus, which pledges to cut spending and reduce the size of government, requested a total of 764 earmarks valued at $1,049,783,150 during Fiscal Year 2010, the last year for which records are available.*

"It's disturbing to see the Tea Party Caucus requested that much in earmarks. This is their time to put up or shut up, to be blunt," said David Williams, vice president for policy at Citizens Against Government Waste. "There's going to be a huge backlash if they continue to request earmarks."

Tea Party Caucus Takes $1 Billion In Earmarks - Hotline On Call


----------



## The Rabbi (Dec 2, 2010)

Has the new Congress been sworn in already?
No?
Then STFU.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 2, 2010)

truthmatters beat you to this stoopidity

She had to lie and change the subject so much after people read the links it was embarassing to watch.

And as CG would say.

Learn to use the search function, moron, idiot, fool or something along those lines.


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

merged.


----------



## hboats (Dec 2, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> hey fool , the intell that many of those sstatements were based on was the Bush lies.



So what you're saying is that the quotes of Clinton in 1998 were based on the intel gathered by Bush?

No wonder you can't comprehend the simplest of things, you don't even understand that Clinton made those quotes long before the Bush information was gathered.

Rick


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Has the new Congress been sworn in already?
> No?
> Then STFU.


Their principles haven't gone into effect yet?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 2, 2010)

elvis said:


> merged.



DAMN that was fast!

What, are you the King of ninjas or something?

Elvis >


----------



## Two Thumbs (Dec 2, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Has the new Congress been sworn in already?
> ...



pfft dufus

read the link, then click on the link it got it's info from and do some research.

In 2011 the gop has Zero marks set up.

Don't beleive just whats posted, it makes you look like a doofus


----------



## elvis (Dec 2, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > merged.
> ...



uh uh huh.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 2, 2010)

Two Thumbs said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Wasn't the Rightwing mantra during HCR that the CBO was not to be trusted?  Because they show a lowering of health care costs?

ETA:  sorry, I mistook that huge sigline as an additional piece of info to add to this debate.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 3, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> hey fool , the intell that many of those sstatements were based on was the Bush lies.



Prove it.

By the way, many of those statements were made before Bush took office you stupid lying fuck!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



One thing that you need to know about the CBO is it's garbage in, garbage out. They can only calculate the data they are given.


----------



## sangha (Dec 3, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



Translation - I'll cite CBO stats when they support what I"m saying, and when they don't, I'll call them garbage


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 3, 2010)

sangha said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Hey stupid show me where I have ever cited the CBO to support an argument!

And when you fail? You can apoligize for being the lying piece of shit that you are.


----------



## RespectForVets (Dec 5, 2010)

Teabaggers won't last long.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 5, 2010)

RespectForVets said:


> Teabaggers won't last long.


Correct.  They've allowed themselves to be used by the Regressive Party.

And who ever uses a tea bag twice?


----------

