He doesn't even try to hide his lies.
QuoteOklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (R) said in opposition to the legislation: "Each and every time, whether a Republican or Democratic initiative, I have refused to go along with big government spending or big government solutions."
But as it turns out, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, Inhofe had 34 earmarks worth $53 million.
I guess he figures since so many keep voting for him after all these years, some of us are! :'(
Yeah, well it's different when Inhofe does it. ;)
Just because you are against something doesn't mean that you don't partake. Haven't you learned anything from living in Tulsa?
I stand by a distinction between "earmarks' and "pork."
Look closer at the spending bill. There is plenty of pork, including pork for Oklahoma. But of that $53iml some $40mil is for maintenance on assets owned by the Federal Government (mostly dams and federal bridges).
I don't want legitimate earmarks (few would argue dam maintenance is actually pork) to take angst away from worthless spending ($300,000 to encourage wheat farming in Oklahoma).
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 11, 2009, 04:10:47 PM
I stand by a distinction between "earmarks' and "pork."
Look closer at the spending bill. There is plenty of pork, including pork for Oklahoma. But of that $53iml some $40mil is for maintenance on assets owned by the Federal Government (mostly dams and federal bridges).
I don't want legitimate earmarks (few would argue dam maintenance is actually pork) to take angst away from worthless spending ($300,000 to encourage wheat farming in Oklahoma).
I think your definition is flawed a little bit. You got the distinction between earmarks and pork correct. You forgot to mention that all earmarks from Democrats are pork.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 11, 2009, 04:10:47 PM
I stand by a distinction between "earmarks' and "pork."
Look closer at the spending bill. There is plenty of pork, including pork for Oklahoma. But of that $53iml some $40mil is for maintenance on assets owned by the Federal Government (mostly dams and federal bridges).
I don't want legitimate earmarks (few would argue dam maintenance is actually pork) to take angst away from worthless spending ($300,000 to encourage wheat farming in Oklahoma).
Ditto.
But, you left out cricket eradication in Utah, turning poop into energy in Wisconsin and studying why pigs stink in I can't remember where.
Quote from: Wilbur on March 11, 2009, 04:33:33 PM
Ditto.
But, you left out cricket eradication in Utah, turning poop into energy in Wisconsin and studying why pigs stink in I can't remember where.
LOL
It's pretty simple to determine what is and is not an earmark. If the bill were called "The Why Do Pigs Stink Bill" than that wouldn't be an earmark, it would be a logical portion of the bill.
The bill is called the "FY2009 Omnibus Budget Bill" it is to fund federal government until the end of the year, because for the last 9 years congress has been too lazy/stupid to pass an actual federal budget bill. Therefore anything not related to the funding of existing federal operations is an earmark.
I think many Democrats are getting quite upset, because President Obama promised to veto ALL earmarks on the campaign trail. With the first stroke of his pen he stamped a thousand of them, and with the second stroke he will approve over 8,000.
I am disappointed at the dismal job Republicans have done over the last 8 years, and now I am terrified at the $16,000 per tax payer that Democrats and Republicans have Scotch taped to an unrelated piece of legislation.
They see a crisis, they see us in pain, and they take that opportunity, that distraction to force feed us garbage because they think we are hungry and won't notice.
Perhaps they are right.
For the record, they are eradicating MORMON CRICKETS in Utah.
Am I the only one at least slightly amused by that on a 5th grade level? I suppose they let all the Catholic and Baptist crickets live. And how can they tell?
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 12, 2009, 09:43:13 AM
For the record, they are eradicating MORMON CRICKETS in Utah.
Am I the only one at least slightly amused by that on a 5th grade level? I suppose they let all the Catholic and Baptist crickets live. And how can they tell?
Their underwear?
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 12, 2009, 09:43:13 AM
For the record, they are eradicating MORMON CRICKETS in Utah.
Am I the only one at least slightly amused by that on a 5th grade level? I suppose they let all the Catholic and Baptist crickets live. And how can they tell?
While it is amusing, the reason they are called Mormon Crickets is based upon a legend that, when the Mormons first settled Utah, the swarming crickets almost destroyed their entire crop, leaving the Mormons to starve. Of course, God intervened via gulls eating the crickets.
These "crickets" (they are not actually crickets but Katydids), while normally harmless, can occassionally form swarms, destroying large paths of farmland. Back in the 30s, they destroyed over 19 million acres in 11 states. So, yes, controlling these insects is pretty important.
Pork is always in the eye of the beholder.
Are Katydids edible? Taste any good?
Quote from: Trogdor on March 12, 2009, 09:44:25 AM
Their underwear?
Now that's just funny. You gots you some karma!
I was in Reasor's last night and the bag boy was blasting Inhofe to everyone within earshot. It warmed my cockles on a cold night.
Quote from: nathanm on March 12, 2009, 04:45:38 PM
I was in Reasor's last night and the bag boy was blasting Inhofe to everyone within earshot. It warmed my cockles on a cold night.
When he was at Ike's Chili for their anniversary some months back, it took everything I had not to walk up to him and punch him full on in the face when I was there for lunch.
Well, not really, but that thought kept me going through the election (this was before the Nov generals).
;D