PDA

View Full Version : Q: What's the full story on the Bridge to Nowhere?



FinFatale
09-22-2008, 04:37 PM
What's the full story on the Bridge to Nowhere?
What is the truth about the Bridge to Nowhere? Did Palin support it? Did she keep the funds for the bridge and use them elsewhere in Alaska after she changed her position? Or was the money returned to the government? If it was returned, did Congress offer to send the funds to Katrina victims and Obama and Biden both voted against it?



http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/whats_the_full_story_on_the_bridge.html

phinfan3411
09-22-2008, 06:30 PM
Good link, I finally know what exactly happened. I still do not like how she puts it in her speeches, but it makes her look much better imo with the actual facts.

MDFINFAN
09-22-2008, 06:56 PM
Good link, I finally know what exactly happened. I still do not like how she puts it in her speeches, but it makes her look much better imo with the actual facts.

How is that?, the whole thing said what's been said for weeks, she outright lied and still do...I don't get it.. there was nothing new in that piece that hadn't already been said or written about..

phinfan3411
09-22-2008, 11:05 PM
I've been listening to you guys tell me what a crook she was for weeks on this but now I know Obama voted for it prior to her even going into office, gee, you guys must have forgotten that.

There are many facts in there that I had not heard until I read that piece, because NOBODY wants to tell the whole truth.

MD, be real, pick out 9-10 articles from a week ago, and see if ANY OF THEM explained it like that.

The_Dark_Knight
09-23-2008, 12:17 PM
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/whats_the_full_story_on_the_bridge.html
Good stuff "D". One who reads the entire timeline and looks at it objectively, without partisanship should be saying "uh oh...maybe we were a little bit wrong".

I'm just curious though....what was Senator Ted Stevens position on this and why is Palin, and not Stevens being raked over the coals?

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmm:foundout:

BillParFan
09-23-2008, 06:55 PM
I've been listening to you guys tell me what a crook she was for weeks on this but now I know Obama voted for it prior to her even going into office, gee, you guys must have forgotten that.



Reality check.....

A necessary highway bill was passed 91-4. Yes Obama and Biden voted for the HIGHWAY BILL!

They also voted to STRIP the bill of the bridge earmarks.


Reading comprehension is a terrible thing to waste!

phinfan3411
09-23-2008, 08:07 PM
Reality check.....

A necessary highway bill was passed 91-4. Yes Obama and Biden voted for the HIGHWAY BILL!

They also voted to STRIP the bill of the bridge earmarks.


Reading comprehension is a terrible thing to waste!

I saved this for all to see, you have a problem with MY reading comprehension? Well, I have a little problem with YOUR reading comprehension. Obama voted FOR the earmarks, after they were stripped, and funding was switched to a bridge destroyed by Katrina, he voted AGAINST THAT.

It should not come as any surprise Obama requested 112 seperate earmarks last year worth over 330 million. Obama is right about one thing, our education sytem stinks, do they teach reading comprehension anymore?

MDFINFAN
09-24-2008, 12:59 AM
I've been listening to you guys tell me what a crook she was for weeks on this but now I know Obama voted for it prior to her even going into office, gee, you guys must have forgotten that.

There are many facts in there that I had not heard until I read that piece, because NOBODY wants to tell the whole truth.

MD, be real, pick out 9-10 articles from a week ago, and see if ANY OF THEM explained it like that.

p3411, Obama voted for a whole bill that included the money for AK, that's been known for weeks, the question of this whole thing is..palin said she said no thanks period...that's the issue, the money was defintely allocated, and that's by a full vote, that's nothing new. I learn that 9-10 weeks ago in those articles because they talked about the katrina thing and the money was voted to go to AK and Obama was part of that vote. So again there was nothing new in this piece.. I don't know how you missed the conversation because all McCain supporters were talking about after the thing went public, congress had a chance to rerout the money, but didn't and Obama was a part of that vote..so yes 9-10 weeks ago this was dicussed. Palin even after everything showed she was for the money, still says she said no thanks, like she was never for it..that's the bottom issue the repeated lie, even when proven otherwise..if that's fine with you, it's fine with me..because I won't vote for McCain, so I guess I' m not voting for her either. No way do I trust this nation with that..plus McCain's earmarks that are not earmarks, plus his campaign manager still taken payments from fannie mae until last month, but saying he's not.. payments for lobbying and he's not doing it, so he's getting pay for nothing, but doesn't disclose that, you go ahead and vote the same thing, same games back into office, I'm trying to change this admin.. I want to go a different direction.. I've just had enough of the repub machine pulling the wool over our heads..

phinfan3411
09-24-2008, 07:09 AM
p3411, Obama voted for a whole bill that included the money for AK, that's been known for weeks, the question of this whole thing is..palin said she said no thanks period...that's the issue, the money was defintely allocated, and that's by a full vote, that's nothing new. I learn that 9-10 weeks ago in those articles because they talked about the katrina thing and the money was voted to go to AK and Obama was part of that vote. So again there was nothing new in this piece.. I don't know how you missed the conversation because all McCain supporters were talking about after the thing went public, congress had a chance to rerout the money, but didn't and Obama was a part of that vote..so yes 9-10 weeks ago this was dicussed. Palin even after everything showed she was for the money, still says she said no thanks, like she was never for it..that's the bottom issue the repeated lie, even when proven otherwise..if that's fine with you, it's fine with me..because I won't vote for McCain, so I guess I' m not voting for her either. No way do I trust this nation with that..plus McCain's earmarks that are not earmarks, plus his campaign manager still taken payments from fannie mae until last month, but saying he's not.. payments for lobbying and he's not doing it, so he's getting pay for nothing, but doesn't disclose that, you go ahead and vote the same thing, same games back into office, I'm trying to change this admin.. I want to go a different direction.. I've just had enough of the repub machine pulling the wool over our heads..


I get most of my news from the internet, and some from TV, again I will ask you if this was out there 10 weeks ago, can you show me an article with all of the detail this had, and the timeline which puts things in better perspective. If you can I will start to use that source.

BillParFan
09-24-2008, 02:27 PM
I saved this for all to see, you have a problem with MY reading comprehension? Well, I have a little problem with YOUR reading comprehension. Obama voted FOR the earmarks,

As I posted...
"A necessary highway bill was passed 91-4. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00220)Yes Obama and Biden voted for the HIGHWAY BILL (http://http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h3058enr.txt.pdf)!"

At that time the earmarks for the BRIDGES was intact.

The chairman of the Appropriations Committee has enormous power to bring home special projects (sometimes referred to as "pork barrel spending (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel)") for his or her state as well as having the final say on other Senator's appropriation requests.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Appropriations#endnote_pork) For example, in fiscal year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_year) 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005) per capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita) federal spending in Alaska, the home state of then-Chairman Ted Stevens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Stevens), is $12,000, double the national average. Alaska has 11,772 special earmarked projects for a combined cost of $15,780,623,000. This represents about 4% of the overall spending in the $388 billion Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005 passed by Congress.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Appropriations#endnote_12k)
after they were stripped, and funding was switched to a bridge destroyed by Katrina, he voted AGAINST THAT.Wrong! The funding was never switched! Coburn PROPOSED a switch which was voted down 82-15.

"It is an offense, a threat to every person in my state," the 81-year-old Stevens said (http://coburn.senate.gov/ffm/index.cfm?FuseAction=LatestNews.NewsStories&ContentRecord_id=583011ad-d61c-40a2-8627-67fb10ea8e15&Issue_id=) of the proposal by fellow Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to eliminate some $450 million in federal funds for Alaskan bridges and shift $75 million to a Louisiana bridge damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
The dispute temporarily brought the Senate to a halt as Republican and Democratic leaders sought to intercede between Stevens, the Senate Pro Tempore who is renowned for winning projects for his state, and Coburn, who was elected to the Senate last year on a platform of slashing the size of government and ending old-school pork barrel spending.
Your words........
Obama voted FOR the earmarks, after they were strippedWRONG! But nice try. The earmarks for Alaska in general remain due to Stevens power.
Addressing the Senate, Senator Stevens said, "The Highway Reauthorization Bill recently passed by Congress was several years in the making and the result of compromise. Now, one of our colleagues feels it is his responsibility to rewrite portions of that bill to achieve his goals, not those that are expressed in the law itself." The language dedicating money for the bridges was REMOVED!

Instead, the revised appropriations bill (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h3058enr.txt.pdf) strips the earmarks from the bridges and allots that money to the Alaska Department of Transportation with no strings attached.As I said....."They also voted to STRIP the bill of the bridge earmarks."

So on what did Palin use the money?


The "Bridge to Nowhere" may have been shelved. But the "Road to Nowhere" (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/palin.road.to.nowhere/index.html) is alive and well.
It should not come as any surprise Obama requested 112 seperate earmarks last year worth over 330 million.So? Nice try.

Palin/Wasilla earmarks (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/palin_earmarks.html) = $1,000/per person/per year.
Palin /Alaska earmarks = $506.34(08)/per person
Obama earmarks = $30.67(08)/per person
State average = $51.19(08)/per person.




Obama is right about one thing, our education sytem stinks, do they teach reading comprehension anymore?It sure does!

BTW, what does sytem mean?




No results found for sytem: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sytem)

phinfan3411
09-24-2008, 07:23 PM
As I posted...
"A necessary highway bill was passed 91-4. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00220)Yes Obama and Biden voted for the HIGHWAY BILL (http://http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h3058enr.txt.pdf)!"

At that time the earmarks for the BRIDGES was intact.
Wrong! The funding was never switched! Coburn PROPOSED a switch which was voted down 82-15.
Your words........WRONG! But nice try. The earmarks for Alaska in general remain due to Stevens power. The language dedicating money for the bridges was REMOVED!
As I said....."They also voted to STRIP the bill of the bridge earmarks."

So on what did Palin use the money?

So? Nice try.

Palin/Wasilla earmarks (http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/palin_earmarks.html) = $1,000/per person/per year.
Palin /Alaska earmarks = $506.34(08)/per person
Obama earmarks = $30.67(08)/per person
State average = $51.19(08)/per person.



It sure does!

BTW, what does sytem mean?


You are pretty funny, something tells me you would not be as humorous face to face.

If you look at my first post I was reacting to a article from factcheck. They voted for the original bill that all of you liberals are killing her for BEFORE she was in office.

They voted against stripping the earmarks, and shifting funding to a Katrina damaged bridge.

Yes, then after all the bickering, and McCain making it famous, they voted right along with everyone else with the final installment, you really got me there, wow I guess I was wrong about those two pinnacles of the American legislative process.:up:

BillParFan
09-24-2008, 08:08 PM
You are pretty funny, something tells me you would not be as humorous face to face.

If you look at my first post I was reacting to a article from factcheck. They voted for the original bill that all of you liberals are killing her for BEFORE she was in office.



From the Factcheck article you will note........


Palin reiterates her support to other groups and news sources during her campaign. For instance, an Anchorage Daily News poll (http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/510378.html) asks candidates whether they would continue state funding for the bridge. Palin answers in Oct. 2006: "Yes.

Although the bill had passed earlier, part of Palins campaign platform was support for building the bridge. After her election she continued her support for the bridge.


As we said above, Palin is still using the discredited "thanks, but no thanks" line, which implies that Congress gave Alaska money for the bridge and that Palin rejected it.

Before or after she became Gov, the fact remains she supported building the bridge until her position became untenable.

IOW, she LIED!