Yes; the Army Corps of Engineers requested a budget of about $100 million (which is about twelve hours worth of Iraq-related spending) for that project; it was cut back to around $20 million, if I recall. [Bush apologist]Well, hindsight is 20-20, isn’t it?[/Bush apologist]
Nope. That was ‘Budget Phat’. Totally different.
-Joe
So, they could have freed up the money by just building that Alaska bridge halfway to nowhere.
That’s actually existential enough that I could possibly get behind it. But then it should be funded by the NEA.
Note that Louisiana got plenty of money for the levees, and that the work propsed would not have stopped the flooding. They chose to spend the money on other things instead.
I know. But he’s been around forever and ever (and seniority realy helps in the Senate), and well, he’s very, very good at convincing people to do what he wants. He is an idiot, but he’s a very effective idiot.
Actually, that’s kind of scary now that I think about it.
At least when Dems were in power, they had credible partisan opposition to spending excesses. I think it’s perfectly plausible to argue that if Dems controlled Congress, we’d be spending less, simply because Republicans would be opposing their pork. With Republicans in power, and the Dems not necessarily against spending, the total amount of pork is exploding.
I find it deliciously amusing that people who claim that they want a small government, and triumphantly rode the wave that brought Republicans into power, are now kvetching about how Republicans are violating the core values of their whole philosophy… as if it were a minor difference of opinion. Guys, you were suckers, and you can’t admit it.
Tom Delay is the **House ** Majority Leader.
“Just then the whole congress
exploded from boilin’ fat.
Shit was flying everywhere
and I left without my hat.”
Of course he’s being sarcastic. Some members of Congress talk the talk, but nobody is walking the walk. They want cuts, but not their own programs. They want others to take the sacrifice instead. So DeLay takes a shot at them by sarcastically saying something along the lines of gee, since nobody wants to cut spending, it must be because all the pork barrel spending has been eliminated and all that’s left are necessary programs that can’t afford to be cut.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
??? He’s the party *leader * in the House.
[quote]
Anyway, forgive us for having idiots like him.
[/QUOTE}When you stop making idiots like him your leaders, certainly.[/QUOTE]
Shit. They never got the memo? Goddamn unionized Federal workers. Can’t get anything right!
I never signed off him being the leader of the party. Hell, to vote for him, I’d have to break a law or two. But you, admit it, hold me personally responsible for him being the House leader. Little ol’ me. One of over a hundred fifty million.
I’ll attribute Ted Kennedy and Chuckie Schumer quotes to you as your personal stance on eveything.
No fair? Deal with it. You want to lump conservatives together? I’ll do the same, I’ll take your word as the lock-step opinion of the left. You seem to like to think you’re taking the high road on so many things in pointing out the fallacies of the federal government, all the while arguing that the government is the answer to everything up to and including a natural disaster, among other things.
You speak for the Dems, make it count. After all, a single voice can change the world. I was told so on a MoveOn dot org ad.
Please give generously to the Cognitive Dissonance Foundation, so that maybe someday little **duffer ** can sleep easily at night.
You know who runs the GOP, and that if any of them leave office they’ll be replaced by somebody similar, just as Frist replaced Lott. That’s the GOP agenda - social intolerance and fiscal irresponsibility. It isn’t about the names of the particular idiots of the day. If you keep voting for their candidates, yes, of course you’re voting for its agenda, even if the candidate you vote for may bleat a little about other shit that he can’t do anything about. Yes, you’re responsible for it, even though it’s certainly understandable that a GOP partisan these days would embrace another part of its agenda, refusal to accept responsibility.
Duh. Grow the fuck up and deal with it.
That would require personal accountability, a quality conservatives have demonstrated they are sorely lacking.
Apparently it’s only the poor who are supposed to take responsibility.
You mean you’ve previously acknowledged plurality of liberal opinion? Blimey.
I like this new tack of claiming that your party’s leaders aren’t representative, however. It’s quite brilliant, really. It’s not DeLay’s fault for making a boneheaded statement, it’s liberals who are to blame for assuming that the House leader of the Republicans speaks for, um, Republicans.
Go on, duffer, I know you can do it: tell us what you think of what DeLay said. It’s got nothing to do with what other people say; what do you think?
:smack:
Sorry, I wasn’t paying attention. It counts in the House, too, though sometimes not as much.
Anyway, he was supposedly sarcastic, which I think makes his statement worse. You never, ever use sarcasm as a public speaker for any reason. It never works out right.
duffer, answer the following questions:
- HOW did Tom DeLay get the job of House Majority Leader?
- WHO voted for him to achieve that position?
- WHOM did you vote for as your Congressional representative?
- HOW did your Congressional representative vote in the election of House Majority Leader?
I could be wrong, but I’ve got a sneaky suspicion that you voted indirectly for Tom DeLay as House Majority leader, by voting for a man that voted for him. I know it just drives you crazy that you might be held responsible for anything, but yeah: if you support a party that supports DeLay, then you’re giving DeLay your support, and you need to acknowledge your role in his power.
Daniel
Very possibly. Is there a longer quote available for context?
As in this case, where even as sarcasm it’s an admission of complete failure as a leader.
-
I’m guessing he was elected. Campaigning doesn’t stop with kissing babies and buying airtime.
-
I imagine as with everyone else in these positions, his party.
-
Earl Pomeroy.
-
I can only guess
Out of idle curiousity, and fully aware that it’s none of my business if you don’t want to say, why did you vote for a Democrat?
Well, GWB gave a speech last night in which he said that we’d somehow pay for reconstructing half the Gulf coast by spending cuts, and, I swear to Christ, he ruled out raising taxes. So apparently there’s a quarter trillion dollars wiggle room in the budget. God Almighty, I could fill up electric bleachers with the people in our government I’d like to fry.