Obama Says Stimulus Has No Earmarks - What a Liar!!!

[saganista]

Originally Posted by sanrene

No new definition of earmarks - politifact has just exposed how the dems are trying to winkNnod the earmarks away.

Matthew Specht, a spokesman for Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican who is considered the biggest critic of earmarks in the House, told us, "Yeah, we agree that the House version can probably be considered earmark-free."

...we turned to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington advocacy group that tracks government spending and highlights waste. Steve Ellis, the group's vice president, said congressional leaders had generally resisted the urge to fill the bill with earmarks, according to the strict definitions of the word. But he said there still were some projects in the bills that he and other people would consider earmarks. "There’s at least a few and I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up finding more," he said, citing the provision for Filipino veterans as an example.

The Filipino project might not fit the narrow definition of earmarks that Congress or OMB uses, but we think reasonable people would consider it to be an earmark
-- PolitiFact

Originally Posted by sanrene

Fact; there are earmarks in the bill.

Not a one. You may as well claim that on the day in 1965 when Sandy Koufax threw a perfect game, the Cubs has ten men left on base. You just need to redefine what a baserunner is, then your argument holds water. Otherwise, no...

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Kootr

It does indeed hurt all Americans! And it will hurt you too even though you fall under the lower class. You just don't realize it because you are uninformed. What you fail to comprehend is that the wealthy and educated will ALWAYS come out of a recession much better than the poor and uneducated, and it's not because they have the money to endure the downturn, but because the educated knows how to take advantage of economics. The poor and uneducated have no clue what to do except to exist the best they can...and ask for more handouts.

Dude, you are soooooo pathetically hapless....

I AM the wealthy and educated. In economics. Have a nice day.

[PDXBound]

Originally Posted by saganista

Dude, you are soooooo pathetically hapless....

I AM the wealthy and educated. In economics. Have a nice day.

Kudos, Saganista.

For those of you that keep repeating how "stupid and uneducated" liberals are.... you need to pick up a book. Most of the "arguments" (and I use that term loosely) on this forum exist from spouting propaganda garbage that holds little to no water in any rational debate. It doesn't take a genius to know that quoting Fox/CNN/Wall Street Journal...etc., is laughable at best. What I love, more than anything, is to watch the ignorant backed into a corner and can do nothing more than belittle someone with name calling because they don't have proper debating skills to actually back their claim. If anyone honestly thinks that name calling makes their point more valid, they need to take a refresher course in kindergarten to understand no one likes a bully.

[sanrene]

Not a one. You may as well claim that on the day in 1965 when Sandy Koufax threw a perfect game, the Cubs has ten men left on base. You just need to redefine what a baserunner is, then your argument holds water. Otherwise, no...

But, you see, it's not my argument. Based on the factcheckers, who have delved into definitions past, present and altered - there are earmarks in the bill. They state that very clearly. Especially the portion regarding the senate.