Echoing GOP, Fox figures falsely claim Reid included $8 billion in bill directed to LA-Vegas rail
SUMMARY: In recent days, Fox News hosts and contributors have advanced the false claim -- pushed by Republican lawmakers -- that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid included a provision in the recovery bill directing that $8 billion be spent on a high-speed rail line between Southern California and Las Vegas. In fact, the bill does not direct high-speed rail funds to any specific project, and any funding would be allocated by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican congressman.
In recent days, Fox News hosts and contributors Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, Newt Gingrich, Trace Gallagher, and Charles Krauthammer have advanced the false claim -- pushed by Republican lawmakers -- that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) included a provision in the economic recovery law directing that $8 billion in funds be spent on a high-speed rail line between Southern California and Las Vegas. In fact, the bill does not direct high-speed rail funds to any specific project, and any funding would be allocated by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, a former Republican congressman.
The bill states that $8 billion shall remain available for the "Secretary of Transportation" for "projects that support the development of intercity high speed rail service" and that the secretary shall "submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a strategic plan that describes how the Secretary will use the funding provided under this heading to improve and deploy high speed passenger rail systems." The Joint Explanatory Statement of the Conference Report on H.R. 1 further states of the high-speed rail program: "The conferees have provided the Secretary flexibility in allocating resources between the programs to advance the goal of deploying intercity high speed rail systems in the United States."
Numerous House Republicans have pushed the false claim that the legislation directed money to the California-to-Las Vegas rail line during floor debate on the bill. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) stated: "Tell me how spending $8 billion in this bill to have a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is going to help the construction worker in my district." Similarly, Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) said: "[A]pparently the Senate majority leader has earmarked $8 billion for a rail system from Las Vegas to Los Angeles? You have got to be kidding. You have got to be kidding." And Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID) said in his floor statement: "Billions of dollars for a sin express train from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. Necessary? I don't think so." Additionally, during the February 13 edition of Hannity (retrieved from Nexis), Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) claimed: "There's $8 billion for this railroad train from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. That certainly is put in there for Senator Reid."
Fox News hosts and contributors have echoed this falsehood. For example:
- During the February 16 edition of The Live Desk, co-host Trace Gallagher claimed: "Many are outraged over the $8 billion in it for a high-speed train linking Disneyland to Vegas -- 8 billion. And who might be interested in getting gamblers from Southern California to say, oh, I don't know, Vegas? Maybe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada?" Fox News contributor and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer replied: "Well, that's exactly right. And that's the old politics that Obama campaigned against, remember. This train is really an atrocity. It goes from Disneyland, as you said, to Vegas. It should be called the fantasy land express. And it's a perfect example of the kind of hidden favors, handouts, earmarks that we thought we were going to get overturned and abolished under this new administration."
- During the February 17 edition of Hannity, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich -- in a falsehood-laden statement -- claimed that the law contains "$30 million to save a mouse in San Francisco as part of a stimulus package, $2 billion for [Rep.] David Obey's [D-WI] son, $8 billion for a high-speed rail to Las Vegas for Harry Reid," adding, "[I]f those aren't set-asides, I don't know what you'd call them."
- During the February 18 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy claimed that "Harry Reid, under the cover of darkness, snuck in -- what was it -- $8 billion for that high-speed light rail ... from LA to his home big town of Las Vegas." Co-host Brian Kilmeade replied, "Yes, and hand-written in the bill."
In a February 17 Politico article, David Rogers reported that President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was instrumental in increasing high-speed rail funding and that "there's little evidence that Reid had a decisive role, although he was happy to see his name mentioned for the sake of voters at home." From Rogers' article:
But the administration never emphasized high-speed rail when the House Appropriations Committee was writing its bill in January, so no money was included. The first real request came only days before the Senate Appropriations panel marked up, and the committee had to scramble to find room for $2 billion -- in part by cutting other Obama priorities.
Last week, Emanuel greatly upped the ante, asking House-Senate negotiators for $10 billion for high-speed rail -- far more than either bill provided.
"I put it in there for the president," Emanuel said in an interview. "The president wanted to have a signature issue in the bill, his commitment for the future."
[...]
In fact, there's little evidence that Reid had a decisive role, although he was happy to see his name mentioned for the sake of voters at home.
"It's amazing. I'm stunned," he said in an interview Friday, hours before the bill passed Congress. "I'm glad I get the credit in Nevada, but this is Obama's No. 1 priority. This is his legacy issue out of this bill, because we need these high-speed corridors. ... I'll take credit but frankly didn't have much to do with it other than carry forward with what Obama wanted."
From the February 18 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): Speaking of homepages, Barack Obama has another homepage for you to check out with this whole stimulus plan. It's called recovery.gov. All right, so there it is. You can see the live video of him speaking to you about the stimulus plan.
And you can also see, according to the website, where every single dollar that you contributed -- the 700 and however many billion dollars of stimulus. You can see where every dollar is going. Really? That would be fascinating if we can actually track every dollar.
DOOCY: Well, I'm looking at it, and I can't find the money anywhere yet.
CARLSON: Well, tax relief is 280 billion.
DOOCY: Yeah, I mean, they break it down, Gretchen, to the big chunks that we knew about: how much was going to be tax relief and how much for different programs and stuff like that. But I want to see the actual list.
You remember, Harry Reid, under the cover of darkness, snuck in -- what was it -- $8 billion for that high-speed light rail from --
KILMEADE: Yes --
DOOCY: -- LA --
KILMEADE: -- and hand-written in the bill.
DOOCY: That's right -- from LA to his home big town of --
KILMEADE: Vegas.
DOOCY: -- Las Vegas.
CARLSON: I love this category --
DOOCY: I don't see that anywhere.
CARLSON: -- "other": 8 billion.
DOOCY: "Other."
CARLSON: Oh, it's just 8 billion in the other category.
KILMEADE: That's like me with my expense report from the Super Bowl.
DOOCY: Yeah, we've seen it.
KILMEADE: I'm just --
DOOCY: That's a lot of catering, Brian.
KILMEADE: Let's just leave it at other, all right? You don't want to know.
CARLSON: Well, that other makes me a little nervous, but we'll watch it to see if that creeps up from 8 billion.
From the February 17 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
GINGRICH: Look, I think that the 2010 election may become one of the most important in American history. Unlike the Japanese, we have a very aggressive and vibrant competitive political system. We have another election cycle coming up awfully fast. And I think that the American people are very tough about these things.
If they watch the failure continue to grow and compound -- just as they punished Republicans in 2006 and 2008 -- they're about to start turning an eye on the Democrats, and when they look at, for example, $30 million to save a mouse in San Francisco as part of a stimulus package --
SEAN HANNITY (host): Yeah.
GINGRICH: -- $2 billion for David Obey's son, $8 billion for a high-speed rail to Las Vegas for Harry Reid -- if those aren't set-asides, I don't know what you'd call them.
From the February 16 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk with Martha & Trace:
GALLAGHER: Many are outraged over the $8 billion in it for a high-speed train linking Disneyland to Vegas -- 8 billion. And who might be interested in getting gamblers from Southern California to say, oh, I don't know, Vegas? Maybe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada? Let's bring in the syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. He's also a Fox News contributor.
And here's the thing -- and Bill Kristol brought this up in his piece this week in The Weekly Standard, Charles. The House bill, the original House bill, had zero for high-speed trains. The Senate bill had $2 billion. What's the compromise? Well, of course $8 billion, right? It's the way things go in D.C.
KRAUTHAMMER: Well, that's exactly right. And that's the old politics that Obama campaigned against, remember. This train is really an atrocity. It goes from Disneyland, as you said, to Vegas. It should be called the fantasy land express. And it's a perfect example of the kind of hidden favors, handouts, earmarks that we thought we were going to get overturned and abolished under this new administration.
I think it's a big hit on Obama -- that and all of the other stuff that's hidden in the bill and that has become -- that has begun to come out. It's not going to hurt him right now -- his popularity is still high, he's in the middle of a honeymoon -- but in the end, all of these nicks are going to haunt him in the future.
GALLAGHER: And you talk about something like this, Charles -- look, I'm from Southern California. They've been talking about this high-speed rail now forever. This is not shovel-ready. This is not next-year ready, or 10 years ready. This thing could take -- if it ever gets off the ground, no pun intended -- could take 20 years to get done.
KRAUTHAMMER: Well, it's the perfect example of why the stimulus bill was essentially a fraud.
Hey, if it's fox, it's false. They distort. They deride.
I'm surprised FOX didn't start talking about that proposed L.A. to San Francisco train, because then they could accuse us of wanting to use it to visit those Nancy Pelosi/Marin County fish and bugs they've been screaming about.
The LA to SF train is a state thing. We voted on it in November and I believe it passed overwhelmingly.
I'd love to take a weekend trip to LA from SF, especially if I didn't have to drive.
And Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID) said in his floor statement: "Billions of dollars for a sin express train from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. Necessary? I don't think so." (my bold)
There you go, if there's no marsh mouse or frivolous arts spending,work a little moral indignation in there.
I just call this the Colonel to Pearlene bullet train, and it will not be stopped.
Well, we all know that the Marsh Mice are going to take that train to Vegas and use Republican tax dollars to play the slots. Then they'll convoy out to the desert and watch a Kangaroo Rat strip show. It's on page 843, section 4 of the Stimulus Bill.
In section 12 page 1,788 is reads that Acorn members and former members of The Weather Underground can ride the train for free if accompanied by a person paying full fare.
Tomorrow's 'blathering points' on Fox will probably start fawning over this 'provision' once Murdoch and co. realize the one who has the power to actually propose this 'C to P' train is the former republicant, Ray LaHood.
Seems to me your call to arms is more fitting for a site called red state. After all, red is the color of communism, and that site freely associates themselves with that color. Now run along before your mommy catches you flipping between here and that porn site she caught you on last week.
I think PLowedcon has this one gag he thinks is good, and is going to work it for a while. Hasn't he done the same joke about 20 times now? Rush must be on vacation, PC needs some new material.
Right, he's acting like a damned socialist with the name calling. Or like he's getting low on the kool aid.
This was posted in response to poor Marky the Foot who was called a bad name by that horrible, horrible liberal with all of the common sense.
Don't know how it ended up here.
Too funny...
:)
If they are not being forced to cover the controvercy over the New York Post political cartoon today. The Post is another of uncle Murdoch's toys.
The one about the dead monkey and the stimulus bill? Yeah, saw that one. That's gotta be borderline racist calling Obama a dead monkey.
Boarderline is an understatement and the right will hide behind freedom of speach. However this may be a threat against the President of the United States and the secrect service better investigate the cartoonist as a threat.
I come here every day and make comments about how this and that will happen under Obama and many of you disagree. This rail will happen, wait and see, just like I say Obama is a socialist. It is going to happen, they (Democrats) are not going to stand at a camera and say it, they just put money in a general fund and use for what they think is best. Obama you all say, does not want to be a socialist country, but turns around and does the following or says the following.
Barack Obama, the president, who has tried to avoid panicking lawmakers and markets by entertaining the idea, has moved more towards what he calls the “Swedish model” – an approach backed strongly by Mr Graham. In the early 1990s Sweden nationalised its banking sector then auctioned banks having cleaned up balance sheets.
This way to the Kool-Aid, sure you all are getting low.
And the alternatives right now are what exactly...more tax cuts for those who need them the least and who will not plow their tax savings back into the economy?
I've been to Sweden. As a matter of fact? I know some Swedes. You know? Out side of the weather? It ain't such a bad place. I could take some of that here.
Me too. Great electric train system. Any one who has taken the Mad Max drive on I-15 to Vegas on a Fri afternoon, and has traveled by train in Sweden will be 100% for a rail link. Once you "must hate anything proposed by a liberal dem" people realize what a pollution and life saver this would be you will have to sheepishly enjoy the fruits of just such an investment. Not to mention the reduction in the cost of transporting freight.
Idiot. So what if the rail goes through? It creates jobs. It's part of infrastructure spending.
What's you're problem with infrastructure? Do you want us to continue down the path we're on, not repairing our infrastructure and building new?
Again, cons got nuthin'. Nothing to offer in politics. Nothing to bring to the table except the old tired tax cut mantra.
Yep, then we get to subsidize the high rollers year after year for their weekly jaunt between LA and Sin City.
it's part of the grand plan. wooden carts. drawn by horse. roads? pah. we only need to privatize the highway system. you can pay as you roll down the road in your big bentley. Poor people? baha! W was JUST on the verge of making poverty illegal. War on Poverty baby.
Hey Common, leave the name calling at home, makes you sound like your 10. Heck for all I know, you are. I have no problem with creating jobs for a rail. They are talking about a rail that runs from Disney to Vegas, now is that a good use of money, when instead the rail could run from San Diego to L.A. up to the San Fran, now that would be a better use of the money.
I do not remember talking about Tax Cuts. I think the bill should only been for infustructure development. Not Welfare (unless the individuals receiving can prove U.S. Citizenship and be drugged screened.) Many, many of the items in this bill will not create jobs. It will only motivate those to drag out the process, even more now if they know they will be thrown from their homes if they fail to pay a mortgage.
Thing is Mark, they're NOT calling for a railway to be built from LA to Vegas.
I would think you'd be happy to get a rail line to Vegas. Isn't that where everybody travels to to go to church? Could this be the salvation of the Angelino heathens? Enquiring minds wand to know!
Hey Fog, not I do not go to Vegas for church. My church is located in my neighborhood, right next to the gun shop.
Now if you say you own a book by O'Reilly, I'd be concerned if I went to that church. Maybe Nevada can follow Oklahoma's lead, where they are going to allow concealed weapons in church.
Congratulations. You have now founded and populated an entire straw village.
You should be very proud.
EasyTRW, I was looking over one of yesterday's threads earlier, and it appears you're wasting your time with this. Cheney2012 and some other wingnuts have apparently decided that, as long as they refuse to recognize the logical fallacies they're using, they have an unbeatable secret weapon.
I believe one defined a strawman as "an argument that shuts a liberal up". This is the problem with trying to have a discussion with some of the wingnuts, they believe that if they come up with an argument so flawed that nobody validates it with a response, that they've"won".
I was reading through some of those earlier today, and holy moly! If you don't address their completely made up and fabricated strawman argument, then you've lost the argument. I also like it when they keep asking the same questions, even after they've been answered several times (just not to their liking), and then claim victory because nobody could answer their questions (in the way they wanted). Reading through some of those, I felt like smacking my head into a wall several times.
Easy, please I prove my points over and over again, may not be that moment or that day but they are proven. You all may not like it, but I accept that ignorance and will remind you later that I was correct. I have said for months that Obama was a socialist and in return you all say I am nuts for thinking it. Now, as he talks about Nationalization of the banks, my points again are proven to be correct. Next, when he helps folks with failed mortgages, there will be some clause in the paperwork that will take over the house in some cases they again fail to make payment. This will put the government into the business of home and land ownership or will be able to tell folks what they can and can not do with the property. Not like these folks will read the paperwork anyway, if they would have read the mortgage loan paperwork in the beginning they would not be in the pickle they are in now. Time will prove this point as well, just stand by and watch it will happen.
Mark, you just mentioned nationalization of the banks. Does that make you a socialist?
Col, do what? I said that Obama's Admisitration is looking into Nationalization of the banks. How does that make me a Socialist??????
because you support republicans, and many republicans are now voicing support for nationalizing the banks. Ergo, your party has socialist tendancies and so do you.
I have said for months that Obama was a socialist... Now, as he talks about Nationalization of the banks, my points again are proven to be correct.(MBF)
Maybe I misunderstood you. You seemed to say that Obama talking about nationalization of banks made him a socialist.I wondered if the same logic appplied to you.
Didn't Marky say that he's been saying for months that Pres. for only a few weeks Obama will yada, yada, yada...he socialized us!!!
I thought it was GW who started us on the slippery slope to commieland.
Actually, it's Lindsey Graham, R-SC who is pushing for the nationalization of the banks.
Again, when Socialism benefits the Right-wing, it's a good thing. Otherwise, it's an election bogey-man.
I'm willing to bet you, markbfoot199, $10 that Obama is NOT a socialist in capitalist clothing. And just because YOU say he's a socialist, doesn't make it so.
You're an idiot too. And I'll call whomever I want whichever name I want. You're not my mommy.
"I come here every day and make comments about how this and that will happen under Obama and many of you disagree."
If you can link us to one of your many predictions that later came true, perhaps a few more people would agree with you. Otherwise, it’s nothing but the usual, unsubstantiated dooms day bluster.
Pete, how about the string of bank comments. I have talked about Obama and Socialism and been told he is not and the fact that he is even bring up bank nationalization proves he has leanings towards Socialism. I know, this is hard for you to follow, but please keep up.
Again, Lindsey Graham is all big on the bank nationalization.
Look within your own party first, dummy.
Is old Greenspan "Don't blame because I sound like a Yoda" a socialist? Huh? AND why does nationalizing SOME failed/failing banks make anyone a Socialist?
As expected, no link.
If Obama was proposing "nationalization" of the entire banking industry, it would be socialism, but he's not.
If you can find a proposal from Obama that equates to government ownership and control of an entire industry, I'll take your socialist charge more seriously. Until that happens, it's just more unsubstantiated bluster.
"This way to the Kool-Aid, sure you all are getting low"
That's because you guys used it all up back in 2003.
No that was Wine, we had plenty of many to by more then just powered Kool-Aid.
we had plenty of many to by more then just powered Kool-Aid. (MarkyBFoot)
Your English is really coming along nicely. Do you think it's garbled comments like this that may have something to do with your "ideas" not being discussed?
Col, remember your job is to be the editor.
Should have said the following "We had plenty of money to buy wine”
Oh, I should have figured that out. It was so close.
I don't think an "editor" is the professional you need to help you out here.
Of course you had plenty of money to buy wine. You were stealing it from new homeowners.
Please link to ANY prediction you have ever made that has actually come true.
Sure, whatever you say Nostrodamus. We all know the real score.
This rail will happen... - MARKBFOOT1999
And lets hope they use flat tracks.... =>
Mark, thing is my friend, republicans, or conservatives such as yourself have been proclaiming us down a path to socialism every single time a democrat takes the White House. It happened with Clinton. It happened with Carter. It is happening with Obama. It happened with Kennedy, and then LBJ. FDR? Same thing. Here's what happens though, nothing... It never happens.
You do make a strawman argument saying the money can go into a general fund, and THEN be allocated to a light rail between LA and Vegas. Can you point to a proposal anywhere where this is being talked about, or proposed? Also, did you read the article? It says that Ray Lahood would be responsible for earmarking the money and for what projects. I'm willing to bet that they're going to look at building bridges (or replacing or fixing them), and re-doing our highways, electrical grid, and other projects long before they make this fictional train leave the station for Vegas.
Moving towards a Swedish system? Where, and how? I have heard this claim repeated ad nauseum on right wing radio, but there is no indication that this is going to happen, and even if it does, take a look at the economy and banking system of Sweden. Guess what? It's doing pretty darn well, not only that, but Sweden is one of the MOST desirable places to live in the world, so they must be doing something right in that socialist country (by the way, socialism doesn't mean no freedom or liberty, just in case you're wondering). Thing is, the federal government already owns tons of banks due to the bailout money we, the taxpayers, allowed them to have. So really, we, the taxpayers own those banks. We have not made too many rules as of yet, as to how said banks are going to be run, and I don't see that happening too much (not day to day, and their business dealings at least).
Let's go back over a small short list of programs deemed "socialist" by republicans, and see how they've really done.
Social Security: This was the END ALL, and BE ALL of the US moving straight to commie land. Thing is, this is probably the most enduring government program, and one that has helped probably the most people EVER in this country. Turns out, we're not all wearing red flags with hammers and sickles after all.
Medicare/Medicaid: Again, when this came up, holy Hannah! We're all going to turn into commie and socialist zombies, and the health care segment of America would never recover. Well, it's pretty good program, and again, has helped lots of people who would otherwise not have good health care for either themselves, or their dependents.
I'm sure that there are more, but those are just 2 that I thought of right off hand where right wingers were screaming from the wings about socialism running amok, oh, and when Clinton passed his stimulus bill, in 1993, we heard the same thing about him. Thing is, we enjoyed the biggest economic growth ever, AFTER he passed his bill, and gosh darn it, capitalism seemed to grow and flourish.
I think you're the one being led to the Kool Aid my friend, since you've just repeated the simple talking points issued from the republican leaders since Obama took office.
Social Security: Medicare/Medicaid: These are the two worst examples to use, they are socialist government driven programs that are failing.
The banks are being Nationalized, or will be soon and why is that?
they are socialist government driven programs that are failing.
Liar.
So Fog, S.S. and Medicare are doing great then? Wow, must have missed that one, last I heard they are losing money. Please show me where SS and Medicare are not losing money. These two systems take money from you and I and in return give to those whom are not able to provide for themselves. That is Socialism. I have never used SS or Medicare and have been paying into the system since I was 16. Now, from what I hear and read the SS system will have failed by the time I retire in some 20 plus years. This is why I have money in other retirements systems.
I stand corrected. In your broad definition, SS and medicare are socialism, albeit socialism for the health and dignity of the poor/elderly. I guess you'd rather have grandma go hungry and not get her medication because she didn't save enough money while she was busy raising a family.
You post is also filled with "last I heard", and "from what I hear". Seems you're getting your info from biased/false sources.
I have never used SS or Medicare and have been paying into the system since I was 16
Wow. Me too. Can't believe we have something in common.
I'll think of you next time I cash my check.
Thank you Mark!
I second that! Thanks Mark, for paying for my unemployment and my food stamps! I also go to your church's food pantry and get food for free. And then I sell them all for fifty cents on the dollar because I don't really need it (i squirreled away lots of money that I ripped off from my republican bosses). I may drive my pimpmobile downtown later tonight and have some o my hookers approach republicans so I can get even more of your money! Yeah, baby!
Foot: Before Social Security, the top two causes of elderly death were starvation and hypothermia. It is the goal of conservatives to return to that lovely tradition. "Pro-life?" Hmmm...
Best of luck to you if you become disabled and unable to work, since I suspect you would't want any help from a failed program.
Hey Pete, I have disability insurance for that reason. I will not be counting on the government to provide for myself. Trust me, mine will pay me 60% of my current salary, if I counted on the Governemnt I would be getting about 10%. So, I will stick with the one I have now.
You better pray that Madoff doesn't control your "insurance". And God help you if your insurance company goes under. But that could never happen in your world. I hope you always stay healthy.
So you're counting on an insurance company instead? Like I said, best of luck to you.
If SS and Medicare/Medicaid are so bad, I'll expect you to not take your SS check when you retire, and I'll expect you not to take advantage of Medicare/Medicaid.
If it's so bad, don't use it. Period.
But something tells me that as a greedy conservative, you'll go ahead and take that SS check just to get your hands on as much money as possible. Remember, your kids and grandkids will be paying for your SS.
You need to learn facts and not just spout right wing talking points. You think because you do not like some one they are something you do not like. Get real and a life please.
You come here day after day and make prognostications about socialism. As soon as one of your predictions comes true, we'll cut you some slack. Until then you're nothing more than our Amazing Criswell.
"He ... predicted an outbreak of mass cannibalism and theend of planet Earth, which he set as happening on August 18, 1999
Shoot, I was hoping for a Karnak prediction.
Ye, I was wondering, setting aside whether Harry Reid inserted this expenditure or not, if anyone can explain what is inherently bad about a high speed rail line between LA and Vegas? Construction money and jobs flow to two states and I am assuming people will actually have to pay to ride the train.
Irony,
People who want to get from LA to LV can do so now very cheaply by bus, car, or flight.
The point is that in these economic times, there is no need to go another $8 billion dollars in debt to finance rail when we know passenger trains are not exactly breaking even.
The theory that government spending stimulates the economy is misleading. It only takes money that would be spent elsewhere and funnels it to special interests. What is always lost in the calculations is that the money is pulled out of the private sector where individuals deteremine how to spend their own money.
There is a need to spend for the common good, but $8 Billion on lightweight rail is not one of them. It is simply pork.
Umm, remember though, 8 billion is NOT being spent on a rail system from LA to Vegas. It doesn't exist...
I hope it doesn't exist. However Obama and the Democrats have allocated $8B for light rail.
It doesn't exist. How much more clear can that be?
I would hope that they take the money for light rail, and pump it into larger urban centers that can benefit from such a thing, as in reducing traffic on the road, increasing ridership, and making it easier for people to commute into urban centers from the 'burbs, which is probably what is going to happen.
What's wrong with making money available for a light rail system? Nothing, nothing at all. It can benefit entire geographic regions easily. Look at the DC Metro system for a good example of how things like this can work out very well. I was in DC for a week, and never had to drive my car once. It was blissful.
I hope it doesn't exist...
And there you have it, folks. Because AA doesn't know, fearmongering is perfectly acceptable to research.
This sounds like the argument that we had with one of other right wing brothers here a week or so ago, about the ACORN funding, when he kept insisting that ACORN wasn't applying for the money NOW, but THEY MIGHT apply for it later on down the road, so the argument for the 5 billion going towards them was, of course, accurate.
I don't know if we need the rail, but Obama deserves a chance. The Republicans messed everything up so royally why should they even have a voice now?
Agreed.
Repugs, sit down, hold on and shut the f**k up. It's our turn to drive. We have to clean up your mess. Keep your traps shut while we figure a way out of this.
High-speed rail and light rail are two completely different things.
Pete,
Thanks for the correction. I should have used the term 'high speed rail'.
Light Rail is Good, God loves it, Light Rail is part of his purpose for the Earth. There, now can you support light rail?
AA, do you believe everything Shame Vannity says, for cryin' out loud? He just said unemployment was 12% in 1976. Look that up and explain why you still believe everything he and his similarly fact-challenged pals say.
To expand on that, why does he make statements like that? Why is he so unafraid of being discovered and thus lose creds? is it because he knows his audience and knows they're incapable of independent thought?
"People who want to get from LA to LV can do so now very cheaply by bus, car, or flight."
I don't favor public money for a high-speed rail route exclusively between these two cities, but if funding were to be secured by other means, such a line would be beneficial. Vegas casinos steal so much money from people that they could easily finance the project themselves and probably see a pretty quick return.
With less buses, cars and planes utilizing this route, that means far less fossil fuel usage, and less poisoning of our environment. Even if the electricity for the line comes from coal, it would still be a drastic reduction, since it takes far less energy to push mass when it's equipped with rigid wheels rolling on smooth rails. It's the same thing that makes transporting freight with one rail locomotive so much more efficient than a convoy of semi trucks.
Rail is good for the economy and needs to be helped. One of the things is that rail transports more goods cheeper than trucks. Another is that it can toke more people than a car or bus. I am all for spending on rail it creates jobs, helps the economy by moving goods and people, and it helps the enviornment. All 3 of these things are good for America. In the United States we need a good reliable interstate mass transit system even if it is run by local agencies. Even though this train nessarily true it could be the start of just such a system. LA to Vegas, Vegas to Salt Lake, Salt Lake to St Louis, St Louis to Chicago, Chicago to DC, DC to NYC, and other branches all over the country would be great.
I know! I mean... What IS necessary? ANYTHING can be portrayes as unecessary to someone! The ppoint is that we need to get people EMPLOYED. To some extent it almost doesn't matter what they're doing, aside from the fact that we want to get the most bang ofr the buck. If an LA-LV railway is no good, then what do rpopose we do instead, huh Senator? Would that railway be used? Be profitable? Be beneficial to people io those cities? (One of which is the most populous city in the US, the othe amoung the top tourist destinations!)
These people just don't want to spend AHYTHING apparently. The want to SAVE on STIMULUS! WTF? Hey Senator, I could show you a great shortcut so you can finish your jogging route fatser! You interested?
They want TAX CUTS. The country has "blossomed" (not) with that mentality from Reagan to Bush 43 (with a very nice eight year exception), deficits have been eliminated (not). What is that definition of insanity again???
Tax cuts fail in every era of history because they do not account for greed.
The only thing to Cons which doesn't amount to pork is tax cuts for those who need them the least. The funniest part of it all is that cons think that the rich folks who get tax cuts will 'reinvest' that money into the economy. We all know where that money is going - right into their savings accounts.
Oh, I think they (the rich folks) are looking for a higher return on $$ than a savings account would yield (perhaps even a mattress). On the other hand, almost any $ stuck anywhere except a mattress is available for use in the economy, either in the US or around the world, which, at this time, may not be all bad as most places in the world are hurting at least as bad as the US is.
Trouble is, if it goes into a bank account, it may not be used as it should, since a lot of banks are making very few loans. That seems to be one of the problems right now.
I think a lot of the banks, etc are "hoarding" $$$ as are a lot of consumers, just to see how this whole thing plays out. Saw an article the other night, traffic in the shopping malls is down by a minor percentage, but sales are down several times more than that. Haven't tried borrowing $$ at a lending institution lately, but several in the area are promoting the lending of $$. If they don't lend, they have no way of making the $$ necessary to keep their banks open, but there are a lot of unknowns out and about right now, so I think they are in a wait and see attitude.
csl,
Your ignorance of basic economics is showing. the money you and I put in our savings accounts is pooled by our banks and then lent out as commercial and private loans. Hence, savings are reinvested in the economy.
It's your ignorance that is showing. The stimulus bill is to stimulate the economy. That's going to happen when a thousand poor taxpayers get $10 extra dollars in their paycheck each week, and they will spend every penny of that $10. It will not stimulate the economy when one rich taxpayer gets $10,000 and puts it into his savings acount or when 10 rich taxpayers get an extra $1000 in tax cuts each week and they only spend a small portion of that money.
Freeing up the credit market is another task that's being done in a different way with different tools.
Eureka AA - you've just hit on the entire CAUSE of the recession. The rich had the money, put it in the banks, and then the banks flush all this xtra cash had to lend it out to make more money, and in doing so, started writing risky loans.
Again, congratulations AA - you stumbled on a fact!
*snarf* You made me lol with that'un, Fog.
I notice there is an ever-shrinking number of starry-eyed optimists still trying to get Anotheramerican to engage in an honest,adult conversation.
The number of regular posters who just point at his floppy shoes and big red nose, however, is growing all of the time.
It wouldn't be nearly as funny if he didn't appear to think he's some sort of serious thinker. I guess that's true of most accidental clowns.
Actually, I have a pretty damned good grasp of economics. I know enough to know that your economic policies suck.
Now, as for putting that money in the bank, yes, it can be used to give loans. But notice how banks aren't giving out loans?
Dolt.
Freeman economics or the Chicago School of economics is a sure way to destroy an economy as seen in many places Chile for one.
And following the Conservative economics plans will ruin an economy as seen in places like America. We weren't following Freeman/Chicago economics under the Republican/ Conservative rule were we? And look what the Repubs led us into.
pol,
It is the government forcing banks to give risky loans to people who couldn't afford them and then the Democrats blocking reform regulation that got us into this mess, not free market capitalism.
CSL,
You are being childish with comments that mean nothing to me in addition to showing your ignorance of the banking system. Yes, banks are not giving loans now like they once were. Among other things they have to up their reserves and become less leveraged because the government has changed the rules and increased the amount they must keep liquid. Interest rates are down, and so is their profit margin, so they are being more selective with loans as they cannot absorb the risk of less credit worthy loans like they once did. That will work itself out eventually.
BTW, People with good credit can still get loans.
Try to rebut this argument, AA.
It's your ignorance that is showing. The stimulus bill is to stimulate the economy. That's going to happen when a thousand poor taxpayers get $10 extra dollars in their paycheck each week, and they will spend every penny of that $10. It will not stimulate the economy when one rich taxpayer gets $10,000 and puts it into his savings acount or when 10 rich taxpayers get an extra $1000 in tax cuts each week and they only spend a small portion of that money.
Freeing up the credit market is another task that's being done in a different way with different tools. The stimulus package is not what is going to help the credit markets. How typical of you to confuse the two.
And I'm childish because I don't confuse the two. Incredible.
Pork is everything that helps someone else.
Or dollars spent in somebody else's Congressional District.
True enough on that point. What is one man's pork, is another's gold mine.
These people are essentially a FRAUD! They will grab on to anything and fit it to their philosophy! They have lied so much on that channel that they are the laughing stock of the Industry! They keep losing elections and they blame the media....WOW!
I live in Vegas and this issue has been around for decades. One of the biggest stumbling blocks is the land acquisition and necessary security measures. The other obvious problem is will it be profitable. I15 from Vegas to s. Cal. is pretty quick and when you have your own vehicle it proves more frugal to spend money on gas than public xportation or taxi's when you get their. Airfare is also cheap so the rail idea has a lot of economic shortfalls relative to conventional transportation that already exists. As for Nancy Reid endorsing and pushing the idea, of course he did and at no time did he come right out and deny it which is political for "yep, I did it".
Reid didn't ask for it. There you guys go, making things up, again. Seriously.
Now, if there were a train from LA to Vegas, it would pollute less. Make congestion less on the trip in, and back out, and so. Once in Vegas, if you're staying on, or near the strip, you can take the train there as well, I remember it being cheap, very cheap actually. And then there are buses that are also cheap in Vegas as well. You don't need a cab there. Last time I was there, I was there for a week, and either walked, took the train, or a bus, and it didn't cost hardly anything.
We keep a pretty close eye on Nancy Reid here in Vegas and I can tell you, he wants the rail and he wants to call it the Nancy Reid express. As for the pollution issue, that study has also been going on for decades and when you extrapolate all of the transportation needs, per person, it is pretty much a wash. The taxi cab authority in Vegas is something else to deal with and they aren't going to accept the rail unless they get a piece of the pie. You mentioned the bus situation and I don't know what bus system you're talking about but here in vegas it is deplorable. You also said you took the train while you were here but the only train is an elevated monorail that is relegated to the strip and is expensive and limited in it's scope. Walking is an option but is dangerous and most of Vegas is spread out, making it difficult to visit a lot of areas on foot.
Considering the amount people drink when they visit Vegas, I would think reducing the amount of car travel would be a good thing. Further, I think most people traveling from LA to LV would be going solely for the Strip, and I've walked pretty much the length of it in 4 inch heels, it's not impossible.
I never said impossible. And 4" heels sound hot!...but back to my point, the drinking argument could be applied to any town and any travel and any situation. Don't drink and drive!
Well, i agree. Except I've never been to another city where drinking is allowed on the streets, and there are no time limits on serving alcohol. If there are other cities with the same laws, then my point still stands. Frankly, I'm shocked that the rest of Nevada allows Vegas to abide by the laws that it does.
Drinking in public is not legal. The amount of foot traffic on the strip and downtown make it difficult to enforce but it is illegal. There are also legal limits, such as full nudity bars cannot serve alcohol in Vegas, but North Las Vegas laws are more liberal( :) ).
I hate to comment on such an old thread, but I don't want to let misinformation go unchallenged. Drinking IS legal on the street in the city of Las Vegas. That most definitely includes the strip. I believe there are restrictions on types of containers, and I know there's no glass allowed on New Years and other special events, but you are most definitely allowed to consume alcohol in the street.
I believe you're correct.
"Now here's the really cool part about walking: it is perfectly legal to have open containers on the Strip. The weather is usually sunny and warm, so grab a drink and take a stroll."
I also wonder if the Fremont Street Experience would be considered "on the street". It certainly is allowed there, since I bought a drink from a vendor out in the open air.
Drinking on the strip is legal but it is not part of the city of Las Vegas. There are indeed container laws on the strip and that's where I was fuzzy, but once again, Las Vegas does not allow public drinking.
The strip is not part of the town of Las Vegas and therefore does allow public drinking but public drinking in Las Vegas is illegal. The Fremont experience is a little vague since there is a canopy and may not be considered "public".
Sig - I've been to LV three times for conventions (NAB) and, speaking for the reality-based, you sound like you've never been there. Bizarre comments. Must be a conservative - from another planet.
Such as.........
Sig: Of course, I am able to function in society, so I had no problem getting around by walking (kinda fun, I like people-watching, no "danger," but maybe you're too weak), shared cab rides at least late at night, FREE hotel shuttles, and the FREE shuttle bus up and down the drag (or was it a few cents?). The overhead train was a tad expensive, will grant that, but I only used it once.
Perhaps you should visit there before commenting. But I know it's in conservatives' genes to talk about things they know nothing about.
You don't know what you're talking about, you've made that clear. "people watching" and a casual walk on the strip are not what I'm talking about when "walking around Vegas". BTW, if you saw me, you'd have to admit I can take care of myself. If you're getting around town with all of the freebies, good luck. You must be a great date. "Hey Hon, I got free buffet coupons. Who wants to see Cirque de Soliel anyway when you can get a free salad bar?" You must be lotsa fun!
necessary security measures ? like what that would be different than a bus, or taxi ?
I tried to reply but MMFA flagged it. My response was about terrorism. Guess I better not say anymore. Sheeeeez. Sorry.
No, no, no--this is clearly pork. It expands infrastructure, thereby creating jobs to build, operate, and maintain the railroad. No money will go directly into the pockets of Haliburton or Exxon and it was not thought up by a Republican. Clearly, it's pork. And remember, the government has never created a "job," only "work." Democratic infrastructure spending is bad. Democratic ideas are bad. Only Republican ideas are good. Just ask Rush.
I just fell off my stool laughing so hard. Republicans have no ideas and they probably don't know why they lost. Lindsay Graham turned out to be a joke. So did McCain. The democrats in power are spending money in the United States and that must be unamerican.
GAK! Who is this guy in the photo? He looks like a corpse. Ick!
Just another Republican Talking Points Zombie.
He's in a wheelchair, paralyzed from the waist down you moron.
So that means he's not a "Republican talking points zombie"? That's sort of odd. You can't criticize him for what he says because he's in a wheelchair?
I agree the comment about the foot race isn't the right way to make the point, but what Nerzog said doesn't have anything to do with his disability.
He is a corpse, a News Corpse.
I think I'm going to challenge Krautie to a foot race with the loser having to tell the truth from now on.
It would probably have to be something in the range of a 25 foot stumble in order for him to have even a slight chance at victory.
I'm certain if he saw these posts he would understand the limited intellect displayed by those making fun of his disability. Nice work, guys. Later on you could all get on the short bus for a field trip down to the local V.A. hospital and shoot spitwads at the parapalegics.
Wait, wait, wait a minute. Hold on! Time out!
You chastize a few posters here who may have made fun of someone without knowing they are disabled, then start making 'short bus' comments? REALLY?
You don't even know you're being a hypocrite.
That's a great point. Another I noticed is how Nerzog supposed to feel shame for calling him a "zombie" (as if this had anything to do with his wheelchair anyway) because sigtek googled him and found out about his accident. But then when he hears Al Gore was in Vietnam, he asks for people to give him details.
That should be just as widely known than the fact that Krauthammer is in a wheelchair, if not more so. It can be found on google, in any event.
Mr. Krauthammer's appearance was the subject of their scorn, their behaviour was the subject of my response. There's a big difference. Criticize his words or behaviour, not a problem, but to criticze his appearance is another matter.
Nice, foghorn. You probably chose Christopher Reed for a potato sack race partner.
It was a joke.
And you'd probably win, foghorn. High fives for the guy without a disability, he beat the guy in a wheelchair. Way to go, foghorn, woo woo!
"sour " Krauthammer ? anybody pays attention to this minah bird / actually ?
If you're talking about Charles Krauthammer, he was in a serious automobile accident many years ago and is in a wheelchair, paralyzed from the waist down. I guess liberal sympathy is limited in it's narrowminded scope. I doubt you share the same point of view towards Larry Flynt.
WTF? Judging people according to what they say and do regardless of physical limitations (which is what Wolf's post did) is EXACTLY what should be done. Attacking him or making fun of him due to being in a wheelchair would be different.
I just recently learned that he's in a wheelchair and that does not change my opinion of him - he's an idiot!
Every post I responded to in the way that I did was in direct response to some comment about "looking like a corpse" or "challenging him to a footrace" or "stumbling 25 feet" etc. and you know it. Several posts criticized him for what he said and I don't have a problem with that, it was the callous remarks about his appearance, so tuck your panties back in and look for someone else to berate.
Where are the posts "challenging him to a footrace" or stumbling 25 feet?"
Oscar and foghorn. See above. Man, now I feel like a nasty little snitch. Sorry Oscar. Sorry Foghorn.
I forgot about the wheelchair when I made my post. My apologies.
Ooooh,ick, someone in a wheelchair. Ooooh, ick.
Since Ultrasanktpauli was asking who was pictured, do you think it's possible that he didn't know Krauthammer is in a wheelchair?
Yes, it certainly is. Years ago I wondered why his appearance was so, but instead of mocking or ridiculing his appearance, I made the effort to find out why. These days, that quest is rather simple, but to jump to the conclusion, based solely on his politics, that he is a "zombie" or incapable of running a marathon and therefore subject to scorn, rather than simply criticizing his point of view, is what I object to. Many liberals on this website are thin-skinned about their politics and will jump down my throat for a similar disgression so my reminder of civil discourse should come as no shock.
I still don't see the connection between "zombie" and "wheelchair". Usually "zombie" refers to someone who repeats things no matter how often they have been refuted.
That man has done damage from his wheelchair and has never stopped him from lying or being cruel to other human beings. Too bad about his accident but his meaness is still apparent in his writings and TV appearances.
Then the criticism of his words, in your view, is justified. Leave his disability and appearance out of it. O'Reilly got reamed for referring to Helen Thomas' laughter as that of a witch.
The Stimulus Bill is a perfect example of the Rovian 500-Repub-propagandists-in-a-room hammering out talking points daily. The communication industry's in-box is simply full of this everyday. And lazy editors and mouthpieces like Fox never have to do a lick of work when the Rove boys will do it for them.
But it doesn't win them elections, so why is it still going on? Because the message will eventually fool enough peoples. And cycle goes on...
I think they're still remembering their glory days, when GOP propaganda paralyzed Bill Clinton's presidency, and saddled us with two terms of the worst President in modern history.
I mean, does anybody really think that George (Numbnuts) Bush won either of those elections with his compelling personality or grasp of the issues? Haw!
Exactly, fool enough people, get an empty suit with a blank "let's have a beer" smile, throw the recount away, bang, you got BushieCo and his evil cabal. Tick...tick...tick, I'm trying to get over it, lest some neodude starts yammering Bush derangement or it's over, get over it.
Thing is, a vast majority of people in the US had "Bush Derangement Syndrome" by the time he left office. I seem to remember his approval ratings the lowest of any President that such ratings had been recorded for.
Then why couldn't Al Gores stratospheric intellect or John Kerry's worldly popularity overcome the propoganda, as you call it? The American people aren't as stupid as you try to make them out to be. G.W. wouldn't have been my first choice in '00 or '04 but Al Gore and J. F(fraud).Kerry would be unacceptable company at a rat fight, let alone president of the United States.
Sigtek, you stated the reason why intellect and world popularity don't amount to much in American politics in your post:
"but Al Gore and J. F(fraud).Kerry would be unacceptable company at a rat fight, let alone president of the United States." For some reason, "company" or someone to hang out with seems to be a more electable quality to you than intellect.
The let alone president of the United States part of the statement shoulda' given ya some sort of clue what I was saying Duh.
Exactly sig, you are saying because they aren't good company they shouldn't be considered President. I am guessing you based your vote on who you would rather have a beer with, eh?
If you're asking who I'd rather have a beer with, I think most of America would agree G.W. would be the choice. Imagine cracking open a 12 pack with "Frenchie" Kerry and him insisting on pouring that 7 oz. coors into a goblet with a saucer and napkin underneath. Puke. And Al .com Gore. What a freakfest that would be. "Is that keg recyclable, 'cuz if it isn't, I'm gonna have to insist on some carbon credit deposits". Likeability has a great deal to do with who I would choose as president. Clinton was a likable guy who was a good president. His morals are what I, and most of the world, questioned.
No, sig, I am saying Americans often vote that way. Yeah, it would be a kick to have a beer with an alcoholic, wouldn't it? How is Kerry French, Sig? He and Gore actually served in Vietnam, does that make them French?
Your post stated that two guys wouldn't be good company much less good presidents, what's the relationship there?
Al Gore served in Viet Nam? Are you sure about that? In what capacity? I'm serious. The relationship between good company and a good president should be obvious. A sense of commraderie, compassion and understanding of the other's plight is essential in the "human" community. Callousness and the dismissal of another's lot in life is what doomed McCain, aside from his running mate and lack of understanding of an economy. Jimmy Carter, arguably the most dismal failure in American politics, was touted as being a miserable soul to be around. It's only one example but I'm certain history has many of the same.
It might not have been the most traditional, but yes, Gore was in the army during Vietnam. He did more journalism in the army than anything, but he was there, unlike Bush. As far as the human community, Bush certainly showed his empathy when he looked for WMD's in the Oval Office and thought it was hilarious, didn't he? Lincoln wasn't known as a people person, was he?
fried,
Al Gore enlisted for two years and because of his Harvard degree, and exagerating his work experience with the NYT, was made an 'information officer'.
By the time he got to Vietnam, he had less than seven months left in his enlistment. He was assigned as a reporter to an engineering division. Whether that was due to being a Senator's son, we don't know. He never saw combat and only interviewed those that did.
He was able to cut two months off his tour (and enlistment) because it was non essential and he said he wanted to attend divinity school at Vanderbuilt.
He still went to Vietnam while Bush was for the war and skipped it. Please don't lecture ANYONE, AA on Vietnam experience. After all, you still blame your liberal professors for your absence, right?
No, from my understanding, Lincoln had a lot of issues with being shy and reserved. But the 1860's were a completely different time with very different values. I would have to insist my comments were of contemporary presidents.
Actually, Al Gore did win, but never mind.
The problem with both campaigns is that they failed to recognize the advantage gained by the GOP through Talk Radio, and failed to respond to their lies.
Rush Limbaugh's show alone amounted to a 15 hour per week, unregulated GOP infomercial. Add to that the countless GOP Talk Radio Parrots in local markets, and it's a potential factor in any election.
Here in Al Gore's home state, he was subjected to a daily barrage of bullsh*t from the local Talk Radio Troglodytes, with not one liberal counterpoint. It's no wonder he lost here.
It wasn't Rush or Sean who lost the election for Gore. It was more like the nut jobs at the NY Times, Washington Post, NBC, etc that cost Gore the election. They are the ones who spread the lies about Gore, eg "I invented the internet", Love Story, Love Canal, etc, etc, etc, etc..... Blame the likes of Maureen Dowd, Chris Mathews, Frank Rich, and blame basically the entire clan of elite liberals for not only letting this happen but also contributing to it. They are the ones who put George W in the White House.
Either way both he and Kerry lost becuase the lies got priviledged and niether one ever called out the other side's BS. Obama fought back without being argumentative. He debated, largely without letting the other side always frame the issue. He showed that you don't need to fight fire with fire, but fighting it with water sometimes helps. (Gore and Kerry seemed to think that fighting it with air would help... nope that makes it WORSE.)
Obama never faced anything like Gore did. Not even close. How do you fight crap like Gore faced. To this day Chris Mathews believes Gore said he invented the internet even after it was proven false back in 2000. How do you fight Maureen Dowd when she calls you a sissy? Do you challenge her to an arm wrestling match. You simply cannot do it without the help from others in the media, and this help was never there for Gore.To this day those on the left, and the public in general, haven't a clue what the media did to Gore. For a Democrat Obama's treatment by the media is as good as it gets.
He lost in Tennessee just like John Edwards lost in his home state. They knew them well.
See http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
And exactly what kind of fraud is Kerry? He's not. He's boring as all get out, but not a fraud, and he's pretty darn smart. Al Gore actually DID win, as others have pointed out. And he would have been much better than Bush.
The ghost of James Buchanan would have been better than Bush. In reality, BUSH probably would better than what we had. (Cheney.)
I know people who got purple hearts in Viet Nam. An unsutured cut on his index finger? Get real, magnolia. He's a fraud. I'm confused about the Al Gore WIN. I don't recall him being sworn in as president which is one of the stipulations for being president, so your statement is a mild fart in the wind. We've heard it before. Pooooooooot.
Where does the "index finger" story come from? I've asked before, because I don't believe I saw that on his list of purple hearts.
That's because you looked on "his" list of purple hearts. I'm sure his list indicated a "massive trauma to the left index digit". Reminds me of the M.A.S.H. episode where Frank Burns put in for a purple heart and Hawkeye called him on it. Frank said it was a shell fragment in the eye and Hawkeye reminded him it was "an egg shell from a hard-boiled egg".
You're confused. If I looked on "his" list of purple hearts, I would see it, according to you. I said I didn't see it. Again, where does that story come from?
Rush Limbaugh told me.
sigtek,
I heard that Kerry's cut was on his arm.
Does anyone know who authorized this purple heart? The attending medical officer and commanding officer say they didn't. If I remember correctly, the injury was described as being similar to being stuck by a thorn.
Anybody know why Kerry military records have been changed over the years? Anyone know why Kerry hasn't released his military records when he said he would?
I'll give him credit. He knows how to marry rich!
AA - I heard DICK Cheney got a paper cut from one of his five deferment applications.
BTW, I'm the guy who enlisted in 1966 so your chickenhawk hero could pursue other priorities. Whenever you mention Kerry, you should also mention Chicken Cheney. Fair and balanced.
AA,
Way to take a shot at someone who served his country admirably. I guess only Republican soldiers count, eh?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp and
http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html
Why don't you tell us about Cheney, Bush and Ashcroft's service? How can you say that Kerry's medical records have changed over the years when you haven't seen them?! Why don't you check the link
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/kerry_allows_navy_release_of_military_medical_records/
I'm not surprised that you would question purple hearts awarded to soldiers who fouoght in war. What do you have against soldiers? In the grand scheme of things, what do politicians with purple hearts (or not) matter? Why is this such an issue with Right-wingers? Are you questioning the fact that they went to war to defend this country when you sat on your a$$?
If the Spream Court of the United States had gone with the Constitute not with who would suffer irepitable harm Al Gore would and did win. Unfortuneately the Supream court has become partisain and that distroyed the US for 8 years now we have to get over it.
Your cat is on your keyboard.
I wonder what impact a good rail system would have made during the gas crisis last summer?
What do you think trains run on, skittles?
I think the point was that trains use less gas per passenger than cars. You're pretty jumpy tonight, aren't you?
Yeah, kinda. It seems like all of the stories MMFA is putting out are the same old tired "stimulus misinformation" crapola. We need something like, "Nancy Pelosi falsley accused of spending the weekend at Crawford ranch---Laura nowhere in sight", but I guess that's more People magazine stuff. Sigh.
Yep and an SUV with 8 people at 18 mpg gets better per passenger mileage than a 2 person Smart Car at 40 mpg.
Excellent point.
How many SUVs do you see with 8 aboard? I guarantee the amount of Smart cars with two great outnumbers the SUVs with 8 :)
How many SUVs do you see with 8 aboard?
Funny that the only example supporting the cons fuel economy plan is illegal alien Mexicans.
Sorry, but from my SoCal perspective, I see one suburban housewife/ one suburban accountant in a 4-wheel drive para-military vehicle.
I see 5-10 Mexicans in the same vehicle,And they can start out with nationalized gas from PeMex.
Appearantly suburban housewifes and suburban accountants in SoCal have their dutiful calling written on their foreheads, the ones that drive para-military vehicles, that is. Are these 5-10 Mexicans in the same vehicle as the housewife and accountant and if so that would make the housewife and accountant coyotes. :)
But the initial investment on the taxpayer dime is the real question. If it were lucrative, the payoff would come decades later and the share of dividends would be split, exactly, how? Lotta folks think Vegas profits from the current generated at Hoover dam but the majority goes to L.A., so California would probably hold most of the revenue generated hostage. Bet Nancy Reid wouldn't like that one iota! BTW, how much is in one iota?
I would have to think the profits would largely go to Vegas, since the bulk of the traffic would be from L.A. to Vegas and then back. Since the vast majority of the revenue is driven by trips to Vegas, that revenue rightly belongs to them.
I think you're right but I bet both states would produce a tug of war and the tax base in California might win out 'cuz of the trouble they're in right now, if it ever happens. The other thing is most of the land the system would occupy is in California. Tough call.
For you information the power company that owns the generators at Hoover Dam can sell the elctricity to where ever they want to and that will pay them. It is not California holding the power but large companies. This is why Enron and other power companies were able to hold calfornia hostage a few years ago.
Really? Tell everyone which companies they are.
He's very jumpy, isn't he?
A comment on your snotty response to shaggles, sig, the train will probably run on electricity produced by Hoover Dam. All of the trains in my city (light rail trains, but same concept as high speed) run on electricity. There's a high speed train in the Northeast that runs between Philly and DC (maybe further on both ends) that's totally electric.
My father was a control room operator @ Hoover dam for thirty years. The Black Canyon project was initiated to control the annual flooding of the Colorado river, flooding which made farming and irrigation next to impossible. The turbins installed at the project and the ensuing current generated is merely a byproduct of the project. The amount of power generated is miniscule compared to the needs of Los Angeles but the bulk of the power generated is transmitted to Los Angeles.
And how does your response relate to my comment? Your response doesn't make it any less correct (nor does it call into question anything that I've said). I think you just wanted to brag on some knowledge you have about Hoover Dam. That's fine.
I believe I once read that the electricy I use comes from Hoover Dam. I live in San Francisco. Am I wrong, oh great wise one of the dam?
It doesn't. I was responding to progressiveright and replied to the wrong dialogue box. If you live in San Francisco, first of all, my condolences and second of all, your probably not recieving power from Hoover dam unless you consider the grid as being a purveyor of direct power from Hoover dam. I wasn't bragging, just trying to validate the information I was trying to impart to progressiveright in response. BTW, say hi to Michael Savage for me. He is a great American.
Love the train, unfortunately the nearest one is over an hour away and goes where I don't want to go. Amtrak cut the service I would use years ago (financial concerns), maybe the $800 Million will put it back on line.
That's the cruel irony of how public transit in this country works. If it isn't profitable then service is cut which means fewer people will choose to use it which will lead to further service cuts and on it goes. If we put the kind of money towards a real national rail system that we do towards subsidizing roads and air travel, Amtrak could work and work well.
With Vice President Biden I can see Amtrak getting good funding in the budget.
Building the high-speed rail line isn't pork. I-15 between L.A. and Las Vegas is the most dangerous road in America, with the highest number of fatalities from accidents. A tremedous number of trucks and commuters travel this route, in addition to the gambling crowd. I've always supported thias project, but the Vegas casinos were just never able to put it together. This project improves infrastructure by making the I-15 safer and more efficient for truck transport, by removing a significant number of passenger vehicles from the highway.