BF2S Forums Cybersecurity Act of 2009, S.773

Kmarion wrote:

You guys do realize that the original Patriot Act was largely bipartisan right? It was supported when both parties had control.

I don't understand the blame thing here. At least they took out the "other purposes" crap out.

Good point...  which is why you can trust neither party.

One of the biggest problems with legislation nowadays is that think tanks do a lot of the actual policymaking.  Congress members often end up being reduced to editors of policies created by lobbyists, essentially.

Of course, that's assuming they actually read the bill.  In other cases, most of what a Congress member contributes involves attaching a rider to the bill for their own pet projects.

Riders are the only reason I would consider giving the president the line item veto.

Kmarion wrote:

That is how they get support .. it's ok to sell out your principles so long as you can pander to the local constituencies.

True, which is why, ultimately, the blame can be put on ignorant and shortsighted voters.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

That is how they get support .. it's ok to sell out your principles so long as you can pander to the local constituencies.

True, which is why, ultimately, the blame can be put on ignorant and shortsighted voters.

Ken said it once. Everyone hates pork, unless it is pork spent on them.

Indeed....  Alaska is a perfect example.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Ken said it once. Everyone hates pork, unless it is pork spent on them.

Indeed....  Alaska is a perfect example.

How so?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121685895151379381.html

First link...  proven wrong by the extremely high re-election rate of politicians that send a lot of pork to their districts.

Mr. Don Young has been in office since 1973.  His constituents may say they want less pork, but their actions have spoken otherwise.

Kmarion wrote:

http://www.puma08.com/2009/03/19/sarah-palin-to-reject-416-million-of-stimulus-funds-allocated-to-alaska/

Sarah Palin's commitment to blocking pork is spotty at best.  She campaigned for Ted Stevens and supported the Bridge to Nowhere before that project became unpopular, and she then jumped ship.

Kmarion wrote:

lol.. we are all aware of the bridge to nowhere stuff.. please, unless you slept through the entire election season.

The most recent, in the form of half a billion dollars, WAS rejected though. That is most certainly counter intuitive to your last statement.

It's an improvement, but it's not counterintuitive.

Don Young not being re-elected would be counterintuitive.

Kmarion wrote:

Proven wrong? My point is that is not always the case. You think because the opposite happens that it is only one or the other.. sheesh.

True...  Ron Paul is proof that some people actually want their representative to fight pork.

He's an anomaly however.

Believe me...  I really truly wish he wasn't one, but most people follow the "bread and circus" logic.

Kmarion wrote:

Alaska is NOT the perfect example.

I could offer you better ones if you like.

How isn't it?  Ted Stevens was the king of pork.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Alaska is NOT the perfect example.

I could offer you better ones if you like.

How isn't it?  Ted Stevens was the king of pork.

He was prosecuted an paid. You really want to go against California.. with Alaska? ..lol
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ … e_map.html
Look at it compared to other states GSP. Again, not the best example. I know, you hate Sarah and we get that though..lol

I'm no fan of Sarah, indeed, but you're the one that specifically brought her up.

I actually have much more of an axe to grind against Stevens and Young.

destruktion_6143 wrote:

simple, come to canada. i have an available futon if you guys want to crash at my place.

I might take you up on that in the next 5 years or so...  lol

Random question: Do your ISPs impose bandwidth caps?

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm no fan of Sarah, indeed, but you're the one that specifically brought her up.

I actually have much more of an axe to grind against Stevens and Young.

Nay.. an attack on Ak is an attack on the ppl running it. I was just saying that they are nowhere near the best example. I provided better examples of porkulus.

Well, Sarah is a state politician.  As a Governor, you have less temptation to accept federal funding because you actually stand to gain more from rejecting funds than accepting them if you can spin it as a fight against pork.

I would imagine Stevens's trial put a negative spotlight on pork in Alaska.  Also, the stimulus bill was passed by a Democratic president and was very unpopular among Republicans in general.  So, Palin rejecting it shouldn't be that surprising.

If Bush had passed this bill with Republican approval, then Palin would've likely accepted it.

Kmarion wrote:

Brutha I'll show ya a long list of Governors eager to get their fingers into some Federal funding.
In fact Palin does not hesitate to chew up Republicans. http://www.rollcall.com/news/30087-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS
You know she is responsible for helping to clean out her own in AK right?

True.  There are certain things I like about her.  I like the angle that Biden took in that debate.  He mentioned her move to increase the portion of oil and gas profits sent to Alaskan citizens every year.

Biden complimented her for that, mostly because that's the sort of thing that a Democrat would be more likely to support and because it really goes against the idea of smaller government.

But hey...  I won't deny it.  I thought it was great.  lol