again, research. for the love of god, do research. did you even look into what her earmarks are for? either you didn’t and should have or you did, saw what they were for and did your cheap shot bashing anyway. not to mention the fact that last year the top requester was 843 million from a republican from mississippi, which, what the fuck does anyone from mississippi need 843 million for anyway? but i see that that part was left out again.

anyway back to hillary (side note, i hate her and would never vote her, just so you don’t think i’m sticking up as a fan), if you look at the article that you quote, you’d see that her earmarks are for things you wingnuts love. security. not just security homeland security. oh yeah, and aid for military veterans. here’s some highlights since you didn’t want to look or chose to leave them out:

$750 million for a homeland-state grant program
$125 million for an urban-area security initiative in the upcoming homeland security appropriations bill
$400 million for interoperable emergency communication
$335 million for emergency planning
$190 million for port security
$225 million for transit security
$10 million to bolster the nation’s emergency 911 network
$3.2 million for a program geared toward transitioning members of the National Guard to the construction industry.
$231 million to go toward monitoring the health of people affected by the collapse of the World Trade Center.

oh man, i’m tired. that took me thirty seconds of cutting and pasting. and now that i look back at it, it looks like this selfish leftist bitch is trying to get money together to protect her citizens and make sure that our soldiers coming home can get a job. oh yeah, and provide for the healthcare of the survivors of 9/11.

you really hit the nail on the head with that entitlement crack. what a selfish, uncaring bitch.

also, research, do your fucking research. if you did, you’d realize that john mccain says he is against earmarks but is a big time PROponent of sending aid to isreal. AID TO ISREAL IS AN EARMARK. do you just not see it or is it like head up ass or something? he tells you he hates earmarks and in the very next gasping weez advocates for earmarks. and not just earmarks. earmarks to aid a foreign country.

Left by kit churchill on April 29th, 2008 at 1:36 pm

speaking of research: does anyone else find it laughable that kit fails to draw a distinction between earmarks that amount to allocated funds and earmarks that bribe constituents?

Left by adam on April 29th, 2008 at 3:23 pm

actually, that’s the point adam. hillary’s earmarks ARE allocated funds and not bribes for constituents. i’m assuming that you’re now going to try and tell me that you consider these earmarks to be bribing constituents. which, if you’re gonna try and be that broad, anyone who votes to fund anything ever is guilty of requesting earmarks. i thought i was a cynical bastard, but to claim that everyone who makes an effort to serve their constituents is bribing them, then we have a whole lot of politicians who are in trouble. i guess the question comes down to necessity, and, as it appears from your response there, you don’t seem to think that we help our vets when they get home, or secure or nation’s largest port, or make sure that first responders have the systems in place to do their jobs the way they need to. is that what you’re saying? do you think we shouldn’t allocate funds like this since its bribing constituents?

so if you’re claiming that i’m not making that distinction then you’re not paying attention, because the whole and only point of my comment, is that robbie didn’t make that distinction. see, i laid the earmarks out showing that they’re for security and infrastructure funding and for taking care of 9/11 victims which is not what the statement

$2,300,000,000.00 of my money and of your money. To keep her in the powerful lifestyle to which she’s become accustomed.

is meant to do. that statement, in fact, implies that all of her earmarks are in someway going to her personally. which, proper research, or maybe a little less interest in promoting self relevance would show, is simply not true. nice catch though adam.

Left by kit churchill on April 29th, 2008 at 3:57 pm

AID TO ISREAL IS AN EARMARK.

is this the type of earmark that would be bribing constituents? you’re a bozo…but keep typing; i like laughing!

Left by adam on April 30th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Just so you know- it’s not clear to readers of this blog not named Adam what your point is: That Hillary Clinton is obviously bribing Jewish constituents? That aid to Israel is obviously NOT bribing constituents so it’s ok if McCain supports earmarks (just in this one extra-special case)? Some other important point?

Left by Preston on May 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 am

playing dumb again pressy… ok, i’ll bite. my point is that kit has got to be high on some serious shit.
aid to israel is hardly the type of funding that gives earmarks a bad rep. this was just an obvious poor attempt to blur the real issue of wasteful government spending by shady officials motivated largely by maintaining their positions. if one takes issue with pro israel positions, then do it but don’t try and pretend these issues are the same thing, especially to half-ass shots at sen. mccain.

Left by adam on May 4th, 2008 at 6:58 pm