Skip navigation

I’m proud of Sarah Palin saying “no” to that “Bridge to Nowhere.” I’m with her. A bridge to NOWHERE? Sounds like a bad idea. Bridges should always be to somewhere. But since this is being trotted out at rallies to indicate that the Sarah and John Show is against the practice of earmarks, isn’t this a collosally bad example? I mean, she didn’t take the bridge, but she took the earmarked money. How is that being AGAINST earmarks? The fact of the matter is, Sarah Palin has been willing to TAKE whatever her Alaskan delegation has been able to scheme up. She is sorta the queen of earmarks. Right? Which reminds me of a joke. What’s the difference between being FOR earmarks, and being AGAINST earmarks? Lipstick.


One Comment

  1. Earmarks are a funny issue with me. I don’t have trouble at all with government spending. What I want is to drastically reduce the pool of money that is forcefully volunteered away from the taxpayer. The fact that congress divides up to benefit their districts seems to be what the Constitution says their function is to be. Would we rather have them give all that power to the President? That seems like an awful lot of power that would be given to the President. Earmarks are a b.s. issue designed to gloss over the fact that Congess both over borrows and over taxes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: