1 posted on
02/19/2009 12:05:40 PM PST by
lewisglad
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
To: lewisglad
Of course,sarah Palin...because she knows how to spend the people’s money....wisely and frugally. She don’t need no steeenking handouts!
2 posted on
02/19/2009 12:07:32 PM PST by
gimme1ibertee
("No pale pastels,but bold colors".....Ronnie,we sure do miss you,sir!)
To: lewisglad
There are a lot of double-entendres in that headline...
3 posted on
02/19/2009 12:08:00 PM PST by
DTogo
(Time to bring back the Sons of Liberty.)
To: lewisglad
a move opponents say puts conservative ideology ahead of the needs of constituents struggling with foreclosures and unemployment.I say that Conservative ideology is absolutely consistent with the needs of etc. etc. If the "victims" had practiced it in the first place, many of them wouldn't be in the straits they are in now.
4 posted on
02/19/2009 12:08:32 PM PST by
SlowBoat407
(Do not read this tagline.)
To: lewisglad
Did anyone read the interview with the aging perky one.She was asked about Sarah Palin’s interview and she had the cajones to say it was fair and she thought she asked pertinent questions ( ahhhh what magazines do you read....) Go Sarah, there's a revolution coming
5 posted on
02/19/2009 12:09:51 PM PST by
shadeaud
(Time to smell the roses and not the stench coming from D .C.)
To: lewisglad
But still it makes you shake your head.Yeah, imagine that - politicians willing to risk their political futures by putting principles ahead of a place at the public funds slop-trough.
6 posted on
02/19/2009 12:10:08 PM PST by
skeeter
To: lewisglad
7 posted on
02/19/2009 12:10:54 PM PST by
william clark
(Ecclesiastes 10:2)
To: lewisglad
"Thanks, but no thanks..."
8 posted on
02/19/2009 12:11:26 PM PST by
Sopater
(I'm so sick of atheists shoving their religion in my face.)
To: lewisglad
...a move opponents say puts conservative ideology ahead of the needs of constituents struggling with foreclosures and unemployment.I know this is a rhetorical question but... considering most of your liberal colleagues do not pay their taxes hence they do nothing to help, what about the needs of us constituents struggling to pay for all your social programs to help those you have no business helping?
11 posted on
02/19/2009 12:12:54 PM PST by
The Anti-One
(So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.)
To: Stillwaters
Though none has outright rejected the money available for education, healthcare, and infrastructure, the governors of Alaska, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas have all questioned whether the $787 billion bill signed into law this week will help the economy. This is one of those times it might be worthwhile to email Governor Otter and offer support and encouragement.
email link
12 posted on
02/19/2009 12:13:27 PM PST by
lonevoice
(Ich bin ein plumber)
To: lewisglad
My concern is theres going to be commitments attached to it that are a mile long, said Governor Rick Perry of Texas. We need the freedom to pick and choose. And we need the freedom to say No thanks. Thank you, Governor Perry. Please, please remain steadfast on this.
13 posted on
02/19/2009 12:13:31 PM PST by
Allegra
To: lewisglad
That includes, of course, Sarah Palin 2012
&&&
Sarah Palin 2012? Did Sarah change her name without telling us?
15 posted on
02/19/2009 12:14:50 PM PST by
Bigg Red
(Palin in 2012!)
To: lewisglad
a move opponents say puts conservative ideology ahead of the needs of constituents struggling with foreclosures and unemployment.
Is that there way of suggesting that Liberalism is the only thing that would fulfill the needs of the constituents?
To: lewisglad
I’d like to see Arnold reject this bogus stimulus package.
Oh...wait, the article said GOP governors. Sorry.
To: lewisglad
Looks like she’s ready to reject another Bridge to Nowhere! Go Saracuda!
Pray for America, Our Troops and Gov Palin
27 posted on
02/19/2009 12:36:06 PM PST by
bray
(The District of Corruption fits Obama like a Glove)
To: lewisglad
Waiting for the hate-brigade to explain us that Palin is actually a non-conservative ditz...
29 posted on
02/19/2009 12:38:05 PM PST by
SolidWood
(Palin: "In Alaska we eat therefore we hunt.")
To: lewisglad
It isn’t like they are actually going to reject it. Most said they considered it but will take it.
31 posted on
02/19/2009 12:40:10 PM PST by
rwfromkansas
("Carve your name on hearts, not marble." - C.H. Spurgeon)
To: lewisglad
I think they should accept the money. While the package is un-american and will never work, it can still provide benefits like roads and bridges to the state. Refusing the money, and then being taxed to pay for it all, is simply stupid. Now if you could refuse the money and be exempt from the taxes required to pay it back, that would be different.
35 posted on
02/19/2009 1:01:02 PM PST by
Robbin
To: lewisglad
wow..hardcore and Palin in the same sentence..nice..
To: lewisglad
Or maybe they should take the money, so long as it has no strings attached, and show the feds what might really work-—helping those who actually will help the economy, not suck it dry, if they could only become a bit more financially liquid.
38 posted on
02/19/2009 1:34:46 PM PST by
fightinJAG
(Good riddance, UAW.)
To: lewisglad
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is also “considering” not accepting the government socialist pork fund.
Why? He put it this way: he’s going to look at what strings are attached.
Too many federal socialist strings, and the money aint worth turning your life over to the big government God-surrogate state.
So it ISN’T about putting “GOP ideology ahead of the welfare of the people.” That is a straw man. It is demagoguery. It is exactly how the blatantly corrupt and dishonest media is trying to present it.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson