Options
cutting pork
webmost
Posts: 7,713 ✭✭✭✭✭
Why can't we get funny ads like this. All we get is deluged by New Jersey mud slinging.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
0
Comments
Only problem with it is that you get so enthralled by the little piggies that you forget what's being said in the ad. Also, in reality, it creates the impression that's going chop up them cute little piggies. Would've made a more effective connection if instead of the little guys they had shown a huge, mean, filthy, 500 pound wild boar, but there are already enough Chris Christie ads out there.....
The only problem is that other then calling them out on the floor and embarrassing them (if that is possible), unless the POTUS is given the power of "line item veto" most of the pork will always get through. Like ya know $17,000.00 for fat suits so skinny people can experience the stares and glares of other skinny people.
Oh, from Highway Gate to QuarantineGate, there are many, many things about Chrisite to pick on. But I admit mine was a very cheap shot and I do apologize for it and anyone offended by it. But, offensive joke aside, and getting back to the original ad, as much as I liked it, I do think it would've been much more effective--and much funnier--with some kind of huge, dirty, stinky hog in a filthy muddy pig pen to represent the evil pork metaphor better. This is a critique of the aesthetics of the ad, not its message, with which I totally agree in terms of the need to trim Congressional pork. Although, of course, everyone has their own definition of what pork is.
How much is enough?
In fact, most liberals don't approve of real pork barrel spending--which isn't Obamacare or defense or homeland security or entitlements but little pet projects--like silly historical preservation initiatives and presidential libraries--in representatives' local districts--that doesn't occur in their OWN neighborhoods. Hell, many liberals--myself included--don't even approve of most pork barrel projects in our own state.
So, now you are against big bureaucracy? Hmm...I remember a post where you touted and lauded big governmental bureaucracy's and never replied when you were called on it.
Also I seem to remember how quiet certain segments of our country that did not make a peep when HS was brought up and a lot of people wondered about that.
Speaking of invasion of privacy, obozocare trampled all over it with its IRS connection and central data collection. Maybe someone should have read it before it was passed, talk about a bureaucracy, is there any bigger?
Of course I will admit obozo has done what he can to stem the growth of bureaucracy, what with all of his executive orders and such.
It will be interesting to see what further bureaucratic surprises he has store after the elections, you know, when he has more latitude and won't further affect the results. What is the number----something like 30,000,000 green cards.
Counting....
You know, if instead of just filtering everything through your extremist views you actually read what people said maybe you might have something convinving to say. I never said I supported unfettered big bureaucracy or uncontrolled government spending. Maybe for you Obamacare is your chief bugaboo about invasion of privacy. Is isn't for me. I'm not on Obamacare and my healthcare costs have gone down BECAUSE of Obamacare. But having Homeland Security look over my phone records and emails IS a far greater impingement on my liberties, and I have always vocally faulted Obama for letting these Bush-originated policies continue and grow. And Homeland Security is a FAR larger bureaucracy and extracts FAR more spending than Obamacare does, and I also fault Obama for not reigning in its power and privatizing more of its functions, such as TSA checks.
And, contrary to what people like you think, you CAN be in favor of strong government oversight of private entities and actions that will harm people if not regulated or prohibited (the first 350 years of America's history clearly demonstrated the dangers of lack of such federal oversight) while still objecting to specific programs and policies. Contrary to what you think, you actually can advocate continued or increased federal sending on certain things while supporting the allocation of spending for other things. It's not an all or nothing proposition. If it were, then conservatives would be just as vocal in advocating huge cuts to military spending, Homeland Security and corporate welfare as they are in advocating the gutting of welfare, Medicaid, education and NPR budgets.
How much is enough?
Extremist views....? What in the world are you talking about? I like my country. I do not like corrupt politicians. I do not like drug dealers. I do not like illegal immigrants getting better treatment then law abiding American citizens. I do not like elections ripe with votes by people who have no business voting. I do not like obozo. I do not like the billions of dollars being spent on pork by porkers. I do not like people who use a lot of neat sounding words and phrases that don't amount to a hill of beans. If that makes me an extremist then so be it.