NBC, CBS, and ABC Highlight Sanford's GOP Label; Downplayed Label For Disgraced Dem
- Thread starter shagdrum
- Start date
If they could not find their governor in an emergency they could swear in the Lt. Governor or whoever on down the succession line. It wouldn't be that big of a deal in an emergency. You are sensationalizing.
You need to actually draw the connection to his stance on refusing the stimulus funds, which you haven't yet. All you have done is question his motives. But if he were looking to abuse funds, why would he reject stimulus money? What you are arguing is counter intuitive.
I have yet to see you express any outrage over Obama abusing taxpayer funds for extravagant dinners or to fly out somewhere for a "date night" with his wife. Or to fly her over (on a separate plane from him) to meet him for the Cairo speech.
There is no sincerity or concern for common decency in what you do here in the politics/current events section, is there. You are only interested in opportunistically manipulating and leveraging whatever you can (and ignoring the rest) to defend you political, social and/or economic preconceived notions by any mean necessary.
Nope - I am saying what was required by the constitution... you asked for the requirement - I provided it. He didn't follow his own state's constitution.
For example...
The president of your bank goes missing from his job, with no one in charge for a week. Later it is found out that he used the bank's funds to fly to Argentina to meet his mistress...
You would still trust this man with your money?
That is the same analogy as Sanford and the people of South Carolina. He left the government without anyone in charge for a week, and it was found out that he used the people's money to fly to see his mistress.
Would you trust him with your money - the stimulus money is your money.
Oh, and it gets better...
He acknowledged that he had casual encounters with other women while he was married but before he met Chapur, on trips outside the country to "blow off steam" with male friends.
"What I would say is that I've never had sex with another woman. Have I done stupid? I have. You know you meet someone. You dance with them. You go to a place where you probably shouldn't have gone," Sanford said, declining to discuss details. But he said those encounters were nothing like his relationship with Chapur.
You still have not connected the affair and the issues surrounding it to his stance on the stimulus. You are ignoring the fact that he is trying to reject the stimulus money as well as ignoring his reasons given for that.
What is interesting here is that, for someone who claims to come into this forum to understand and consider alternative points of view, you seem rather hell bent on ignoring a point of view by dishonestly marginalizing it through character assassination.
By the way, you have, once again, shown a lack of good faith in this discussion by demonstrating your insincerity and ignoring Sanford's actual argument for rejecting the stimulus funds in favor of questioning his motives in what is ultimately a dishonest attempt at character assassination. You have also demonstrated a cold and ruthless political opportunism. I am through wasting my time with you here.
So shag - on Sanford's reasons for not accepting stimulus funds...
I know why he was opposed to the stimulus package - and found the published reason for that...
However, this doesn't say why, after the bill was passed, he was still going to battle the opportunity for his state to get their 'share' of the funds. The stimulus has passed - the money is being doled out - and he said still said 'no'.
The only item I could find about why, at this point when the funds are a 'done deal,' he was going to protest SC getting their share of the funds was that he was opposed that the funds come with a mandate that a certain portion goes to education - $700 million in SCs case, out of many billion. These earmarked education funds were to fill the gap from the Bush years where new laws mandated 'leave no child behind' but the laws didn't included funding for the programs.
So, since we are arguing his reasons for not taking money that has already been approved... what are those reasons? I couldn't find a list - maybe you have one shag.
I understand being opposed to the package initially, but once the bill has passed, do you allow your state to not get their share? Your people will certainly be paying for this with higher taxes in the future, a rise in inflation, and other costs. So if your people will be paying for the program, shouldn't they also be seeing benefits for the program? There wasn't anything in the bill that if your state doesn't accept the money that your state will be free from the tax increases, etc.
It seems like poor fiscal responsibility on the governor's part - similar to his just taking money from state coffers to jaunt down to Argentina for a little rendezvous...
I know why he was opposed to the stimulus package - and found the published reason for that...
"We believe this stimulus package is a mistake for whole host of reasons — for the way it piles debt on top of debt, for the way that much of the contemplated spending is not stimulative in nature, and for the way this series of ad hoc measures is freezing up the very private capital that ultimately drives our economy. Unfortunately, if history is any guide, this package will serve to prolong and deepen this economic slowdown, and will bury future generations under an even greater mountain of debt. I believe that if we stay on this course, government will turn this recession into a depression."
However, this doesn't say why, after the bill was passed, he was still going to battle the opportunity for his state to get their 'share' of the funds. The stimulus has passed - the money is being doled out - and he said still said 'no'.
The only item I could find about why, at this point when the funds are a 'done deal,' he was going to protest SC getting their share of the funds was that he was opposed that the funds come with a mandate that a certain portion goes to education - $700 million in SCs case, out of many billion. These earmarked education funds were to fill the gap from the Bush years where new laws mandated 'leave no child behind' but the laws didn't included funding for the programs.
So, since we are arguing his reasons for not taking money that has already been approved... what are those reasons? I couldn't find a list - maybe you have one shag.
I understand being opposed to the package initially, but once the bill has passed, do you allow your state to not get their share? Your people will certainly be paying for this with higher taxes in the future, a rise in inflation, and other costs. So if your people will be paying for the program, shouldn't they also be seeing benefits for the program? There wasn't anything in the bill that if your state doesn't accept the money that your state will be free from the tax increases, etc.
It seems like poor fiscal responsibility on the governor's part - similar to his just taking money from state coffers to jaunt down to Argentina for a little rendezvous...