Talk:Gravina Island Bridge

This article needs an overhaul. How does it fit Category:Corruption? Stevens was not convicted of anything relating to this project. Further, Stevens conviction was thrown out. Again, how does Palin's stance in this matter relate to "corruption." Frankly, the whole article smacks of a hit piece. It may need deletion if its not seriously overhauled. Thank you. Rob Smith 14:21, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

My edit just now wasn't meant as an accusation, I rather thought that the "Palin proudly claimed" sentence seemed to accuse her of hypocrisy. - RogerS

Palin is a refreshing change to politics-as-usual. You must learn to give her a chance.--Jpatt 15:10, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

I absolutely agree with you, and I would've loved to see her continue as Governor. I just wanted to point out that my edit was in no way directed against Sarah - I rather wanted to edit it in order to remove what I considered to be liberal bias, but if you prefer the old version, OK. - RogerS

This article is little more than pure nonsense in its existing form. It probably needs to be deleted. Rob Smith 15:36, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

Just something to think about

Had the proposal for this bridge been delayed until now, it very likely would've received funding under Obama and the Democrats' "stimulus" bill. Jinx McHue 16:22, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

Jinx, what an absurd statement! How could they (Congressional Democrats) have used one of Congresses' more corrupt practices, earmarks, to attack a popular conservative Governor like Sarah Palin, if they did that? If Barack had given the money for a jetport for Gravina Island, it would have been universally hailed as proof of how much he cared for the people, instead of a wasteful appropriation by a corrupt Republican Senator and Governor. :p -- --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:29, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

What if we created articles about earmark projects Sens, Clinton, Obama & Dasshole sponsored, and Rahm Emanuel, and so on. And then placed them in Cat:Corruption. Better yet, what if that was our objective in creating the article, and we even put Sarah Palin's name in it -- despite the fact palin never served in Washington. This article stinks. Rob Smith 20:50, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

When I run across something that stinks, I delete it. I would have done that here, but you (Rob) seemed to have matters well in hand....if you want I can delete it, but I think you can as well, no? I was having a funny with Jinx about his appropriate comparison, is all....--ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:53, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

On second thought, it appears to have been saved by you and Roger, Rob, so why not leave it as it is, now that it is factual, and tells the true story? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 20:55, 13 July 2009 (EDT)

That's true. It would perhaps be beneficial to present a more balanced view clarifing the misinformation surrounding this subject. My big problem was the fact the article was created to place inside Category:Corruption, and the only blue links in it were Ted Stevens & Sarah Palin. Pretty naked partisanship based upon ZERO facts or substance. Rob Smith 12:58, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

References

The article needs them. Just a friendly reminder. Jinx McHue 15:29, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

• Yes, thanks Jinx. I'm dancing as fast as I can! --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 16:54, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

*cracks whip* Dance faster! No, sorry. I'd have added some myself but I don't know that much about the topic and really don't have much interest in researching it. Jinx McHue 17:00, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

Corruption

Let's make a deal. Somebody do the Rezko International Airport [1] (here's some more sources [2][3]) and we'll put both in Category:Corruption. Rob Smith 16:08, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

I added the category "Liberal Deceit" to it, but how do you feel about a "Liberal Corruption" category in addition? --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 16:53, 14 July 2009 (EDT)

I'd like to hear from RJJensen, I just don't see how it fits into "corruption." No laws were broken, nobody ever alleged laws were broken. No ethics violations took place, no one ever alleged anything was unethical about it. All it amounts to, is Sen. Steven doing his job, i.e. bringing home the bacon for his constituents. Alaska's fair share was $398 million. So Alaska may have had problems finding what to spend $398 million on, but the amount eventually was brought back and channeled into other projects.

The snide critics who invented & used that term "Bridge to Nowhere" have no idea how offensive that is. Sure, the greedy Congressional delegtions from Chicago & New York would love to get thier hands on money that rightly belongs to the people of Alaska. It is not "a bridge to nowhere," there are in fact 7000 living breathing human beings (albeit right-wing redneck scum in somepeoples view), but human beings nonetheless who actually live somewhere. "Bridge to nowhere" just reveals the bigotry of these critics cause evidently those 7000 human beings are non-entities, by anyother name untermensch. This is in keeping with some traditional Socialists overall worldview. Rob Smith 15:15, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

I removed the category "Corruption" Rob, and as you say above, I don't know how it fits into corruption. Perhaps some view all earmarks as corruption, but that would be wrong. We elect Congressman, in part, to lobby for their district's fair share of Federal money, and that is what earmarks are for. Like everything else government-related, it is of course riddled with abuse and true pork. But there are thousands of worthwhile appropriations as well. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 15:47, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

Stevens

The Stevens case had to do with repair work on his home, and nothing at all, to the best of my knowledge, with the Bridge. Can we reword or revise this in some way to reflect that? Rob Smith 17:31, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

The only thing it had to do with Stevens is that they used the issue to "add-on" to the smears against him, Rob. Do whatever you think is best here. --ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 18:14, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

That appears so. I've just been doing several google searches, and the only connection between "corruption+bridge to nowhere" is Ted Stevens conviction. [4] Can't find a single conservative that said the proposed project (that never got off the drawing board) was "corrupt," as Prof. Jensen alleges. McCain may have been critical, but he never used the word "corrupt" as best I can determine, and there is some question whether or not McCain is a conservative.

The connection between Stevens conviction and the bridge to nowhere is about as tenous as the connection between Pelosi charges the CIA lied about captured al-Qeada operatives at Gitmo & Abu Ghraib, and the CIA not disclosing to Congress a program about al-Qeada operatives who have not been captured yet. Nowhere in that report (here) are the issues of waterboarding or torture discussed, yet the disinformation specialists and propagandists are already trying to confuse the public that this report somehow exonerates Pelosi's reckless charges.

In the absence of further evidence, the whole disinformation campaign looks like naked partisanship. Rob Smith 18:21, 15 July 2009 (EDT)