Brown / Nardello: slush funds & turf
At last night's debate, Vickie Nardello (D) and Kathy Brown (R) were told and asked:
The August 3, 2008 Waterbury Republican American editorial described the “discretionary funds” in Hartford as “slush funds.” Cheshire’s $525,000 turf originated from these “discretionary funds.” Since this money has not yet been spent, do you support or oppose defunding the turf project in an effort to balance the state budget?
Here is their response:
After years of seeing it, I've gotten tired of Vickie spewing facts to divert attention without ever actually answering a question. Which in this case was:
In an effort to balance the budget, would you defund the turf?
Instead we get the runaround... like when she started defending her opposition to the death penalty in all instances because an innocent person may be put to death... huh?... news to Rep. Nardello... those two predators are NOT innocent! Yet in her heart of hearts, she wants to protect the lives of those two murderers!
Agree with her or not -- and I agree with her -- at least Kathy Brown was direct in her answer.
Tim White
10 comments:
It is the uneducated voter who will vote for Nardello.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of them out there.
It is sad that people will just votte for a person because they seem nice or their friend knows them. When do people start looking at issues and seeing that people like Nardello are notheing bu people who talk out of both sides of thre mouth.
It's not a "slush fund" she says. but it is money that the state doesn't really have but is willing to borrow so a town like CHeshire can get artificial turf.
She will vote to abolish the death penalty, yet she represents a district that overwhelmingly supports the death penalty. So then she syas she will make sure these 2 animals would be put to death. Huh???
If you vote for her, your voting privledges shuld be taken away.
Nardello
(slush funds, Hartford corruption,
same-old, same-old)
-- versus --
Kathy Brown
(our tax dollars, transparency,
a fresh & honest approach).
Pleeeze folks, let's vote for change Nov. 2 !!
Now that NPR (National Pelosi Radio) has fired Juan Williams, maybe Nardello and Esty can apply for work there when the voters fire them. NPR is looking for biased leftwing reporters.
NPR = National Pelosi Radio
ha ha ha! so true!
talking about slush funds, why do we the taxpayers have to fund NPR when all other media have to pay their own way? maybe after Nov. 2 we can stop funding them with our tax dollars.
Esty and Nardello are in great company in their wanting to abolish the death penalty:
Sledgehammer killer wants Conn. to abolish DP
http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/10/22/news/doc4cc2056176da8401785565.txt
Why do we the taxpayers have to fund NPR when all other media have to pay their own way?
It is obvious you don't listen to NPR, and secondly, you have no idea of what percent of their budget comes from the Federal Government. The very highest estimate is 8%, direct and indirect.
You must think that because it is call National Public Radio that it is a U.S Government owned broadcaster. The government does not own it.
It's is a non-profit organization that relies mostly on it's listeners for its support, so if you are attempting to silence it, you have to stop millions of Americans from supporting it.
If you want to learn something, you should turn off Fox and Limbaugh and listen to NPR, and you might find you like it.
Anon.9:00 PM,
You never answered the question, "Why do we the taxpayers have to fund NPR when all other media have to pay their own way?"
Everything you say is irrelevent to answering that question --
whether or not I listen to NPR or Fox is irrelevent,
the fact that the gov't doesn't own NPR is irrelevent,
and the facts that taxpayer dollars subsidize 8% of NPR and 15% of PBS are beside the point.
Taxpayers should not have to involuntarily subsidize NPR with their tax dollars. Fox does not ask for or receive tax dollars; NPR does.
If NPR's listeners want to make voluntary contributions, fine. But don't force me to make involuntary contributions through my taxes.
“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”
-- Thomas Jefferson
Anon.9:00 PM,
You never answered the question, "Why do we the taxpayers have to fund NPR when all other media have to pay their own way?"
Everything you say is irrelevent to answering that question --
whether or not I listen to NPR or Fox is irrelevent,
the fact that the gov't doesn't own NPR is irrelevent,
and the facts that taxpayer dollars subsidize 8% of NPR and 15% of PBS are beside the point.
Taxpayers should not have to involuntarily subsidize NPR with their tax dollars. Fox does not ask for or receive tax dollars; NPR does.
If NPR's listeners want to make voluntary contributions, fine. But don't force me to make involuntary contributions through my taxes.
“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”
-- Thomas Jefferson
double clicked above, sorry.
I agree with 11:07. The government has no more business funding NPR and PBS than it would have funding Fox, Disney, or NESN.
I say this as a viewer and contributor to PBS (which isn't nearly as biased as NPR). Without government funding, most PBS programs would be successful as cable programs. But this isn't something the government should be involved with.
Post a Comment