PDA

View Full Version : There's hope for us Libruls yet.



Pugwash
07-30-2010, 06:34 AM
Just a few more like this and we're golden.

:D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4zwCMf8dsc&feature=player_embedded#!

MiddleAgesMan
07-30-2010, 06:55 AM
Most excellent!

Bernie Sanders had some brilliant commentary on the repug strategy that appeared on one of the afternoon MSNBC shows yesterday. I've never had any success finding stuff on that terrible website but maybe someone else knows where it is.

RonW
07-30-2010, 07:11 AM
Yep, Weiner is right...If you believe NO then you should vote no..

and not take bribes or be blackmailed into voting yes..

I think there will be a hell of lot of democrats who wished they voted no on the health care bill come november, instead of taking bribes..

Pugwash
07-30-2010, 07:17 AM
I think there will be a hell of lot of democrats who wished they voted no on the health care bill come november, instead of taking bribes..

Completely separate bill. This one was about providing health care specifically for 9/11 emergency responders.

Hardly a partisan or "socialist" provision.

perldog007
07-30-2010, 07:20 AM
I wish that the progressives would stop calling themselves liberals. They are anything but tolerant, open minded, and free of bigotry. Today's left makes Huckabee look like a liberal on the classic definition of the word.

RonW
07-30-2010, 07:25 AM
Completely separate bill.

So this is what a 8 year old video?

You had to go that far back to find something that weiner was right about. You are beginning to remind me of norm.

Well all I can say is, let's hope the republic is saved from the bleeding heart liberals and socialist communists as well as the thieves and treasonous bastards that are now serving on capital hill...God save the republic and let freedom ring throughout the nation..

Pugwash
07-30-2010, 07:28 AM
So this is what a 8 year old video?

You had to go that far back to find something that weiner was right about. You are beginning to remind me of norm.

.

2 days actually.

I'm glad that our political opponents are so well informed.

RonW
07-30-2010, 07:30 AM
2 days actually.

Sorry puggy, with all the real important stuff going on, it is just hard to keep track of the latest rantings by the weiners of capital hill..

Curtism
07-30-2010, 07:44 AM
Wow! It's good to see someone getting inspired on capitol hill.

Married life seems to be agreeing with Mr. Weiner.

Pugwash
07-30-2010, 07:46 AM
Sorry puggy, with all the real important stuff going on, it is just hard to keep track of the latest rantings by the weiners of capital hill..

Interesting mind set.

It takes 8 years in America to get a bill that provides adequate healthcare to 9/11 responders & even then it gets voted down along partisan lines.

And you don't think that is important? Both as a statement about how one half of the country views the other & as an example of the total dysfunction of the political process.

Next time you're bleating about "respecting" those that died on 9/11 and "Ground Zero Mosques" you might want to think about that.

ljb5
07-30-2010, 07:46 AM
... instead of taking bribes..

I don't think you know what that word means.

Representing the interests of constituents is their job, not 'a bribe.'

It could only be considered a bribe if they took the money for themselves, for their own personal use.

Stop throwing around words that you don't understand. It makes you look dumb.

RonW
07-30-2010, 07:54 AM
So Puggy, you are telling me this video is of weiner raising hell over the healthcare of 9/11 responders 9 years later...

Some might think he is a little slow, or maybe better late then never..

Besides I thought the new national healthcare package solves all...

LBJ, tell your mommy and daddy it is a dirty shame to have wasted all that money on sending you to college for all those years...what a waste of good money..

Pugwash
07-30-2010, 07:57 AM
I wish that the progressives would stop calling themselves liberals. They are anything but tolerant, open minded, and free of bigotry. Today's left makes Huckabee look like a liberal on the classic definition of the word.

Nice deflection/ troll.

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u134/Ryomalol/Random%20Stuff/trollface.png

ljb5
07-30-2010, 08:03 AM
So Puggy, you are telling me this video is of weiner raising hell over the healthcare of 9/11 responders 9 years later...

Some might think he is a little slow, or maybe better late then never..


Are you under the impression that he was the only one in Congress addressing that issue at that time?

Slow down and think, Ron. You aren't doing yourself any favors by acting dumb.

Le Bateau Ivre
07-30-2010, 08:04 AM
[QUOTE = RonW ; 2671626 ] Sì, Weiner è giusto ... Se credi NO allora si dovrebbe votare no ..

e non prendere tangenti o essere ricattato a votare sì ..

Penso che ci sarà un inferno di molti democratici che volevano hanno votato no sul disegno di legge di assistenza sanitaria di novembre , invece di prendere tangenti.. [/ QUOTE]

I always thought that only take in Italy

perldog007
07-30-2010, 08:05 AM
Thanks pug, considering the source I can't treat that as anything but praise!

RonW
07-30-2010, 08:08 AM
Now look what has happened, they are beginning to speak in tongues..

now where was the refernce to that ??

( don't you just love the bilge, never a dull moment)

Pugwash
07-30-2010, 08:19 AM
So Puggy, you are telling me this video is of weiner raising hell over the healthcare of 9/11 responders 9 years later...

Some might think he is a little slow, or maybe better late then never..


Ron, this is not old news it happened this week.

I'll do the Googler for you but I'm not going to do the reading.

http://www.google.com/search?q=gop+against+9+11+healthcare&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Come back when you know what's being talked about.

perldog007
07-30-2010, 08:20 AM
So Puggy, you are telling me this video is of weiner raising hell over the healthcare of 9/11 responders 9 years later...

Some might think he is a little slow, or maybe better late then never..

Besides I thought the new national healthcare package solves all...

LBJ, tell your mommy and daddy it is a dirty shame to have wasted all that money on sending you to college for all those years...what a waste of good money..

Actually Ron, there are 9/11 first and second responders who are still having significant health problems today. I know one crane operator who rushed in and now spends his days fighting with doctors, lawyers, and insurance companies. He's a decent guy. He deserves for his treatment to be covered.

I am not familiar with the nuances of the legislation, but am not going to accept the premise that republicans simply don't want the responders to have health care. No more than I was willing to accept the spin that the republicans wanted the economy to collapse.

The two parties have differences of opinion. Weiner's rant is just as mature and thoughtful as "YOU LIE!". True, he didn't say it to the President, but it's still immature, incendiary, and as well reasoned as the jackass who interrupted Weiner. If you can't keep it in your pants stay home. On both sides of the aisle.

The world already has plenty of combative jerks on the street. It adds nothing to the discussion. The fact that people applaud outbursts like this doesn't give me hope for anybody.

The lying, distortions, and theatrics from both sides could stand a bit of reduction IMO.

Pugwash
07-30-2010, 08:22 AM
Thanks pug, considering the source I can't treat that as anything but praise!

You're welcome.

:)

Pugwash
07-30-2010, 08:36 AM
I am not familiar with the nuances of the legislation, but am not going to accept the premise that republicans simply don't want the responders to have health care. No more than I was willing to accept the spin that the republicans wanted the economy to collapse.


I refer you to tha Googlz in post #18.

Although Faux is notably silent, so you won't find any "Fair & Balanced" reportage.

perldog007
07-30-2010, 09:36 AM
Oh I have read that the reds are complaining about the cost, the fund, yada yada yada. I don't hear any republicans saying they are against health care for responders. I don't hear any democrats saying they are for fraud and waste. As with all politics I suspect it's a bit deeper than the sound bytes we get.

Am I in favour of the legislation if it gets care to people like the crane operator I know? Yes. Do I give a rat's ass if it adds another drop to the deficit bucket? Nope, there's plenty of pork, crap, and straight up shyte than can be trimmed to make that up.

Do I believe that the republicans are really against getting taking care of 9/11 responders? No.

If one party opposes something that seemingly makes good sense, I have to suspect that their wheels aren't being properly greased. Especially when you hear bitching and whining like we heard in the Weiner/King pissing match on Faux today... ( if only Fox ALWAYS was objective, unbiased and truthful like MSNBC :D)

My point in this thread is that folks seem to forget that legislators may tend to be professional butt pirates, on both sides of the aisle. Sometimes they get to both sides of the aisle, like Specter and that other guy what's his name......

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-30-2010, 09:53 AM
So this is what a 8 year old video?

You had to go that far back to find something that weiner was right about. You are beginning to remind me of norm.

Well all I can say is, let's hope the republic is saved from the bleeding heart liberals and socialist communists as well as the thieves and treasonous bastards that are now serving on capital hill...God save the republic and let freedom ring throughout the nation..

So what's the answer ,bunky? Give the republic over to the Repugnican yo-yos that sold their souls to Wall Street. If ya want some names how about BOEHNER? PORTMAN? KASICH? TAFT? And the beardless wonder MITCH MCCONNELL.He's the numero uno money man in the US Senate. His take is down somewhat cause the Repugs ain't in the driver's seat at the moment. But make no mistake he's still got a big wad left over from the glory days when Cheney and Whatisname were running this country.
They are voting no because they see that as a way to get back in the driver's seat where the big money is.

Pugwash
07-30-2010, 09:55 AM
Oh I have read that the reds are complaining about the cost, the fund, yada yada yada. I don't hear any republicans saying they are against health care for responders. I don't hear any democrats saying they are for fraud and waste. As with all politics I suspect it's a bit deeper than the sound bytes we get.
.

Of course they're not going to come out and say "I am against healthcare for responders to 9/11".

But they do say some pretty dumb things, that just leave you wondering...


"Some of the conditions that are covered under this legislation seemed unusually broad to me because we're talking about asthma, sleep apnea, panic disorder, anxiety disorder, even substance abuse," said Kentucky (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Kentucky) Republican Rep. Ed Whitfield (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Ed+Whitfield). "It's so broad that I think it's going to cover a lot of things that may not be directly related to this incident."This "entitlement program", as it was referred to, was to be paid for by the closing of a tax loophole but that was a "tax raise for corporations" & unacceptable. I don't see anything here that isn't just partisan politics at it's worst. That's the reason that Fox news etc. is staying as far away from it as possible. You can't polish a turd, but even Faux can't get this one sprinkled with glitter.

Unlike you, I think it is about time the Democrats got very vocal about this kind of obstructionism.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-30-2010, 10:37 AM
Now look what has happened, they are beginning to speak in tongues..

now where was the refernce to that ??

( don't you just love the bilge, never a dull moment)

It's in Italian. Don't you have Italians in Cincinnati?
Italy is run by Sergio Berlusconi. He's a billionaire. Very big in football and said to have friends among the various bad boys like the Mafia. Bob Taft operated like that but no football and not smart enough to stay out of the hands of the law. Fortunately for Taft none of his crooked acquaintences ever killed anybody.

perldog007
07-30-2010, 10:59 AM
Of course they're not going to come out and say "I am against healthcare for responders to 9/11".

But they do say some pretty dumb things, that just leave you wondering...

This "entitlement program", as it was referred to, was to be paid for by the closing of a tax loophole but that was a "tax raise for corporations" & unacceptable. I don't see anything here that isn't just partisan politics at it's worst. That's the reason that Fox news etc. is staying as far away from it as possible. You can't polish a turd, but even Faux can't get this one sprinkled with glitter.

Unlike you, I think it is about time the Democrats got very vocal about this kind of obstructionism.

That's where you're
..... out of your rabbit-assed mind...... :D I have clearly stated that I favor this legislation, what I oppose is the hysterics from both Weiner and King. Of course the democrats should be vocal. Vocal doesn't mean pubescent temper tantrum.

Weiner keeps his head, let's King be wrong, then there's reason to applaud IMO. YMMV

Edited to add, Weiner has been on Fox all morning. The clip you put in the O.P., him on the steps of the Capitol, and him and King on the steps arguing with each other. One thing I admire about Weiner is that he doesn't hesitate to go on Fox and usually does very well.

perldog007
07-30-2010, 11:21 AM
Wow! It's good to see someone getting inspired on capitol hill.

Married life seems to be agreeing with Mr. Weiner.

Outbursts like that don't always indicate Marital Bliss... :D

nw_noob
07-30-2010, 11:29 AM
Cool, a legislator who actually thinks honest debate matters. Usually they just drone on and on about nothing in particular as if they already know how things are going to turn out in the end anyway... funny how we do things here.

I think the process would be improved if there were full-on brawls every once in a while like the eastern Europeans parliaments have. At least their lawmakers seem like they're fully invested in the choices they're making.

But I don't know Pug, that bit about "if it's a good idea vote yes"... that's just crazy talk.

perldog007
07-30-2010, 11:38 AM
.....
I think the process would be improved if there were full-on brawls every once in a while like the eastern Europeans parliaments have. At least their lawmakers seem like they're fully invested in the choices they're making.

But I don't know Pug, that bit about "if it's a good idea vote yes"... that's just crazy talk.

Noise. Duels, now that's being fully invested! Out of shape morons cat fighting? Not so much.. I think Weiner was right to say what he said, delivery could have been much improved IMO.

I'm not advocating mortal combat over disagreements. Just sayin'.

ljb5
07-30-2010, 11:45 AM
Do I believe that the republicans are really against getting taking care of 9/11 responders? No.

And yet, there they are.

Kinda tough to deny that, isn't it?


If one party opposes something that seemingly makes good sense, I have to suspect that their wheels aren't being properly greased.

Another possibility is that they're responding to marching orders.

The order has come down: "Oppose Everything!"

And that's what they're doing.

They have not been subtle or secretive about what they are doing, so let's not pretend there's any mystery to their obstructionism.

perldog007
07-30-2010, 12:27 PM
And yet, there they are.

Kinda tough to deny that, isn't it?



Another possibility is that they're responding to marching orders.

The order has come down: "Oppose Everything!"

And that's what they're doing.

They have not been subtle or secretive about what they are doing, so let's not pretend there's any mystery to their obstructionism.I

There isn't any mystery at all to their strategy or motives. I just don't buy that they honestly want to deny care for 9/11 responders. If their objections were addressed would the result be no care for 9/11 responders? Could it be turned around so that the republicans can ( and are) saying that the bill is being held up because democrats are unwilling to compromise?

I defend your right to swallow a party line, I prefer to start at the position that all of the legislators are sleazebags and go from there. If you want to assign purity and light to one side and sickness and hate to the other please enjoy your reality.

I am having a decent time with mine :D

paul oman
07-30-2010, 01:05 PM
Panic and fear on the left! Obviously home life with that new sexy wife of his not good, or he wouldn't be so worked up.
And more bad news for the left with Bush Tax Cuts - if dems keep them it will help the economy but piss of their base. If they let them expire more taxes and stalled economy will also cost them votes - lose/lose on that topic. Same with AZ Bill. Will drag out to election time. 2/3 of Americans like the AZ bill - the more dems/obama fight it the more votes it will cost them. Pushy big fed gov vs. small state and the will of the majority of americans - not a good strategy for election time! Current AZ ruling has the right re-motivated and the left sort of cooled down. Again, not good news for dems. -- Have never seen lower obama approval ratings on realclearpolitics.com today. And there is nothing he can do to change things - especially with congress on summer recess now. July unemployment will be out in about 10 days. With census workers etc. losing jobs, probably the unemployment number will increase from 9.5 to something higher. As jobs are a key issue, any increase is 'doom and gloom' to the dems as elections get that much closer. Sept unemployment also will probably go up as seasonal jobs end - those numbers come out in early Oct - just in time to influence the nov election. What's a dem to do but yell and shout! So did the dems save your job? Feel your job is safer than it was 2 or 3 years ago? Enjoying your free obamacare benefits? There are what voters will be pondering in the next 100 days. Wait until the republicans start advertising/reminding folks about the handful of dem congressman and sentors and wh officials accused of non-paying taxes while average americans expect more heavy taxes - and the dem promise to 'drain the swamp' that didn't happen.

The only growing support the dems/pres has is 2 million folks collecting extended unemployment and illegals who cannot legally vote. The multi minority vote block that got obama in the WH doesn't turn out much in off year elections. Rep. now have the majority support of women and independents plus much more worked up than the dems. Much less ACORN cheating this time around. Bloodbath ahead!

nw_noob
07-30-2010, 01:10 PM
Noise. Duels, now that's being fully invested! Out of shape morons cat fighting? Not so much.. I think Weiner was right to say what he said, delivery could have been much improved IMO.

I'm not advocating mortal combat over disagreements. Just sayin'.

I think you underestimate the power of fat old dudes sissy slapping one another P.D., such behavior might remind them that they're humans, not PoliticoBot3000's programed on a loop to say "no, no, no, no...".

perldog007
07-30-2010, 01:16 PM
I was a worker at the polls in 2000 ( city of Alexandria, Va.). I can't tell you how many times I had to ask for names and addresses in Spanish as English only got me a blank stare. As we know from 9/11, illegals have no problem getting a driver's license in VA. What isn't as often discussed is that the motor/voter program puts them on the rolls to vote as well.

I strongly suspect that a person who can't understand "Your name please?" is prolly not a citizen. BUT if their name is on the damn list, they get to vote, and it gets counted. ACORN wasn't involved. Not that I love them either, just sayin'.

perldog007
07-30-2010, 01:17 PM
I think you underestimate the power of fat old dudes sissy slapping one another P.D., such behavior might remind them that they're humans, not PoliticoBot3000's programed on a loop to say "no, no, no, no...".

I have to object to that because it could lead to tickle fights, which could be construed as sexual in nature, which could lead to dancing :D

nw_noob
07-30-2010, 01:30 PM
I have to object to that because it could lead to tickle fights, which could be construed as sexual in nature, which could lead to dancing :D

As long as they keep the congressional page's out of it, I can't object... it's not my thing, but hey, far be it from me to interfere with consenting adults.

MiddleAgesMan
07-30-2010, 03:48 PM
Weiner's rant was entirely appropriate, understandable, and deserved. What he was saying was, "Don't give me that BS about why procedures are keeping you from voting Yeah. Don't tell the 9/11 responders you are all for this legislation but the dems messed up our procedures and until they change those procedures I will have to oppose this legislation."

Weiner is FED UP with repub obstructionism which is exactly what this is...more of the same Party of No, We-will-vote-against-Obama's-agenda-at-every-turn-because-that-will-help-us-take-back-the-Congress-come-November.

Get it?

RonW
07-30-2010, 03:52 PM
We-will-vote-against-Obama's-agenda-at-every-turn-because-that-will-help-us-take-back-the-Congress-come-November.

Get it?

Got it.

Sounds like a good plan to me, let's hope it works.

ljb5
07-30-2010, 04:06 PM
Got it.

Sounds like a good plan to me, let's hope it works.

And if a few hundred 9/11 responders get hurt in the process, that's a price you're willing to pay?

RonW
07-30-2010, 04:16 PM
Hey Lbj, the dems have held congress for the last 4 years, now it is getting close to election time and they all of a sudden they have these big hearts..what a scam..

Face the music, these dems are every bit as big of screwups as was chenney and bush..

Capital hill is filled with lying ego stroking greedy thieves...And your bunch is as bad if not worse then the last bunch..

perldog007
07-30-2010, 04:19 PM
in the case of the 9/11 responders, I think the responsible thing to do would be to go along with it to get the care for the responders started then circle back for elements they are opposed to in the next session when presumably ( at least according to the RNC) they would be in a stronger position. That could be win/win. Right now, the current situation looks like it could be lose/lose/lose.

RonW
07-30-2010, 04:34 PM
In the case of the 9/11 responders..

Well here is you all a little dose of reality.....It is nine (9) years later, now we got this moron weiner making a show just before elections..B.S.

It sure the hell took him long enough to feel sorry for the responders, as well as the rest of capital hill..If they wanted to do something they sure the hell could have done it before now...so save the sob and tearjerk stories...

You want another tearjerker, how about this clown president named george bush sitting on his ranch in texas with a big chopper in the front lawn and waiting 4 days till he has time to fly over katrina and see all the mothers with children in the stadium with no food, water or even a blanket...

I suspect the 9/11 crowd will get the same hospitable treatment that the katrina crowd got and is still getting..save the tears.....

Hey LBj, you are too young to know, so start talking to the older crowd and find out what this country was like before the JFK assanination..there is your clue as to what happened in this country and what politics are all about.......

MiddleAgesMan
07-30-2010, 04:36 PM
One sick puppy>>>>>RonW

RonW
07-30-2010, 04:43 PM
Middle ages man--One sick puppy>>>>>RonW

Well that is O.K. and I perfectly accept it and you are entitled to your opinion...

Because my opinion is that you silly little bleeding heart liberals have no frigging clue as to what is going on in the world or what has went on.

And if we all just hold hands and sing kum bye e i and take from the rich and give to the poor all is well.....what B.S. now grow up little man..

Captain Blight
07-30-2010, 05:02 PM
Hey Lbj, the dems have held congress for the last 4 years, now it is getting close to election time and they all of a sudden they have these big hearts..what a scam..

Face the music, these dems are every bit as big of screwups as was chenney and bush..

Capital hill is filled with lying ego stroking greedy thieves...And your bunch is as bad if not worse then the last bunch..You actually believe every word you write? Do you really believe that there are no noble motives anywhere among the 538, on either side? Come on. Even I don't believe that. There's cynical, and then there's delusional.

Garret
07-30-2010, 05:11 PM
One sick puppy>>>>>RonW

Maybe, dunno. However, he's certainly date-challenged. He won't seem to understand that this is happening this week... Like yesterday & the day before - as in July of 2010.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hbFu_USPHXmnxTOR0tOnrbYrckcwD9H942U80

I'll certainly agree that there are loser Dems, but just how do the Reps spin voting against suffering 9/11 responders? Oh right, same way they spin voting against tax breaks for small business. Absolutely pitiful. Of course the legislation isn't perfect. Pass the damn thing & then come back & fix it!

I've worked for people like the current Reps: any idea the employee comes up with is stupid, but 6 months later, when the boss recycles it as his own, it's brilliant. 'course the Reps take that one step further & vote against their own ideas if the Dems bring it up. Have I said pitiful yet?

RonW
07-30-2010, 05:26 PM
However, he's certainly date-challenged

Not at all...Try reading and comprehension...Do all of you liberals read only what you want to read, or do you just interpert it to mean what you want it to mean..

I am fully aware that little weiner is playing on your sympathies and raising hell over a event that happened almost (9) years ago..

So why didn't he feel this way (8) years ago?

I guess it is election time and weiner wants to gain a few points.....awww geee...

Pugwash
07-30-2010, 05:33 PM
Hey LBj, you are too young to know, so start talking to the older crowd and find out what this country was like before the JFK assanination..there is your clue as to what happened in this country and what politics are all about.......


erm...........


[B]Major Enacted Tax Legislation, 1950-1959







Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/legislation/1950.cfm#IRC1954)
Excise Tax Reduction Act of 1954 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/legislation/1950.cfm#Excise1954)
Revenue Act of 1951 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/legislation/1950.cfm#1951)
Revenue Act of 1950 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/legislation/1950.cfm#Revenue1950)
Excess Profits Tax of 1950 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/legislation/1950.cfm#Excess1950)

Internal Revenue Code of 1954


Corporate Tax Rates. Temporarily extended 5 percentage point increase in corporate tax rates through 3/31/55.
Depreciation Deductions. Increased depreciation deductions by providing additional depreciation schedules.
Dividend Tax Credit. Created 4% dividend tax credit for individuals.


Excise Tax Reduction Act of 1954


Excise Tax Increases. Temporarily extended 1951 excise tax increases through 3/31/55.
Excise Tax Rates. Reduced excise tax rates on telephones, admissions, jewelry, etc.


Revenue Act of 1951


Individual Income Tax. Temporarily increased individual income tax rates through 1953.
Corporate Tax. Temporarily increased corporate tax rates 5 percentage points through 3/31/54.
Excise Taxes. Temporarily increased excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, and autos through 3/31/54.


Revenue Act of 1950


Individual Income Tax. Eliminated portion of the individual income tax rate reductions from 1945 and 1948 acts.
Corporate Tax. Eliminated 53% corporate tax rate "bubble"; increased top corporate rate from 38% to 45%.


Excess Profits Tax of 1950


Corporate Tax Rate. Increased top corporate tax rate from 45% to 47%.
Excess Profits Tax. Created temporary excess profits tax of 30% through 6/30/53.




And the top marginal rate was 91% from 1951-1962

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php


I'm sure things were much, much better in the 50's.

:)

Captain Blight
07-30-2010, 05:40 PM
Yeah, like getting your skull cracked by a corrupt beat cop because you were the wrong color in the right part of town, or not being able to vote because of the color of your skin, or where questioning the government could get you thrown into a mental hospital like happened to a lot of journalists post WWII. Polio pandemics and McCarthyism. Oh, my, yes. Things were ever so much better in 1958.

Garret
07-30-2010, 05:56 PM
Not at all...Try reading and comprehension...Do all of you liberals read only what you want to read, or do you just interpert it to mean what you want it to mean..

I am fully aware that little weiner is playing on your sympathies and raising hell over a event that happened almost (9) years ago..

So why didn't he feel this way (8) years ago?

I guess it is election time and weiner wants to gain a few points.....awww geee...

I bet you were the dodge-ball champ in grade school.

This is not a "Whacko makes a non-sequiter" remark. It was in response to Reps saying that they would vote against a bill this week for procedural reasons. And they did. Bet they're real proud - as you obviously are. Sick. Sad too. You try to sound like a real patriot, but you could care less about those poor bastards suffering from trying to save lives in NYC. Anything to make a political point, eh?

ljb5
07-30-2010, 06:33 PM
I am fully aware that little weiner is playing on your sympathies and raising hell over a event that happened almost (9) years ago..

So why didn't he feel this way (8) years ago?

This portion of this bill is on the floor this week.

So it does seem like the appropriate time to come out in favor of it.

I'm not sure why you're so confused about that part.

Garret
07-30-2010, 06:38 PM
This portion of this bill is on the floor this week.

So it does seem like the appropriate time to come out in favor of it.

I'm not sure why you're so confused about that part.

See my post above.... He really is confused!

MiddleAgesMan
07-31-2010, 07:32 AM
RonW sounds just like my father, whose Alzheimer's disease worked on his brain for at least 20 years, slowly taking away his ability to think but amplifying his ability to hate.

RonW
07-31-2010, 07:55 AM
middleman--RonW sounds just like my father

La -de da- da- Come november you keep voting for the weiners of the world.

In the meantime try educating yourself just a little so you don't sound like another narrow minded or uninformed liberal..



http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0730/Anthony-Weiner-rant-reveals-why-nobody-likes-Congress

Pugwash
07-31-2010, 08:44 AM
middleman--RonW sounds just like my father

La -de da- da- Come november you keep voting for the weiners of the world.

In the meantime try educating yourself just a little so you don't sound like another narrow minded or uninformed liberal..



I knew there was a reason why I liked this guy....

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-4-2010/anthony-weiner


.... he was John Stewart's roommate.


Which leaves me with the disturbing thought that my Democratic dream ticket is Franken/ Weiner.

Have fun with that.

:D

perldog007
07-31-2010, 08:47 AM
well in all fairness it looks like King is making a valid point. If the Democrats who control congress really wanted to pass this bill, they could have easily done so. Something that the republican co-sponsor King badly wants. By using this procedure the house leadership ( including Weiner) does get to make political hay out of republican obstructionism.

So evidently, it was more important to the house leadership ( certainly not all democrats ) to make a political gain than it was to pass the health care for 9/11 responders.

I guess that Pelosi is willing to make hay on the suffering of the 9/11 responders. She could have put the vote to the floor, or compromised to get it done. Instead She is using procedure, smoke, and mirrors to make a political point. Whatever happened to "if they put up a wall...."??

I guess the 9/11 responders aren't as important to her and Weiner as they are to King.

ljb5
07-31-2010, 08:54 AM
I guess the 9/11 responders aren't as important to her and Weiner as they are to King.


Hogwash. You're still carrying water for your masters.

The Republicans were given a chance to vote for the bill and they voted against it. That's the whole story right there.

And that's the point Mr. Weiner was making in his outburst.

If you really objected to political and procedural gamesmanship, you'd agree with Mr. Weiner who said, (to paraphrase) 'Vote for the bill if you like it. Don't vote for the bill if you don't like it.'

perldog007
07-31-2010, 09:04 AM
Hogwash. You're still carrying water for your masters.

After all is said and done, the Democrats voted for the bill and the Republicans voted against it.

Stop trying to spin it.


That was the point Rep. Weiner was making: Vote for the bill if you like it. Vote against it if you don't like it.

This business of voting against a bill and then claiming to be in favor of it is total hogwash --- and that's what the Republicans --- and Perldog --- keep doing on every bill.

Mr. Competence,

I am a democrat, that's a matter of public record and has been so for some time. All republicans did not vote against it, not all democrats voted for it.

King is correct, there are enough votes from both sides to pass this bill if the leadership wanted to. That's the truth. King didn't vote against it,that's also a matter of pubic record.

This is just political theatre. If this kind of procedure was used on the health care 'reform' it wouldn't have passed either. The votes are there to make this happen, the leadership can make it happen.

P.S. as a dem who supports this BIPARTISAN bill, I would rather have it passed than to have it stalled to make a political point.

MiddleAgesMan
07-31-2010, 09:27 AM
Political theatre is exactly what the repugs were setting up when they sought to amend the bill to exclude illegal aliens.

Think about it: how many illegal aliens participated in the rescue effort in the days following 9/11?

Zilch, most likely. Zero, Nada, None.

But for the sake of debate let's assume there were two such illegals who are now suffering from their exposure during the rescue efforts. Do the repugs really want to let those two guys wither and die? Do they really want to use this legislation to ferret out two illegals and send them packing?

I say, No. What the repugs were doing was setting the stage for more theatrics.

And that is just repugnant.

ljb5
07-31-2010, 09:31 AM
This is just political theatre. If this kind of procedure was used on the health care 'reform' it wouldn't have passed either. The votes are there to make this happen, the leadership can make it happen.

The leaders don't cast the votes --- the Representatives do.

And they were given a chance to do that.

When you engage in this game of 'we were fore it, but voted against it,' you're participating in the posturing and gamesmanship that you claim to decry.

If you like the bill, vote for it.

Canoeyawl
07-31-2010, 10:49 AM
But for the sake of debate let's assume there were two such illegals who are now suffering from their exposure during the rescue efforts. Do the repugs really want to let those two guys wither and die? Do they really want to use this legislation to ferret out two illegals and send them packing?

From their rhetoric I would have to say Yes, that is exactly what they want. The sooner the better. The rest of those injured responders are simply not important to their cause.

Captain Blight
07-31-2010, 11:44 AM
The leaders don't cast the votes --- the Representatives do.

And they were given a chance to do that.

When you engage in this game of 'we were fore it, but voted against it,' you're participating in the posturing and gamesmanship that you claim to decry.

If you like the bill, vote for it.
It's pretty rare to see LJ break things down so simply and still not calling anyone stupid. So I've got to weigh in in agreement: It's not as complicated as "If the leaders wanted it passed, it'd pass." It's as simple as one man, one vote. And we get to look and see how the votes were cast, and it's there in black and white for all to see: Republicans voting NO for the very weakest of reasons. And then they tell us what those weak reasons are.

This is not a lie. This is not a fantasy cut from whole cloth. It is what has happened, and is a matter of public record.

perldog007
07-31-2010, 02:20 PM
Of course it is a result of a vote. King is a republican, he co-sponsored the bill and voted for it. Most, not all republicans voted against it. Most, not all democrats voted for it.

King made the statement that if the measure were voted on the floor it would pass, true statement. The house leadership could do that. Call me all the names you wish and accuse me of carrying whatever for whomever.

Fact is, the votes are there to pass the bill if the house leadership wants to. Also factual, enough republicans have voted against it so that political hay can be made by pointing out that mostly republican opposition is stalling the bill.

If you want to use this as a reason to denigrate all republicans including the ones who voted for it, and laud all democrats including those who voted against it, go right ahead. The folks who actually decide elections aren't quite that partisan. Knock yourselves out, by all means.

ljb5
07-31-2010, 08:29 PM
If you want to use this as a reason to denigrate all republicans including the ones who voted for it, and laud all democrats including those who voted against it, go right ahead.

More than 98% of the Democrats voted for it.

More than 92% of Republicans voted against it.

Let's not pretend that's mere coincidence.

Mr. King is probably mistaken. The bill likely would not have passed a straight floor vote because it probably would not have received a straight floor vote.

The 90% of Republicans who are against it would have used that opportunity to obstruct the bill by introducing pointless, incendiary poison pill amendments.

Don't pretend they wouldn't do it --- they already did!

Think it through all the way before you respond.... What would be needed to proceed to a straight floor vote? What procedural roadblocks could the minority party use to obstruct that process?

perldog007
07-31-2010, 09:01 PM
I think King has been around long enough to know how the hill works. But feel free to interpret it however you like. To me, it means a good friend of mine will continue to have real trouble getting care while folks on the hill from both parties get their face time on.

ljb5
07-31-2010, 11:52 PM
I think King has been around long enough to know how the hill works.

So has Ms. Pelosi. And she knew that exposing this bill to a straight floor vote would entail exposing it to Republican obstructionism.

Don't try to pretend that it wouldn't happen ---- it already happened. The Republicans declared their intent to kill this bill or weigh it down with 'poison pill' amendments.



To me, it means a good friend of mine will continue to have real trouble getting care while folks on the hill from both parties get their face time on.

More than 90% of Democrats voted for it.

More than 90% of Republicans voted against it.

There can be no confusion about who is putting 'face time' before your friend's well being.

Osborne Russell
08-01-2010, 09:51 AM
Not at all...Try reading and comprehension...Do all of you liberals read only what you want to read, or do you just interpert it to mean what you want it to mean..

I am fully aware that little weiner is playing on your sympathies and raising hell over a event that happened almost (9) years ago..


In your mind, he is complaining to Congress about 9/11?

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-01-2010, 11:39 AM
Not at all...Try reading and comprehension...Do all of you liberals read only what you want to read, or do you just interpert it to mean what you want it to mean..

I am fully aware that little weiner is playing on your sympathies and raising hell over a event that happened almost (9) years ago..

So why didn't he feel this way (8) years ago?

I guess it is election time and weiner wants to gain a few points.....awww geee...

It works like this, Ronnie. In the houses of congress there are legislative calenders loaded with bills of all sorts. All the bills cannot be debated all the time. A congressperson would look kind of dumb speechafying about health care if the bill under consideration was aimed at price supports for jalapen'o peppers.
Am I making any headway here?

perldog007
08-01-2010, 12:07 PM
So has Ms. Pelosi. And she knew that exposing this bill to a straight floor vote would entail exposing it to Republican obstructionism.

Don't try to pretend that it wouldn't happen ---- it already happened. The Republicans declared their intent to kill this bill or weigh it down with 'poison pill' amendments.




More than 90% of Democrats voted for it.

More than 90% of Republicans voted against it.

There can be no confusion about who is putting 'face time' before your friend's well being.

So you are saying that King is lying about there being enough votes to pass the bill? I am basing my position on what the co-sponsor of the bill said. He did not defend republican opposition of the bill, he also did not defend the procedure. Was this the same procedure that passed the health care reform? I thought that was voted on the floor like King wants this one to be.

I believe that the republicans did everything they could to stop the health care reform bill. I have no problem with being wrong, where am I off track here? Would the health care reform have passed under this standard?

ljb5
08-01-2010, 12:32 PM
So you are saying that King is lying about there being enough votes to pass the bill?

He is definitely speculating beyond his ability to know.

In order for this bill to even come up for a vote, it would have to go through a long and convoluted process. There is no doubt that the Republicans intended to alter the bill in that process.

Who knows what the bill might end up looking like at the end of that process? Certainly Mr. King does not know and cannot say for certain that the votes would be there for this bill in this form.

perldog007
08-02-2010, 10:55 AM
How then did the health care reform bill pass the house?

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-02-2010, 12:52 PM
How then did the health care reform bill pass the house?

You forgot altready? Every other RED in The Bilge was whining and snorting over how it was done. It was a neat and legal parliamentary trick.
The house leaders voted to not vote on their own version of the bill but to vote on whether to accept the Senate's version of the bill with the assurance that certain of the Senate's provisos would be subject to amendment later on.
I hope I got that right.
In any event there Repugnicans got eucred right out of their socks. I heard tell that Mitch (The Beardless Wonder) McConnell had to take smelling salts to keep from breaking into pitious wailing.

ljb5
08-02-2010, 07:58 PM
How then did the health care reform bill pass the house?

Well, for one thing, it suffered through about a year of delay and several rounds of revision -- largely due to obstructionism and outright lies from Republicans.

There is an expression, P-doggy: "There is many a slip twixt cup and lip."

The U.S. Congress is a complicated and convoluted place. It is not reasonable to expect that any two pieces of legislation might traverse it along the same path.

When more than 98% of the majority party supports a bill in its current, written form, it is not unreasonable that they should want to see it passed into law in its current written form.

To do otherwise would be to expose it to all manner of delay, obstruction, modification and poison pill amendments by the bitter, obstructionist minority party.

If you don't believe that would happen, you are fooling no one but yourself, for surely you're not fooling anyone here.

perldog007
08-02-2010, 08:06 PM
I never said anything about not having amendments and changes. Compromise and deal making are what happens on the hill. What the health care reform bill tell me is that if the majority wants to get something done they can. YMMV. So your'e taking the position that if the bill can't be passed the way the majority wants it then that baby should get tossed with the bathwater?

I can't blame the failure to pass on the vote on anybody but the republicans. My question is does it make more sense to yell and scream like a couple of jerks ( King and Weiner) or does it make more sense to roll up sleeves and get it done?

ljb5
08-02-2010, 08:12 PM
Compromise and deal making are what happens on the hill.

You are so naive. :rolleyes:


So your'e taking the position that if the bill can't be passed the way the majority wants it then that baby should get tossed with the bathwater?

I'm taking the position that standing by your convictions is not always a bad thing.... and compromising with liars and obstructionists is not necessarily a good thing.

When a majority of Congress approves of the bill as written, it is not unreasonable to want to see it passed in its current form.

Why is it wrong that they should want to see the bill passed in a timely, direct manner without stupid poison pill amendments attached?


I can't blame the failure to pass on the vote on anybody but the republicans.

You can't... but go ahead and give it a try anyway. :rolleyes:

perldog007
08-02-2010, 08:22 PM
There is nothing wrong with wanting something. I want Kim Bassinger's arms around my waist and 60k in small bills hiding in my saddlebag as I twist the wick on my mint condition '82 sport glide. Not a thing wrong with that. Holding my breath and stomping my feet because is ain't so may tend to prove less than productive.

So the democrats never lie, obstruct or attach stupid amendments? On what planet? If the majority wants to approve a measure to fund health care for 9/11 first responders then that's what they need to do. They have run over the reds before, they can do it now. Or we can watch people yell and scream and make political points.

Ironically, I think it could be argued that Weiner is telling the truth, and so is King. Unfortunately their righteousness doesn't help the folks who are fighting lawyers to get to doctors.

So you are advocating standing on principle in order to call out the reds instead of getting it done, not surprising. I am saying cut the partisan crap and get it passed, again no surprise. The universe is unfolding as it should :)

ljb5
08-02-2010, 09:17 PM
So the democrats never lie, obstruct or attach stupid amendments?

Not in this case, they didn't. And if you'd been paying attention for the last few years, you'd know the difference.

P-dog, what's your deal here?

You pretend to be a Democrat, but you bend over backwards to criticize them (in this case, accusing them of something they have not done)... and you argue incessantly.

Why?

More than 98% of the Democrats voted for this bill.

More than 90% of the Republicans voted against it.

Are you really so confused?

You claim to support this bill, yet you argue incessantly against those who voted for it.

Give it a rest, dude.

================================================== ==================================

BTW: I suspect Congress will eventually pass this bill, perhaps through some other procedure. It will probably take longer (has already been delayed) and might be somewhat altered in the process.

Knowing that the Republicans intend to obstruct this bill and attach poison pill amendments, I cannot fault the Democrats for trying to get it passed quickly, in its unaltered form, with large majority support.

I'm really amazed that you're spending so much time trying to blame them for passing a bill you claim to support.

perldog007
08-03-2010, 01:26 AM
And I am continually amazed by the number of folks around here who seem to have binary logic when it comes to matters political. Democrat does not mean blind. Partisan means blind, no matter what the party affiliation.

ljb5
08-03-2010, 07:21 AM
And I am continually amazed by the number of folks around here who seem to have binary logic when it comes to matters political. Democrat does not mean blind. Partisan means blind, no matter what the party affiliation.

More than 98% of the Democrats voted for this bill.

More than 90% of the Republicans voted against it.

Do not try to pretend that I am the one who made this a partisan issue.

Why are you trying to pretend it's not a partisan issue?

You claim to be a Democrat and you claim to support this bill, yet all of your arguments (which are becoming increasingly dumb) are aimed against the Democrats who voted for this bill.

Do you see why a person might be a little skeptical about you?

Art Read
08-03-2010, 08:27 AM
"....When a majority of Congress approves of the bill as written, it is not unreasonable to want to see it passed in its current form...."

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____

Gonna save that little nugget for after the fall. (pun intended)

ljb5
08-03-2010, 09:53 AM
When one party wants to turn the country into a socialistic country and the other party wants to wage war on the world as well as turn the nation into a police state. There are a awfull lot of people that disagree with both agendas.

But you go ahead and blindly follow and defend anything the radical left is doing.

Yes... it's all part of my evil plan to provide health care to 9/11 First Responders. :rolleyes:


"....When a majority of Congress approves of the bill as written, it is not unreasonable to want to see it passed in its current form...."

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____

Gonna save that little nugget for after the fall. (pun intended)

When (and If) the Republicans take control of Congress, I expect they will pass this bill and claim it as their own (if it hasn't passed by then). They probably won't even mention the fact that they obstructed it. I suspect the Democrats will not obstruct it either.

TomF
08-03-2010, 02:58 PM
Originally Posted by perldog007

I wish that the progressives would stop calling themselves liberals. They are anything but tolerant, open minded, and free of bigotry. Today's left makes Huckabee look like a liberal on the classic definition of the word.


Originally Posted by jbelow

I agree. The progressives are a retarded version of liberals. Libtards best describes them.

Let's preserve the irony of that posting for posterity, OK?

perldog007
08-03-2010, 11:15 PM
More than 98% of the Democrats voted for this bill.

More than 90% of the Republicans voted against it.

Do not try to pretend that I am the one who made this a partisan issue.

Why are you trying to pretend it's not a partisan issue?

You claim to be a Democrat and you claim to support this bill, yet all of your arguments (which are becoming increasingly dumb) are aimed against the Democrats who voted for this bill.

Do you see why a person might be a little skeptical about you?

Given your conduct and apparent need to launch personal attacks it's a badge of honor that you are skeptical about me. Thank you.

Keith Wilson
08-03-2010, 11:21 PM
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?But a marmot isn't a woodchuck, is it?

TomF
08-04-2010, 08:06 AM
But a marmot isn't a woodchuck, is it?It's a woodchuck with an accent.

Pugwash
08-05-2010, 05:20 AM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-4-2010/i-give-up---9-11-responders-bill

;)

John Smith
08-05-2010, 07:07 AM
Daily show coverage

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-4-2010/i-give-up---9-11-responders-bill

huisjen
08-05-2010, 07:36 AM
Oh my dog, he's growing pubic hair on his chin.

Dan