PDA

View Full Version : Repiglicans VoteAgainstHealthAid 4 9/11 Responders



Gayle in MD
12-09-2010, 07:35 PM
Those same 9/11 responders, who went rushing into burning buildings, working for days on end, to dig through the crumbled buildings, trying to save people, breathing in the muck as they went, have now been denied health coverage, by the Repiglicans.

Guiliani, was the one who told them it was safe.

They took him at his word, and kept plowing through the toxic poisons.

For all of the Repiglican photo op, Rah Rah Rah, showing up wearing firemen's hats, praising the NYFD...they have shown their only concern is for millionaires, and billionaires, but those first responders, who are now so ill, and many of them dying, can go fly a kite, as far as REPIGLICANS are concerned.

What a bunch of repulsive, disgusting P'sOS!

Common SOB's if ever I've seen any!


<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>PIGS! </span> </span>

G.

sack316
12-09-2010, 10:29 PM
I had mentioned this in another thread:
http://www.billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=328976&gonew=1#UNREAD

Sack

LWW
12-10-2010, 03:26 AM
Proof again how treacherously deceitful the democrooks are ... and how easily duped be their minions.

LWW

Deeman3
12-10-2010, 04:19 AM
The time the Democrats can maneuver a bill just to make another attempt to play politics to make the Republicans appear unjust are now passing into history. The recent call for votes just to do this again are so shallow, even the moderate Dems and the Times see through it.

Harry Reid is still trying by attaching a pro on-line poker clause to the tax extension bill! I think this shows the importance the top Democratic Senator places on the process.

Sack, the far, far left will buy this but seeing the revelations of who pushed Reid over the line in his recent election win! Who were his biggest contributors this year? On-line poker advocated who he opposed just 2short years ago!

And we thought Rangel was corrupt! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

LWW
12-10-2010, 04:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On-line poker advocated who he opposed just 2short years ago!</div></div>

Through the miracle of doublethink one can be both for and against anything.

Witness Komrade Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it!" statement.

LWW

Qtec
12-10-2010, 05:05 AM
You are confused, again!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The time the Democrats can maneuver a bill just to make another attempt to play politics to make the Republicans appear unjust are now passing into history. </div></div>

There is a bill to fund 9-11 responders health costs that is a result from them breathing in dust at the WTC site.

Dems want to give them the money, the Republicans don´t.

Where am I wrong?

Q

LWW
12-10-2010, 05:30 AM
You are wrong in that you willingly swallow the pill the party feeds you and ignore the turd it is wrapped within.

LWW

Stretch
12-10-2010, 06:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are wrong in that you willingly swallow the pill the party feeds you and ignore the turd it is wrapped within.

LWW </div></div>

Classic avoidance. St.

LWW
12-10-2010, 06:52 AM
I apologize that the logic used was, again, beyond your ability to follow.

LWW

Stretch
12-10-2010, 07:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I apologize that the logic used was, again, beyond your ability to follow.

LWW </div></div>

You should apologize, the logic used (your logic) is incompatible with common sense. St.

Gayle in MD
12-10-2010, 07:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I had mentioned this in another thread:
http://www.billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=328976&gonew=1#UNREAD

Sack </div></div>

I read that thread, and decided to launch one of my own, since I found yours to be slanted, and inaccurate.

Is there some rule against that, that I am unaware of?

Your statements, made no sense to me at all.

Republicans were going to vote against providing the money for the first responders, suffering from the toxins they inhaled, as they put their lives at risk, after 9/11, all along. That was very clear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4zwCMf8dsc&feature=related

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>From your own link: </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the bill is not adopted by the current Congress, its supporters will have start over again next year. With Republicans set to take control of the House, passing the bill in that chamber will be extremely difficult, the bill’s supporters say. That is a large part of the reason backers of the measure were pleading with Senate leaders to get it passed by this Congress.

</div></div>

Do you have any opinion on THE SUBJECT of my thread?

THE SUBJECT, of my thread, is not legislature format, the SUBJECT is Republicans blocking money for health aid, for these American heroes, while insisting that unless they get a much more expensive tax cuts for millionaires, and billionaires, which will add far more to the deficit, with no value to a recovery, or they wilol obstruct everything, including unemployment for our suffering unemployed, right a Christmas time.

Do you hve an opinion on that, or not?

G.

eg8r
12-10-2010, 08:16 AM
Political posturing at its worse.

eg8r

eg8r
12-10-2010, 08:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a bill to fund 9-11 responders health costs that is a result from them breathing in dust at the WTC site.

Dems want to give them the money, the Republicans don´t.

Where am I wrong?

</div></div>You are wrong because this has nothing to do with the Reps denying any money at this point in time to first responders. What the Reps are saying is that you don't get a tax bill unless it is fair to everyone. The Dems are trying to sneak this into that tax bill in an effort to say the Reps don't want to give money to 9/11 responders.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-10-2010, 08:24 AM
Again, if you have an opinion about the subject of my thread, say so.

If not, you can go to Sack's thread, where the subject is focused on opinions about the legislative process, rather than the<span style='font-size: 14pt'> SICKENING </span>fact of <span style='font-size: 14pt'>REPIGLICANS</span> all voting <span style='font-size: 14pt'>against providing medical aid for our first responders, </span>while insisting on continuing with <span style='font-size: 14pt'>huge tax advantages for the top two percent,</span> and throwing deficit concerns out the window, after yapping about deficits for two plus years, and obstructing everything that could have helped the dying, suffering middle class.

G.

Gayle in MD
12-10-2010, 08:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The time the Democrats can maneuver a bill just to make another attempt to play politics to make the Republicans appear unjust are now passing into history. The recent call for votes just to do this again are so shallow, even the moderate Dems and the Times see through it.

Harry Reid is still trying by attaching a pro on-line poker clause to the tax extension bill! I think this shows the importance the top Democratic Senator places on the process.

Sack, the far, far left will buy this but seeing the revelations of who pushed Reid over the line in his recent election win! Who were his biggest contributors this year? On-line poker advocated who he opposed just 2short years ago!

And we thought Rangel was corrupt! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>


Moot point.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the bill is not adopted by the current Congress, its supporters will have start over again next year. With Republicans set to take control of the House, passing the bill in that chamber will be extremely difficult, the bill’s supporters say. That is a large part of the reason backers of the measure were pleading with Senate leaders to get it passed by this Congress.

</div></div>

the point is obvious. Repiglicans will add many multi billions to the deficit for the wealthy, but not for American heroes.

any opinion on the actual suject of this thread?

G.

Qtec
12-10-2010, 09:13 AM
Why is it fair to borrow $700 B to give more money to those who don't need it?

The Responders Bill is less than $8 B.

ie, $8B to those who desperately need it <u>has</u> to be paid for but the $700B handout <u>does not</u>.



Q

Qtec
12-10-2010, 09:22 AM
You reduce taxes when you have a surplus, not when you have a massive deficit.

Then again, there is a good reason why the tax rates should stay the same for the 98% but no good reason to borrow more from the Chinese to give to the richest Americans.

Q

Deeman3
12-10-2010, 10:18 AM
Money will have to be borrowed for any of the tax decreases, be they for one group or another.

Gayle in MD
12-10-2010, 10:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Money will have to be borrowed for any of the tax decreases, be they for one group or another. </div></div>

The subject of what is honorable, and what is not, as regards extra debt, is actually what this thread is about.

Increasing the deficit for the benefit of those who don't need the money, at all, compared to increasing the deficit for those who risked their lives and health in our time of emergency who are now ill, and need our help.

It's obvious who the Republicans stand for, and who they are more than willing to throw off the bus.

G.

LWW
12-10-2010, 10:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, if you have an opinion about the subject of my thread, say so.

If not, you can go to Sack's thread, where the subject is focused on opinions about the legislative process, rather than the<span style='font-size: 14pt'> SICKENING </span>fact of <span style='font-size: 14pt'>REPIGLICANS</span> all voting <span style='font-size: 14pt'>against providing medical aid for our first responders, </span>while insisting on continuing with <span style='font-size: 14pt'>huge tax advantages for the top two percent,</span> and throwing deficit concerns out the window, after yapping about deficits for two plus years, and obstructing everything that could have helped the dying, suffering middle class.

G. </div></div>

Them why don't they make it a stand alone bill and allow it to pass?

What's that?

They don't actually want it to pass?

They want to use these poor souls as political stage props?

I already knew that.

LWW

sack316
12-10-2010, 11:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Do you hve an opinion on that, or not?
</div></div>

Yeah, my opinion is that I could propose a "Kill all cute puppies" bill, which I know you will not be supporting. Then I'll add an amendment into it, proposing we feed all poor families this Christmas.

Well, you'll surely still have to vote against the bill, as you didn't want to kill all cute puppies. And then I'll be on TV and all over the internet talking about how you don't care about the poor.

Of course, that's a rather extreme example, but the logic is the same and both parties do it. It's disgusting and we're the ones who suffer for it. That's my opinion.

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-10-2010, 12:29 PM
The subject of what is honorable, and what is not, as regards extra debt, is actually what this thread is about.

Increasing the deficit for the benefit of those who don't need the money, at all, compared to increasing the deficit for those who risked their lives and health in our time of emergency who are now ill, and need our help.

It's obvious who the Republicans stand for, and who they are more than willing to throw off the bus.

G.

eg8r
12-10-2010, 01:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, if you have an opinion about the subject of my thread, say so.

</div></div>Again, the Dems are guilty of political posturing.

eg8r

sack316
12-10-2010, 03:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The subject of what is honorable, and what is not, as regards extra debt, is actually what this thread is about.

Increasing the deficit for the benefit of those who don't need the money, at all, compared to increasing the deficit for those who risked their lives and health in our time of emergency who are now ill, and need our help.</div></div>

Well in that case, on that specific note, then I'm fully behind you. Take care of the brave people and the victims of a tragedy they had no choice in... regardless of the cost. We won't disagree there.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's obvious who the Republicans stand for, and who they are more than willing to throw off the bus.
</div></div>

To you yes, I'm sure that's your perspective and that's fine. Some others of us happen to feel the democrats are using this for political gain rather than altruistic reasons.

Sack

Deeman3
12-10-2010, 04:59 PM
Democrats using this bill to make then other side appear unfeeling? What would make us think that?

Apparently, only she can change the tone or subject of a thread, not us!

That leaving the only appropriate reply to her as, "Yes, they will drown those cute little puppies!" Anyone notice a very large shuffle step by Obama to the center, quickly punished by the far left by Pelosi and the gang? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Problem is, even Obama is admitting or lying that he believes no taxes can be allowed to go up in the depths of this recession. He knows the shell game is coming to it's bitter, pragmatic end and is doing what they think is selling out for a possible second term even calling in Clinton for strategy. Notice it was Billy, not Jimmy Carter he asked for a "phone a friend" and insuring a rough night in the Clinton bedroom this evening!

No posts about the increased renditions, tripling of drone attacks and extending of the Gitmo mission or a single comment on the sliding of the Afghan exit from July 2011 until 2019?Nope, those evil righties drowning more cuddly puppies!

Gee, I wish I could google a place in history where the Democrats had held one bill hostage to another but, of course, they never have!

sack316
12-10-2010, 05:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Anyone notice a very large shuffle step by Obama to the center,</div></div>

Yeah, credit to him maybe he listened in November!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> quickly punished by the far left by Pelosi and the gang? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

I feel bad for him, really. May be only my opinion here, but seems to me he is actually the only one following through on efforts at bipartisanship. And his reward? Now he just gets burned at both sides of the stake!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No posts about the increased renditions, tripling of drone attacks and extending of the Gitmo mission or a single comment on the sliding of the Afghan exit from July 2011 until 2019?Nope, those evil righties drowning more cuddly puppies!</div></div>

Nope, word is deafly silent on those topics. I've also noticed daily death tolls being reported are no longer the fad, either. Which, I am glad for... it was disgusting to begin with to lead seemingly every news broadcast with such a story... but still odd that it suddenly stopped the last couple of years?

It's sad almost to the point that it's comical... and I mean that for both sides, not just one or the other.

Sack

sack316
12-10-2010, 05:19 PM
p.s. glad you appreciated my scenario /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

Deeman3
12-10-2010, 05:32 PM
Yes, the nightly death toll stopped in January 2009, I pointed it out at the time but no one called it out as media bias at the time! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I did see Nancy Pelosi doing her seal clap at the Nobel Awards today! Wonder if she and her entourage were there working to find more American jobs? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

What a tool she is! Still trying to burn all the jet fuel she can until the last minute......

sack316
12-10-2010, 05:42 PM
don't knock her Deeman, her botox injections saved or created countless jobs in the medical field! She does what makes her happy (I'm pretty sure anyway, can't really tell if she's smiling or not)

Sack

Stretch
12-11-2010, 02:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, the nightly death toll stopped in January 2009, I pointed it out at the time but no one called it out as media bias at the time! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I did see Nancy Pelosi doing her seal clap at the Nobel Awards today! Wonder if she and her entourage were there working to find more American jobs? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

What a tool she is! Still trying to burn all the jet fuel she can until the last minute...... </div></div>

What do you mean? She could have saved a lot of money by seating her entourage in the Chinese section, there was lots of room. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif St.

Gayle in MD
12-11-2010, 06:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The subject of what is honorable, and what is not, as regards extra debt, is actually what this thread is about.

Increasing the deficit for the benefit of those who don't need the money, at all, compared to increasing the deficit for those who risked their lives and health in our time of emergency who are now ill, and need our help.</div></div>

Well in that case, on that specific note, then I'm fully behind you. Take care of the brave people and the victims of a tragedy they had no choice in... regardless of the cost. We won't disagree there.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's obvious who the Republicans stand for, and who they are more than willing to throw off the bus.
</div></div>

To you yes, I'm sure that's your perspective and that's fine. Some others of us happen to feel the democrats are using this for political gain rather than altruistic reasons.

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">That doesn't fly, Because Democratics have spent months upon months, trying to get it passed in the Senate, long before now, and Republicans were blocking it throughout!!! Did you even bother to watch the clip-????

You apparently don't know how long Republicans have been blocking it.

The Democratics know this is their last chance, to get help for those people, so they are trying to get it through, obviously thinking that with the bi-partisahsip displayed by the president, MAYBE Republicans will cooperate this time.

Did they??? Hell no! Do you think any Republicans have written any Bills, trying to help those first responders? They had the majority fo0r years after 9/11. Did thjey give a damn? Hell No!

Look what they're doing now? blocking the repeal of Don't ask Don't Tell, when every single military general, has spoken up for getting it done, and doing it now, then republicans will turn around next election, and say the Democratics and President Obama, didn't keep their word.

They will run up the deficit with these ridiculous tax cuts for the billionaires, and millionaires, and then they will blame the president for the deficits THEY insisted on!

Sorry Sack, your statement doesn't fly. Maybe it would, if not for the FACT that Democratics have been on board and committed to helping these people for years, consistantly, while Republicans have refused to compromise on it at all. They have been against helping the first responders who are ill all along.

While I realize, you'd like to muddy up the waters with your accusation against Democratics, from your VERY partisan poinbt of view, of course, with your accusation, but your accusation, is false.

Democtatics have proven over time, this, helpping the first responders, has been their goal, and Republicans have been against it ALL ALONG!

They make me sick!

This thread is about Republicans did to our first responders, period!

YOUR POINT, IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. ONLY THE DEMOCRATICS HAVE TRIED TO HELP OUR NOW VERY ILL, FIRST RESPONDERS! ONLY the Democratic Majority!

G.

</span>

pooltchr
12-11-2010, 07:33 AM
Once again, Gayle thinks it all comes down to one fact...Republicans are evil, and Democrats are saints!

How foolish can one person be?


Steve

Gayle in MD
12-11-2010, 07:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">don't knock her Deeman, her botox injections saved or created countless jobs in the medical field! She does what makes her happy (I'm pretty sure anyway, can't really tell if she's smiling or not)

Sack </div></div>

Have you ever seen Nancy Pelosi?
I have. She has NOT had botox. I have a slew of friends, who have had it, and I can tell when I see it.

That is yet another RW myth. She has wrinkles around her eyes, and on her forehead, which has muscles that move, with her facial expressions, and she does not have the look of having used Botox...

I have four friends I see every week, all of whom have had loads of botox. I know exactly what it looks like, and Nancy Pelosi, hasn't had it.


If you want a good look at what Botox looks like, just take a long look at Cindy McCain, and you'll see it.

G.

LWW
12-11-2010, 07:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Once again, Gayle thinks it all comes down to one fact...Republicans are evil, and Democrats are saints!

How foolish can one person be?


Steve </div></div>

That's how agitprops view the world.

LWW

sack316
12-11-2010, 10:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">don't knock her Deeman, her botox injections saved or created countless jobs in the medical field! She does what makes her happy (I'm pretty sure anyway, can't really tell if she's smiling or not)

Sack </div></div>

Have you ever seen Nancy Pelosi?
I have. She has NOT had botox. I have a slew of friends, who have had it, and I can tell when I see it.

That is yet another RW myth. She has wrinkles around her eyes, and on her forehead, which has muscles that move, with her facial expressions, and she does not have the look of having used Botox...

I have four friends I see every week, all of whom have had loads of botox. I know exactly what it looks like, and Nancy Pelosi, hasn't had it.


If you want a good look at what Botox looks like, just take a long look at Cindy McCain, and you'll see it.

G. </div></div>

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/03/jon_stewart_razzes_pelosi_on_h.php Funny /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I can also tell when I see it. Yep, I'd say Cindy McCain has had it. You say Pelosi hasn't had it... ok. And Michael Jackson only had 2 nose jobs. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-11-2010, 10:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">don't knock her Deeman, her botox injections saved or created countless jobs in the medical field! She does what makes her happy (I'm pretty sure anyway, can't really tell if she's smiling or not)

Sack </div></div>

Have you ever seen Nancy Pelosi?
I have. She has NOT had botox. I have a slew of friends, who have had it, and I can tell when I see it.

That is yet another RW myth. She has wrinkles around her eyes, and on her forehead, which has muscles that move, with her facial expressions, and she does not have the look of having used Botox...

I have four friends I see every week, all of whom have had loads of botox. I know exactly what it looks like, and Nancy Pelosi, hasn't had it.


If you want a good look at what Botox looks like, just take a long look at Cindy McCain, and you'll see it.

G. </div></div>

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/03/jon_stewart_razzes_pelosi_on_h.php Funny /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I can also tell when I see it. Yep, I'd say Cindy McCain has had it. You say Pelosi hasn't had it... ok. And Michael Jackson only had 2 nose jobs. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack </div></div>

She's italian, most Italians do age well.

Say whatever you wish, Sack, but I'e seen Nancy Pelosi, and she has not had botox.

But, there are lots of things that Dermatologists do these days, to undo some of the results of aging.

When it comes to botox, thought, it's very easy to tell.

Just don't play any poker with women who have had it, LOL.

G.

Deeman3
12-11-2010, 10:58 AM
St. you have that right! It is a shame he is in prison, speaks a lot for the Chinese system, their only Nobel winner they have locked up.

sack316
12-11-2010, 11:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
She's italian, most Italians do age well.

Say whatever you wish, Sack, but I'e seen Nancy Pelosi, and she has not had botox.

But, there are lots of things that Dermatologists do these days, to undo some of the results of aging.

When it comes to botox, thought, it's very easy to tell.

Just don't play any poker with women who have had it, LOL.

G. </div></div>

LOL, and fair enough /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

I still believe she has had it, the way her face moves (or doesn't at times) just appears that way to me... or she had a stroke or bell's palsy that we are not aware of! But yes, to be completely fair, you are correct that there are a wealth of other treatments these days that could do the trick. And I am also currently talking to a lovely lady of Italian descent who is 12 years my senior, but certainly looks younger than me (naturally sand an occasional laser treatment). So your contention is certainly plausible.

Hey, look at it this way. If she is indeed mostly natural... at 66 (IIRC) then these are some of the best compliments she could get! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-11-2010, 11:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
She's italian, most Italians do age well.

Say whatever you wish, Sack, but I'e seen Nancy Pelosi, and she has not had botox.

But, there are lots of things that Dermatologists do these days, to undo some of the results of aging.

When it comes to botox, thought, it's very easy to tell.

Just don't play any poker with women who have had it, LOL.

G. </div></div>

LOL, and fair enough /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

I still believe she has had it, the way her face moves (or doesn't at times) just appears that way to me... or she had a stroke or bell's palsy that we are not aware of! But yes, to be completely fair, you are correct that there are a wealth of other treatments these days that could do the trick. And I am also currently talking to a lovely lady of Italian descent who is 12 years my senior, but certainly looks younger than me (naturally sand an occasional laser treatment). So your contention is certainly plausible.

Hey, look at it this way. If she is indeed mostly natural... at 66 (IIRC) then these are some of the best compliments she could get! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack </div></div>

Actually, She's seventy, and looks fabulous, IMO.

I had four aunts, on my Italian side. None of them ever looked their age, or did my Dad, or his brothers.

She looks about sixty, up close, ten years younger, which is about par for the couurse, with Italians.

G.

pooltchr
12-11-2010, 11:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
She looks about sixty, up close, ten years younger, which is about par for the couurse, with Italians.

G. </div></div>

I will take your word for it, as I have no desire to get up close to her to verify for myself.
The farther I am from her, the happier I will be.

Steve

eg8r
12-11-2010, 12:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That doesn't fly, Because Democratics have spent months upon months, trying to get it passed in the Senate, long before now, and Republicans were blocking it throughout!!! Did you even bother to watch the clip-????

</div></div>I really don't want to watch any biased videos. Can you just please post the exact bill names/numbers that the Dems brought up to pay for this? I am sure they are bills that are specific to only paying first responders but I could be wrong.

eg8r

eg8r
12-11-2010, 12:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's how agitprops view the world.

</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Definition of AGITPROP
: propaganda; especially : political propaganda promulgated chiefly in literature, drama, music, or art
</div></div> A little help please, considering this defintion whom would you be referring to? I have seen little reference to literature, drama, music or art. I did remember someone on here posting some videos and music that was not so nice against W and Obama so I guess those people would be guilty of the title.

eg8r

LWW
12-11-2010, 03:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you ever seen Nancy Pelosi?
I have. She has NOT had botox. I have a slew of friends, who have had it, and I can tell when I see it.

G. </div></div>

I seriously doubt that you can. A board on plastic surgery has a different opinion than you:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am watching the State of the Union and Nancy Pelosi is seated right behind Obama.
have never stared at this dumb woman's face for an hour straight before. Nancy Pelosi's plastic surgery is annoying me. I think she has cheek implants and a nose job. Her forehead hasn't moved once and that spells B-O-T-O-X.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">She's had a facelift, eyelift, veneers, a full body lift, breast lift, otoplasty, fillers, and some suspect she has some work done to enhance her hairline.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, I think Botox is the tip of the iceberg for Nancy Pelosi!

Her cheek implants are fairly obvious. At her age she should not have such large implants because there's less on her face to cover them up. But I think Nancy Pelosi's face lift and eye lift are a much bigger problem.</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.plasticsurgeryspot.com/celebrity-plastic-surgery/1080-has-nancy-pelosi-had-plastic-surgery.html)

Shooting down the myth's of Gee is so simple.

LWW

LWW
12-11-2010, 03:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's how agitprops view the world.

</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Definition of AGITPROP
: propaganda; especially : political propaganda promulgated chiefly in literature, drama, music, or art
</div></div> A little help please, considering this defintion whom would you be referring to? I have seen little reference to literature, drama, music or art. I did remember someone on here posting some videos and music that was not so nice against W and Obama so I guess those people would be guilty of the title.

eg8r </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>Agitprop is a portmanteau of agitation and propaganda.</span>[1] The term originated in Bolshevist Russia (the future Soviet Union), where the term was a shortened form of отдел агитации и пропаганды (otdel agitatsii i propagandy), i.e., Department for Agitation and Propaganda, which was part of the Central and regional committees of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The department was later renamed Ideological Department.</div></div>

Put simply ... an agitprop is one who uses various forms of media, and granted the web did not exist at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution, to promote the ideology dictated by the party and to keep the masses in a state of perpetual agitation by convincing them that thje party and only the party can save and protect them.

Your short definition is referring to what the leftists used across Europe after the revolution which was called "agitprop theater" and is copied by Hollywood today, as is witnessed by Hollywood's favorite villain being the capitalist industrialist and it's favorite heo being the underpaid and overworked public servant which saves the world from the evils of the capitalist industrialist.

LWW

PER YOUR REQUEST. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agitprop)

Stretch
12-11-2010, 07:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=eg8r]<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's how agitprops view the world.

</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Definition of AGITPROP
: propaganda; especially : political propaganda promulgated chiefly in literature, drama, music, or art
</div></div> A little help please, considering this defintion whom would you be referring to? I have seen little reference to literature, drama, music or art. I did remember someone on here posting some videos and music that was not so nice against W and Obama so I guess those people would be guilty of the title.

eg8r </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>Agitprop is a portmanteau of agitation and propaganda.</span>[1] The term originated in Bolshevist Russia (the future Soviet Union), where the term was a shortened form of отдел агитации и пропаганды (otdel agitatsii i propagandy), i.e., Department for Agitation and Propaganda, which was part of the Central and regional committees of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The department was later renamed Ideological Department.</div></div>

Put simply ... an agitprop is one who uses various forms of media, and granted the web did not exist at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution, to promote the ideology dictated by the party and to keep the masses in a state of perpetual agitation by convincing them that thje party and only the party can save and protect them.

LWW

That is a PERFECT description of what you do, thanks. St.

Qtec
12-12-2010, 02:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I really don't want to watch any biased videos. </div></div>

How do you know they are biased if you haven't watched them?

Q

Qtec
12-12-2010, 02:27 AM
Try and keep on topic guys. The Republicans will sooner see New York burn, the whole country in a depression rather than than compromise with a Dem majority. All they are interested is in power. You need a third party.

Q

Gayle in MD
12-12-2010, 07:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Try and keep on topic guys. The Republicans will sooner see New York burn, the whole country in a depression rather than than compromise with a Dem majority. All they are interested is in power. You need a third party.

Q </div></div>

Thwarting the topic of every thread, is their only hope for their continued denial of facts.

If they can trash a good thread, by diverting it to name calling, and absurd, irrelevent accusations, that's far better for them than to have to admit to the "oink factor" of the Republican Party, without conscience.

Not one post in this thread expressing any OUTRAGE, over the Republicans throwing the ill and suffering first responders under the bus, as they push for more money for the top percent of Crooks in this couuntry.

Bush oversaw the biggest redistribution of wealth to the top two percent, of any time in our history.

Everyone should see the movie, "THE SHOCK DOCTRINE" and then ask themselves why Bush and Paulson let Lehmann Brothers, fail. Same reason why Bush did nothing to stop the 9/11 terrorists, after eight months of unprecedented warnings.

G.

Gayle in MD
12-12-2010, 10:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Democrats using this bill to make then other side appear unfeeling? What would make us think that?

<span style="color: #990000">LMAO, did you write, "appear unfeeling?" BWA HA HA HA....The Democratics surely don't have to introduce a bill, in order for people to see who Republicans support, and who they consistantly throw under the bus, Deeman. All we have to do is look at the government chatts, to see who grows the government, who grows the deficits, and ezpands the governent, and who always loses economically, when Republicans run the show.</span>

Apparently, only she can change the tone or subject of a thread, not us!

<span style="color: #990000"> I think we should all make an effort, to stick to debating the subject, and avoid posting personal ridicule of others here.</span>

That leaving the only appropriate reply to her as, "Yes, they will drown those cute little puppies!"
<span style="color: #990000">Yes, just thwart the thread away from what Republicans did, over to Gayle. Typical tactic. </span>

Anyone notice a very large shuffle step by Obama to the center, quickly punished by the far left by Pelosi and the gang? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Problem is, even Obama is admitting or lying that he believes no taxes can be allowed to go up in the depths of this recession. He knows the shell game is coming to it's bitter, pragmatic end and is doing what they think is selling out for a possible second term even calling in Clinton for strategy. Notice it was Billy, not Jimmy Carter he asked for a "phone a friend" and insuring a rough night in the Clinton bedroom this evening!

<span style="color: #990000">LOL... </span>

No posts about the increased renditions, tripling of drone attacks and extending of the Gitmo mission or a single comment on the sliding of the Afghan exit from July 2011 until 2019?Nope, those evil righties drowning more cuddly puppies!


<span style="color: #990000">I'm against boots on the ground, in Afghanistan. The rest of yoour accusations, I have not seen any documentation for, but you should really post them, if you have them, as I don't approve of torture, as you well know, nor of secret renditions.

If you can prove this administration is doing so, then provide a link. </span>

Gee, I wish I could google a place in history where the Democrats had held one bill hostage to another but, of course, they never have! </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000">No, they never have held unemployment checks back, in order to get assurances of tax cuts for te top two percent, who don't even need them.

Stick to the subject of the thread, please.

G. </span>

Deeman3
12-12-2010, 10:50 AM
Your the last person to order that someone should stick to a subject in a thread! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
12-12-2010, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your the last person to order that someone should stick to a subject in a thread! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Why do you paint it as an order?
it's something I am working on, myself.

I think it would improve things around here.

Also, FYI, Democratics, as I stated all along, have been trying to pass this bill for months upon months, and Republicans have a history of blocking it.

September 8, 2010 5:51 PM

9/11 Responders Health Bill Will Get New Vote, Reps Vow




Lawmakers from New York promised today that the House will hold another vote on a bill to provide $7.4 billion in aid to 9/11 first responders before the month is out.


The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which failed to pass in the House this past July, would provide free health care and compensation payments to 9/11 rescue and recovery workers who fell ill after working in the trade center ruins.





Democratic Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler issued a joint statement today saying that House Democratic leadership has promised to bring the bill up for another vote after Congress comes back from its summer recess.


"We anticipate that the bill will be taken up the second week we are back in session and will be considered under regular order, with the expectation and belief that neither side will play politics with this vitally-important legislation," they said.


Most Republicans this summer voted against the bill, complaining that Democrats chose to bypass voting on amendments, opting instead for a process that sped up the vote but required a two-thirds majority. The measure received 255 votes, but it failed to get the two-thirds needed to pass. This time around, the bill will only need a simple majority to pass.



Democratic Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler issued a joint statement today saying that House Democratic leadership has promised to bring the bill up for another vote after Congress comes back from its summer recess.


"We anticipate that the bill will be taken up the second week we are back in session and will be considered under regular order, with the expectation and belief that neither side will play politics with this vitally-important legislation," they said.


Most Republicans this summer voted against the bill, complaining that Democrats chose to bypass voting on amendments, opting instead for a process that sped up the vote but required a two-thirds majority. The measure received 255 votes, but it failed to get the two-thirds needed to pass. This time around, the bill will only need a simple majority to pass.



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015896-503544.html



Dems Expect 9/11 ‘First Responders’ Bill To Pass Today
September 29 2010

CongressDaily: “At the urging of what one aide called 12 ‘pushy’ New York lawmakers, House Democratic leaders plan to bring to the floor this day legislation that would extend health-care aid to 9/11 first responders. … The $7.4 billion measure would provide health monitoring and treatment benefits to first responders and survivors of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. … The bill’s supporters told the leadership they want to challenge Republican opponents of the measure to cast another recorded vote against it and force them to defend those votes. House Republicans have stated the bill creates ‘a big new entitlement program’ and oppose the reopening of the compensation fund.” (Fung, 9/29).


The Hill: “The bill is expected to get the 218 votes needed to pass; it garnered 255 votes in July when it came up under suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds majority for passage” (Pecquet, 9/28).


This is part of Kaiser Health News’ Daily Report – a summary of health policy coverage from more than 300 news organizations. The full summary of the day’s news can be found here and you can sign up for e-mail subscriptions to the Daily Report here. In addition, our staff of reporters and correspondents file original stories each day, which you can find on our home page.




http://med-updates.com/public-health/dems-expect-911-first-responders-bill-to-pass-today/



Republican obstructionism delayed the 9/11 first responders aid bill
I have to disagree somewhat with Jeff’s last post blaming the Democrats as well as the Republicans for the failure to pass the bill. King was supposed to get enough Republican but couldn’t because they claimed the bill was a massive new entitlement program. They were going to kill the bill by attaching a poison pill, an amendment that would have prohibited any help at all going to any first responder who was not here legally.

I agree with those who say that any first responder, regardless of citizenship status, should get help. And the Republicans knew the Democrats would vote against such an odious amendment but they would use that vote to accuse them of giving millions to ‘illegals’ in sound bite driven campaign commercials.

It was really sleazy of the Republicans. King was diverting attention away from his failure to get Republican support by attaching amendments he knew the Democrats would reject. The Democrats finally got smart and forced the Republicans’ hand and called them out for their naked partisanship. Good for them.



http://blahgblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/0...nders-aid-bill/ (http://blahgblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/republican-obstructionism-delayed-the-911-first-responders-aid-bill/)



The 9/11 Bill and Political Maneuvering
Posted by Kate Pickert Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 6:41 pm
28 Comments • Related Topics: congress, democrats, gop, health care, Immigration, politics, senate,
Today the House passed a bill to provide $7.4 billion to monitor, treat and compensate those who worked at Ground Zero after the 9/11 attacks. It's still unclear if the bill will pass the Senate intact, but it was still a victory for proponents nonetheless.

The bill is noteworthy for the effect it could have on the medics, firemen and volunteers who inhaled toxic dust while they dug through the rubble at Ground Zero in search of survivors and remains. It's also noteworthy because its history shows how members from both sides of the aisle routinely mount political attacks under the guise of legislating.

Yes, this happens all the time, but the 9/11 bill provides an illustrative example that's too perfect not to describe.

Close observers of politics and Youtube might remember when Anthony Weiner lost his cool on the House floor back in July.



Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/09/29/the-911-bill-and-political-maneuvering/#ixzz17uzhnVOl





In the clip, Weiner accuses Republicans of “wrapping their arms around Republicans rather than doing the right thing on behalf of the heroes!” Here's what Weiner's tirade and today's House vote were really all about. The short version: political posturing. The long version:

The first House vote on the 9/11 bill was brought up in a way requiring a 2/3 majority vote to pass and prohibiting any amendments. Enough Republicans voted against the bill for it to fall short of a 2/3 majority not because they didn't support the bill itself, but because they wanted the chance to offer amendments. Specifically, they wanted to offer an amendment that would exclude illegal immigrants from the benefits provided in the bill. Allowing this amendment to be offered would have forced Democrats to take a tough stand on illegal immigrants in a way that most likely would have divided them and made them vulnerable to political attacks later on. Democrats would not allow this.

The result was that the 9/11 bill did not pass, despite having, at that time, fairly broad bipartisan support.

Then today, Democrats brought the bill up again under normal House rules. This meant they were basically assured passage, but had to stomach Republican proposals to change the bill. Republicans were eager for this opportunity because it gave them a chance to offer what's called a “motion to recommit.” The Republican motion, as it turns out, had almost nothing to do with the 9/11 bill.

Instead, the motion would have rolled back a few key provisions in the Affordable Care Act, particularly those that are highly unpopular or easy to caricature. The motion would have, for example, repealed the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a 15-member independent panel created by the ACA and charged with figuring out ways to cut Medicare payment rates to keep them from increasing so quickly. (Political attack version: “Mr. Congressman voted to ration Medicare.”) The motion would have also yanked $100 million in funding in the ACA for a health center at the University of Connecticut. (Political attack version: “Ms. Congressman voted for a sweetheart deal for Connecticut at the expense of taxpayers.”) Additionally, the motion would have enacted strict malpractice reform, setting a 3-year statute of limitations on malpractice claims and capping non-economic damages at $250,000. (Political attack version: “Mr. Congressman voted against tort reform.” Version 2: “Mr. Congressman voted for tort reform.”)

Republicans knew their motion to recommit had no chance of passing. The purpose of offering it was to force House Democrats to take another vote on health care reform.

How many votes on the Affordable Care Act are Democrats going to be forced to make? A lot more, if today is any guide. Over in the Senate, Republican Mike Enzi offered a bill today that he knew would fail. It would have repealed the grandfathering provisions in the ACA; it went down 40-59. (Political attack version: “Mr. Senator voted against allowing you to keep your health insurance even if you like it.”)

Today's votes make you wonder about the viability of rolling back even the most unpopular pieces of the Affordable Care Act. More centrally, they also make you wonder how much our great legislative body could accomplish if they did away with symbolic, purely political maneuvers.



Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/09/29/the-911-bill-and-political-maneuvering/#ixzz17v0ImbSu


<span style="color: #990000">How can Democratic be accused of playing partisan politics, when they've been trying to pass this for months upon months, and Republicans blocked it every tiime, in the Senate????

G. </span>

Gayle in MD
12-12-2010, 11:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The subject of what is honorable, and what is not, as regards extra debt, is actually what this thread is about.

Increasing the deficit for the benefit of those who don't need the money, at all, compared to increasing the deficit for those who risked their lives and health in our time of emergency who are now ill, and need our help.</div></div>

Well in that case, on that specific note, then I'm fully behind you. Take care of the brave people and the victims of a tragedy they had no choice in... regardless of the cost. We won't disagree there.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's obvious who the Republicans stand for, and who they are more than willing to throw off the bus.
</div></div>

To you yes, I'm sure that's your perspective and that's fine. Some others of us happen to feel the democrats are using this for political gain rather than altruistic reasons.

Sack </div></div>

AGain, here is proof that Democratics have been trying to pass this bill for First REsponders, for months upon months, so again, I tink your accusation, is wrong.

September 8, 2010 5:51 PM

9/11 Responders Health Bill Will Get New Vote, Reps Vow




Lawmakers from New York promised today that the House will hold another vote on a bill to provide $7.4 billion in aid to 9/11 first responders before the month is out.


The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which failed to pass in the House this past July, would provide free health care and compensation payments to 9/11 rescue and recovery workers who fell ill after working in the trade center ruins.





Democratic Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler issued a joint statement today saying that House Democratic leadership has promised to bring the bill up for another vote after Congress comes back from its summer recess.


"We anticipate that the bill will be taken up the second week we are back in session and will be considered under regular order, with the expectation and belief that neither side will play politics with this vitally-important legislation," they said.


Most Republicans this summer voted against the bill, complaining that Democrats chose to bypass voting on amendments, opting instead for a process that sped up the vote but required a two-thirds majority. The measure received 255 votes, but it failed to get the two-thirds needed to pass. This time around, the bill will only need a simple majority to pass.



Democratic Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Jerrold Nadler issued a joint statement today saying that House Democratic leadership has promised to bring the bill up for another vote after Congress comes back from its summer recess.


"We anticipate that the bill will be taken up the second week we are back in session and will be considered under regular order, with the expectation and belief that neither side will play politics with this vitally-important legislation," they said.


Most Republicans this summer voted against the bill, complaining that Democrats chose to bypass voting on amendments, opting instead for a process that sped up the vote but required a two-thirds majority. The measure received 255 votes, but it failed to get the two-thirds needed to pass. This time around, the bill will only need a simple majority to pass.



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20015896-503544.html



Dems Expect 9/11 ‘First Responders’ Bill To Pass Today
September 29 2010

CongressDaily: “At the urging of what one aide called 12 ‘pushy’ New York lawmakers, House Democratic leaders plan to bring to the floor this day legislation that would extend health-care aid to 9/11 first responders. … The $7.4 billion measure would provide health monitoring and treatment benefits to first responders and survivors of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. … The bill’s supporters told the leadership they want to challenge Republican opponents of the measure to cast another recorded vote against it and force them to defend those votes. House Republicans have stated the bill creates ‘a big new entitlement program’ and oppose the reopening of the compensation fund.” (Fung, 9/29).


The Hill: “The bill is expected to get the 218 votes needed to pass; it garnered 255 votes in July when it came up under suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds majority for passage” (Pecquet, 9/28).


This is part of Kaiser Health News’ Daily Report – a summary of health policy coverage from more than 300 news organizations. The full summary of the day’s news can be found here and you can sign up for e-mail subscriptions to the Daily Report here. In addition, our staff of reporters and correspondents file original stories each day, which you can find on our home page.




http://med-updates.com/public-health/dems-expect-911-first-responders-bill-to-pass-today/



Republican obstructionism delayed the 9/11 first responders aid bill
I have to disagree somewhat with Jeff’s last post blaming the Democrats as well as the Republicans for the failure to pass the bill. King was supposed to get enough Republican but couldn’t because they claimed the bill was a massive new entitlement program. They were going to kill the bill by attaching a poison pill, an amendment that would have prohibited any help at all going to any first responder who was not here legally.

I agree with those who say that any first responder, regardless of citizenship status, should get help. And the Republicans knew the Democrats would vote against such an odious amendment but they would use that vote to accuse them of giving millions to ‘illegals’ in sound bite driven campaign commercials.

It was really sleazy of the Republicans. King was diverting attention away from his failure to get Republican support by attaching amendments he knew the Democrats would reject. The Democrats finally got smart and forced the Republicans’ hand and called them out for their naked partisanship. Good for them.



http://blahgblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/0...nders-aid-bill/ (http://blahgblog.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/republican-obstructionism-delayed-the-911-first-responders-aid-bill/)



The 9/11 Bill and Political Maneuvering
Posted by Kate Pickert Wednesday, September 29, 2010 at 6:41 pm
28 Comments • Related Topics: congress, democrats, gop, health care, Immigration, politics, senate,
Today the House passed a bill to provide $7.4 billion to monitor, treat and compensate those who worked at Ground Zero after the 9/11 attacks. It's still unclear if the bill will pass the Senate intact, but it was still a victory for proponents nonetheless.

The bill is noteworthy for the effect it could have on the medics, firemen and volunteers who inhaled toxic dust while they dug through the rubble at Ground Zero in search of survivors and remains. It's also noteworthy because its history shows how members from both sides of the aisle routinely mount political attacks under the guise of legislating.

Yes, this happens all the time, but the 9/11 bill provides an illustrative example that's too perfect not to describe.

Close observers of politics and Youtube might remember when Anthony Weiner lost his cool on the House floor back in July.



Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/09/29/the-911-bill-and-political-maneuvering/#ixzz17uzhnVOl





In the clip, Weiner accuses Republicans of “wrapping their arms around Republicans rather than doing the right thing on behalf of the heroes!” Here's what Weiner's tirade and today's House vote were really all about. The short version: political posturing. The long version:

The first House vote on the 9/11 bill was brought up in a way requiring a 2/3 majority vote to pass and prohibiting any amendments. Enough Republicans voted against the bill for it to fall short of a 2/3 majority not because they didn't support the bill itself, but because they wanted the chance to offer amendments. Specifically, they wanted to offer an amendment that would exclude illegal immigrants from the benefits provided in the bill. Allowing this amendment to be offered would have forced Democrats to take a tough stand on illegal immigrants in a way that most likely would have divided them and made them vulnerable to political attacks later on. Democrats would not allow this.

The result was that the 9/11 bill did not pass, despite having, at that time, fairly broad bipartisan support.

Then today, Democrats brought the bill up again under normal House rules. This meant they were basically assured passage, but had to stomach Republican proposals to change the bill. Republicans were eager for this opportunity because it gave them a chance to offer what's called a “motion to recommit.” The Republican motion, as it turns out, had almost nothing to do with the 9/11 bill.

Instead, the motion would have rolled back a few key provisions in the Affordable Care Act, particularly those that are highly unpopular or easy to caricature. The motion would have, for example, repealed the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a 15-member independent panel created by the ACA and charged with figuring out ways to cut Medicare payment rates to keep them from increasing so quickly. (Political attack version: “Mr. Congressman voted to ration Medicare.”) The motion would have also yanked $100 million in funding in the ACA for a health center at the University of Connecticut. (Political attack version: “Ms. Congressman voted for a sweetheart deal for Connecticut at the expense of taxpayers.”) Additionally, the motion would have enacted strict malpractice reform, setting a 3-year statute of limitations on malpractice claims and capping non-economic damages at $250,000. (Political attack version: “Mr. Congressman voted against tort reform.” Version 2: “Mr. Congressman voted for tort reform.”)

Republicans knew their motion to recommit had no chance of passing. The purpose of offering it was to force House Democrats to take another vote on health care reform.

How many votes on the Affordable Care Act are Democrats going to be forced to make? A lot more, if today is any guide. Over in the Senate, Republican Mike Enzi offered a bill today that he knew would fail. It would have repealed the grandfathering provisions in the ACA; it went down 40-59. (Political attack version: “Mr. Senator voted against allowing you to keep your health insurance even if you like it.”)

Today's votes make you wonder about the viability of rolling back even the most unpopular pieces of the Affordable Care Act. More centrally, they also make you wonder how much our great legislative body could accomplish if they did away with symbolic, purely political maneuvers.



Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/09/29/the-911-bill-and-political-maneuvering/#ixzz17v0ImbSu


<span style="color: #990000"><span style='font-size: 17pt'> As I stated, elsewhere, you apparently don't realize how long Democratics have been fighting with Republicans, trying to get this help for our first responders. How could it be a political ploy, when Demcs have fought for these people all along, and Republicans have blocked it all along, for political purposes...



G.</span></span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

pooltchr
12-12-2010, 11:40 AM
I'm confused how anyone can be for paying a group of people who actually have jobs with rather generous pay, benefits, and pension plans for doing their job, while fighting unemployment benefits extension.

Steve

eg8r
12-12-2010, 07:37 PM
Is that realy what you are interested in or is it the fact that the Dems are playing political games with these people's health?

eg8r

eg8r
12-12-2010, 07:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Try and keep on topic guys. The Republicans will sooner see New York burn, the whole country in a depression rather than than compromise with a Dem majority. </div></div>Why are you so averse from hearing opinions that differ from yours?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-13-2010, 08:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are wrong in that you willingly swallow the pill the party feeds you and ignore the turd it is wrapped within.

LWW </div></div>

Classic avoidance. St. </div></div>

The same old Looney Tunes, from the same old nutjob.

The brain washing of the right, by the wealthy pigs, had been so thorough, they practice suspension of critical thinking skills, as a way of life.

Why did the economy crash? Republoican deregulatory policies, dating all the way back to REagan.

why are we behind Asian countries in dealoing with our energy threats, which Carter warned us about?

Because Republicans have protect the oil industry, and denied global warming, including 98% of the most respected Scientists in the world.

why has al Qaeda franshised all around the world?

Because Bush gave them the greatest recruitment tool they ever had, he tortured innocent prosiners, who were rounded up by untrustworthy Afghani's, for money, and hauled off to secret prisons.

Why is it difficult to try these people?

Becuase of the Bush Torture program.

Why is it difficult to close Gitmo?

Because of Bush's torture program.

Why is unemploymennt an on-going problem?

Because Bush subsidized corporations for outsourcing jobs.

Because Bush's administration, crashed the global economy, by looking the other way, while the crooks at the top, stole from all of the rest of us.

Why is China burrying us?

Because Bush borrowed us into a debt hole, and Bush, prevented progress in dealing with the energy challenges, in order to protect the OIL industry, as did REAGAN.

Why are we having a hard time recovering from thiis recession, nearly Bush's global Depression, which Bush said could last as long as a decade?

BECAUSE REPUBLICANS HAVE OBSTRUCTED THE RECOVERY, BLOCKING EVERYTHING, AND ANYTHING, BY USING LEGISLATIVE TRICKS, TO DO SO.

Why is it that Boehner can't stop crying?

BECAUSE OF HIS GUILT! HE KNOWS, THAT HE, AND HIS PARTY, RUINED THE FUTURE OF COMING GENERATIONS, WITH THEIR POLICIES, AND NJOW, IT'S TOO LATE TO CARVE OUT A DECENT FUTURE FOR AMERICA.

WHAT DESTROYED OUR COUNTRY?

REPUBLICAN POLICIES, OF EXPANDING GOVERNMENT, LAUNCHING WARS, CUTTING TAXES, FAILING TO REGULATE THE MARKETS, AND SPENDIING LIKE DRUNKEN SAILORS, WHILE BORROWING TO PAY FOR ALL OF IT.

G.

pooltchr
12-13-2010, 08:43 AM
Ed,
You must have learned by now that the strongest motivating factor of the left is their overwhelming hatred of conservatives.

Just read their posts. There is one directly above this one that is nothing but spewing of vile hatred of the last administration. Even the thread title is designed to insult the right.

They have no serious understanding of issues, but are happy to have the party tell them what to think. And if the party tells them to hate Republicans, then they will gladly hate Republicans.

I'm coming to the conclusion that having a civil conversation with some of the posters here is impossible, since they have their preconceived notions that no matter what anyone from the right says, it must be wrong, and they must be evil.

It's sad to see anyone with so much hatred filling them. But that is what they choose to do. They just aren't happy unless they have someone to attack. It seems to be what some of them live for.

Take away the target of their hatred, and they have nothing left to live for.

Steve

eg8r
12-13-2010, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The same old Looney Tunes, from the same old nutjob.

</div></div>Name calling is OK?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-13-2010, 11:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The same old Looney Tunes, from the same old nutjob.

</div></div>Name calling is OK?

eg8r </div></div>

That's not name calling, it's just a fact, lol. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Hey, any opinions on the Republicans blocking health care aid for our ill heroes, who were out there trying to save lives on 9/11?

Nah, didn't think so.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
G.

pooltchr
12-13-2010, 12:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[

he tortured innocent prosiners,

G. </div></div>

Would you care to share the facts that support your contention that the prisoners were innocent? Or is this just more of your twisted inflamatory drivel? How do you know these terrorists were innocent?

And what exactly did Bush do to torture them?

Steve

eg8r
12-13-2010, 01:19 PM
So name calling is ok as long as it is you doing it?

eg8r

pooltchr
12-13-2010, 01:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So name calling is ok as long as it is you doing it?

eg8r </div></div>

Gayle can do no wrong. And anyone who challenges her is evil.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

Gayle in MD
12-13-2010, 06:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So name calling is ok as long as it is you doing it?

eg8r </div></div>


Any opinions on the subject of the thread, Ed?

Are you proud of the Repiglicans, for throwing the first responders of the 9/11 disaster, under the bus?

I know I'm proud, of the way the Democratics have fought for the 9/11 survivors, and responders.

No wonder you'd like to change the subject over to one of your silly little games.

Hey, when you can admit that you've lied about Valarie Plame, on this site, for years and years...then you can be taken seriously...

G.

Gayle in MD
12-13-2010, 06:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is that realy what you are interested in or is it the fact that the Dems are playing political games with these people's health?

eg8r </div></div>

ANOTHER LIE!

eg8r
12-13-2010, 07:16 PM
What part is the lie?

eg8r

Qtec
12-13-2010, 08:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> See, what was missing from Johnson's ode was what actually happened. The House passed the bill, known as the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, in September with strong bipartisan support. Then something really ugly happened. <u>Senate Republicans decided to refuse a vote on any legislation that didn't deal with millionaires getting a tax cut, and filibustered the bill. That's right, every single Republican in the Senate voted against moving the debate to the floor, and as a result, the Senate was three votes shy of sending it to the floor for a final vote.</u>

</div></div>

Got it now?

Q

sack316
12-13-2010, 09:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> See, what was missing from Johnson's ode was what actually happened. The House passed the bill, known as the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, in September with strong bipartisan support. Then something really ugly happened. <u>Senate Republicans decided to refuse a vote on any legislation that didn't deal with millionaires getting a tax cut, and filibustered the bill. That's right, every single Republican in the Senate voted against moving the debate to the floor, and as a result, the Senate was three votes shy of sending it to the floor for a final vote.</u>

</div></div>

Got it now?

Q </div></div>

AH, so the democrats could have voted on the tax bill that republicans AND the president want, but they don't want to do that. And they throw THIS in the mix... knowing darn well what the result would be. Sounds a lot like what I said in the first place in the other thread about posturing and building up talking points/ammo for 2012.

Sack

Deeman3
12-13-2010, 10:08 PM
I am shocked that you would suspect those high morals Democrats of such a tactic! Shocked I say! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Qtec
12-14-2010, 01:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And they throw THIS in the mix... knowing darn well what the result would be. </div></div>

read this (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/nyregion/10health.html?_r=2&hp)

It certainly shows where the republican priorities lie.
7.4 Billion for HC treatment for 9/11 heroes is too much.
700 Billion for Wall St fat cats is an absolute must.

Q.........they could have voted Yes. They don't HAVE to vote no.

Gayle in MD
12-14-2010, 06:24 AM
And talk about double think!!!

Who has been trying to get this done for our first responders, and who has been consistantly blocking it, for YEARS!

It's THAT simple.

RW slanting is always so convoluted. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Qtec
12-14-2010, 06:29 AM
I'm shocked you would believe that crap. You are an intelligent guy, there is no need for it.

This bill, as bipartisan as you can get, the GOP blocked it.

S,funny. eg8r seems to think that everyone should get a tax cut because its fair, but the Republicans don't want any money to go to HC for people who don't have a US passport- even if they were first responders on 9/11 and now have health problems.

Fair?

Q

eg8r
12-14-2010, 07:13 AM
If they have been trying to get this money then which standalone bills did they put it in?

eg8r

Qtec
12-15-2010, 02:05 AM
link (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h847/show)

Q

LWW
12-15-2010, 03:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[

he tortured innocent prosiners,

G. </div></div>

Would you care to share the facts that support your contention that the prisoners were innocent? Or is this just more of your twisted inflamatory drivel? How do you know these terrorists were innocent?

And what exactly did Bush do to torture them?

Steve </div></div>

Here's Q's POV:

- When AQ said the Bush regime tortured them, they were telling the truth and it is a sin to question them.

- When AQ says the Obama regime tortures them, they are liars and it is a sin to listen to them.

- Torture is whatever the spoon wielder says torture is ... up to and including leaving a caterpillar in a detainee's cell.

LWW

LWW
12-15-2010, 04:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> link (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h847/show)

Q </div></div>

Why did Harry Reid vote against it?

LWW

Qtec
12-15-2010, 04:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> link (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h847/show)

Q </div></div>

Why did Harry Reid vote against it?

LWW </div></div>


<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Don't you know?</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Do I have to school you on US parliamentary procedure?</span>


A simple search would tell you but you don't want to know.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="color: #990000">Last night (9 December) the bill was denied, as the GOP, who have decided to filibuster every Democrat bill, swept this one aside too. Every Republican opposed the bill and all Democrats except one supported it.<span style='font-size: 26pt'> Harry Reid, Majority Leader voted “no” to preserve his right to call a second cloture vote. </span></span></div></div>


http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/pacificwar/265.jpg

Q........LOL

eg8r
12-15-2010, 08:34 AM
Yep, he is playing the cards trying to buy time. Hopefully nothing on this will be decided until the new Congress is put in place. The American people have already stated they don't want the current crop to make any more decisions.

eg8r

eg8r
12-15-2010, 08:35 AM
Thanks. I wonder now, why did the Dems wait for 2 years to even bring the bill to the House, why did they wait another year and a half to approve it in the House, then have Reid vote against it in hopes to buy time. Ultimately they try and sneak it into a tax bill. WHAT IS THE FREAKING RUSH!!!! YOU HAVE BEEN SITTING ON THIS FOR FOUR YEARS NOW!!!

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-15-2010, 08:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, the nightly death toll stopped in January 2009, I pointed it out at the time but no one called it out as media bias at the time! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I did see Nancy Pelosi doing her seal clap at the Nobel Awards today! Wonder if she and her entourage were there working to find more American jobs? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

What a tool she is! Still trying to burn all the jet fuel she can until the last minute...... </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000"> Pretty presumptuous of you Dee.

As usual, you post sarcasm, no links, no documentation, and then presume you know how others think about things, which you have never even documented.

But worse than that, I take extreme offence, that you would steal one of my marvelous political observative spins, Laura Bush's Seal Clap, and use it against the current, excellent, Democratic Speak Of The House.

I expect that sort of lack of individuality from the LameBrains from AZ, but not from you, lol... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif



I was always for more use of drones. Your other assertions, as far as I know, are just assertions, since without a link, I don't know if they're true.

Secondly, If bush hadn't tortured people, letting them loose, or taking them to court, wouldn't be such a difficult proposition.

I know of no docuumentation, on increased Rendition, however, I am against that sort of thing, regardless of who is doing it, just as I have written, here, many times, that I am against boots on the ground, anywhere in the Middle East, regardless of which president puts them there, and I'm against War, in general, unless there is an immediate threat to all of us here in america, which I have not seen, in many decades, in spite of all the dead soldiers, since WWII...

A total waste, of life and treasure, as far as I am concerned.

</span>

Gayle in MD
12-15-2010, 08:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks. I wonder now, why did the Dems wait for 2 years to even bring the bill to the House, why did they wait another year and a half to approve it in the House, then have Reid vote against it in hopes to buy time. Ultimately they try and sneak it into a tax bill. WHAT IS THE FREAKING RUSH!!!! YOU HAVE BEEN SITTING ON THIS FOR FOUR YEARS NOW!!!

eg8r </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'> Nothing highlights your ignorance of a subject, as much as your own questions.

You should read up on how our government works, occasionally, before you allow yourself to develop such rigid beliefs.

Reid had to vote against it, in order to bring the Bill back up again.

It is part of the Senate Rules.

Go look it up!

G. </span>

eg8r
12-15-2010, 08:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nothing highlights your ignorance of a subject, as much as your own questions.

You should read up on how our government works, occasionally, before you allow yourself to develop such rigid beliefs.

Reid had to vote against it, in order to bring the Bill back up again.

It is part of the Senate Rules.

Go look it up!

G.
</div></div>Apparently you did not get any last night. Let's see if you can comprehend this...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">have Reid vote against it in hopes to buy time. </div></div>I knew why Reid voted against it, TO BUY TIME!!! Buying time means he will get another shot at voting for it.

Why did the Dems wait TWO FULL FREAKING YEARS BEFORE BRINGING THIS BILL TO THE HOUSE FOR A VOTE?

WHY DID THE DEMS WAIT 1.5 YEARS TO VOTE?

WHY IS THE SENATE NOW TRYING TO REAM IT UP YOUR REAR IN LESS THAN A MONTH???


eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-15-2010, 09:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nothing highlights your ignorance of a subject, as much as your own questions.

You should read up on how our government works, occasionally, before you allow yourself to develop such rigid beliefs.

Reid had to vote against it, in order to bring the Bill back up again.

It is part of the Senate Rules.

Go look it up!

G.
</div></div>Apparently you did not get any last night.
<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>OK, that's it for you, Ed.

I don't post back and forth with anyone here who aims FILTHY, personal attacks at me. You always go way too far, like most kids do.

You never know a thing abuot what you post about anyway. This post is just more proof of that. </span> </span>


Let's see if you can comprehend this...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">have Reid vote against it in hopes to buy time. </div></div>I knew why Reid voted against it, TO BUY TIME!!! Buying time means he will get another shot at voting for it.

Why did the Dems wait TWO FULL FREAKING YEARS BEFORE BRINGING THIS BILL TO THE HOUSE FOR A VOTE?

WHY DID THE DEMS WAIT 1.5 YEARS TO VOTE?

WHY IS THE SENATE NOW TRYING TO REAM IT UP YOUR REAR IN LESS THAN A MONTH???


eg8r </div></div>

eg8r
12-15-2010, 09:09 AM
LOL, so you get to attack but you can't take it back. I guess that is what happens when you open your mouth and you are proven wrong. I knew why Reid voted that way and I posted it but your own anger did not allow you to read what I actually posted. I pointed it out and asked more questions. You know you cannot answer my questions honestly without hurting your position against the Reps so you run and hide.

I will be honest, this board has been a lot nicer when you don't respond. Your negativity and attacks on the users who disagree with you leave this place very negative.

eg8r

pooltchr
12-15-2010, 09:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I will be honest, this board has been a lot nicer when you don't respond. Your negativity and attacks on the users who disagree with you leave this place very negative.

eg8r </div></div>

I don't think I have ever read a more accurate assessment.

Steve

Qtec
12-15-2010, 07:37 PM
Buy time for what? Giving first responders the help they need?

Very simply.


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>This bill passed the house with bipartisan support.</span>

The Dems thought that passing it in the Senate<span style='font-size: 17pt'> would be a FORMALITY.</span>
That's why they did it on a 2/3rds majority. It was also a means to stop any pork being added to the bill. A straight yes or no.

The GOP voted no.


The GOP negotiated for more than a year on the HC reform bill, then they voted no.
Wall St reform, same thing.
The Stimulus, same thing.


To the GOP, 7 Billion for heroes is too much, 700 Billion for the top 1% is not enough.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Q

Qtec
12-15-2010, 07:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I will be honest, this board has been a lot nicer when you don't respond. Your negativity and attacks on the users who disagree with you leave this place very negative.

eg8r </div></div>

I don't think I have ever read a more accurate assessment.

Steve </div></div>


I don't think I have ever read so much BS on one page.


<span style='font-size: 26pt'>Yet ANOTHER POST that attacks the poster and not the content of their posts.
</span>


You guys should be ashamed.

Q

sack316
12-15-2010, 07:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Very simply.


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>This bill passed the house with bipartisan support.</span>

The Dems thought that passing it in the Senate<span style='font-size: 17pt'> would be a FORMALITY.</span> </div></div>

A whopping 17 republicans voted aye in the House (compared to 157 nays). That's bipartisan support to you? And worthy of the assumption it would easily pass in the Senate?


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The GOP negotiated for more than a year on the HC reform bill, then they voted no.
Wall St reform, same thing.
The Stimulus, same thing.</div></div>

And yet these things managed to get pass. And somehow this one is the exception to the rule. Locked and loaded for 2012.

Sack

Qtec
12-15-2010, 07:51 PM
Who gains if the bill is passed? Who loses?

Q

sack316
12-15-2010, 07:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who gains if the bill is passed? Who loses?

Q </div></div>

The people that deserve to gain will if the bill is passed, and as far as I'm concerned nobody loses if it is passed. I've never contended otherwise, and do fully support its passage... and think it's a shame republicans are grandstanding on this. I've also explained several reasons why I don't necessarily buy into the dems being completely altruistic in the passage of the bill, either. It's a shame that something like this is used as part of the "game". Republicans should fully support it, and should have 4 years ago. Dems should have pushed it through as they did so many other things without republican support over the last few years, too.

Sack

eg8r
12-15-2010, 08:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Buy time for what? Giving first responders the help they need?

</div></div>Jeesh, you people really are struggling with this. He wanted to buy time to get another vote. If he voted no it would have been all over.

Why are you ignoring my questions?

eg8r

eg8r
12-15-2010, 08:30 PM
The Dems are looking to make this bill a martyr of some sort. They are trying to do everything they can to make the Reps look bad and it just is not sticking. These schmucks had 4 years to do this and they dragged their feet pushing everything else through. Now they want to whine and cry on their way out.

eg8r

eg8r
12-15-2010, 08:31 PM
I don't think anyone loses. Why is it being stuffed into a bill that it has no business being stuffed into?

eg8r

Qtec
12-16-2010, 05:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think anyone loses. <span style='font-size: 14pt'> Why is it being stuffed into a bill that it has no business being stuffed into?</span>

eg8r </div></div>


Harry tells it like it is.


<span style='font-size: 20pt'><span style="color: #990000">87 filibusters </span>by the GOP in this congress!</span>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In just a few minutes we're going to proceed to the START treaty. <u>I'm told the Republicans are going to make us read the entire treaty in an effort to stall us from passing it. Isn't that wonderful? That piece of -- that treaty has been here since April or May of this year. Plenty of time to read it. </u>These are additional days of wasted time we could be using to pass legislation to get home for the holidays. Yet some of my Republican colleagues have the nerve to whine about having to stay and actually do the work of the American people. We make large salaries, madam president. We could work as most Americans do during the holidays. Perhaps Senators Kyl and DeMint have been in

{14:11:22} (Mr. Reid) { not an official transcript } Washington too long because in my state, Nevadans employed in casinos and hotels and throughout the state of nevada and on ranches, basically every place have to work hard on holidays, including Christmas, to support their families. The mines don't shut down in nevada on Christmas. People work. They get paid double time a lot of times when they have good contracts, but they work on Christmas holidays.
Most people don't get two weeks off on any time, let alone Christmas week. And these people who are lucky enough to have a job in these trying times need to work extra hours to make ends meet. <u>So it's offensive to me and millions of working Americans across this country for any senator to suggest that working through the Christmas holidays is somehow sacrilegious.</u> They decide to work with us, we can all have a
happy holiday. If they don't, we're going to continue until we finish the people's business. Madam President, i move to proceed to executive session to calendar number 7, the START treaty. I ask for the yeas and nays. </div></div>

Stalling and obstruction.

More.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) has put an extraordinary "blanket hold" on at least 70 nominations President Obama has sent to the Senate, according to multiple reports this evening. The hold means no nominations can move forward unless Senate Democrats can secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold.

"While holds are frequent," CongressDaily's Dan Friedman and Megan Scully report (sub. req.), "Senate aides said a blanket hold represents a far more aggressive use of the power than is normal." The magazine reported aides to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were the source of the news about Shelby's blanket hold. </div></div>


Get it now?
The GOP do not debate in good faith. Their whole agenda is to bring Govt to a halt - they have proved it time and time again- and then you blame the Dems!


Q

eg8r
12-16-2010, 06:12 AM
No I don't get it. I is it being stuffed into a bill where it does not belong.

Maybe I can help you...It is being done because you know the Reps got a tax plan that they are willing to approve so the Dems want to toss this in so that when the Reps vote no you and others can lie saying the Reps are holding all these people hostage. The politicians are telling a joke and you guys are the punchline.

eg8r

Qtec
12-16-2010, 06:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dems want to toss this in so that when the Reps vote no </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Why would they vote no?</span>


<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Why are they against the First Responders Bill?</span>


Q

LWW
12-16-2010, 06:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dems want to toss this in so that when the Reps vote no </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Why would they vote no?</span>


<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Why are they against the First Responders Bill?</span>


Q </div></div>

What good is explaining it to you 1,000,001 times when you ignored the answer the fist 1,000,000 times?

LWW

Qtec
12-16-2010, 07:02 AM
# 1654...........again.....another simple Q you can't answer.

Q

pooltchr
12-16-2010, 07:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I will be honest, this board has been a lot nicer when you don't respond. Your negativity and attacks on the users who disagree with you leave this place very negative.

eg8r </div></div>

I don't think I have ever read a more accurate assessment.

Steve </div></div>


I don't think I have ever read so much BS on one page.


<span style='font-size: 26pt'>Yet ANOTHER POST that attacks the poster and not the content of their posts.
</span>


You guys should be ashamed.

Q </div></div>

Coming from someone who posted nothing more than "STFU" in another thread directed at another poster, you have no room to talk!


Steve

Gayle in MD
12-16-2010, 07:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who gains if the bill is passed? Who loses?

Q </div></div>

The people that deserve to gain will if the bill is passed, and as far as I'm concerned nobody loses if it is passed. I've never contended otherwise, and do fully support its passage... and think it's a shame republicans are grandstanding on this. I've also explained several reasons why I don't necessarily buy into the dems being completely altruistic in the passage of the bill, either. It's a shame that something like this is used as part of the "game". Republicans should fully support it, and should have 4 years ago. Dems should have pushed it through as they did so many other things without republican support over the last few years, too.

Sack </div></div>


I'm really sorry that you haven't heard the interviews by these first responders, and their families, Sack. I know you well enough, to know that you would have a totally different take on this, if you had.

Also, I've been too busy to look up the clips on C-span, to show you how Republicans have acted throughout as regards this situation.

I know, you'd be repulsed by it, had you seen all of it.

Democratics, have had loads of urgent issues to address throughout their majority tenure, and they are STILL, as we write, having to deal with Republican obstructionism, as Republicans are throwing out trash talking, disgraceful accusations, doubting the religious beliefs, of Democratic members, and calling them sacreligious, just for daring to ask Republicans to stay in town to vote on the Start Treaty, which they have had for eight months.

Republicans are outraged, that anyone would expect them to stay in town and do the Nation's work!

To deny the unprecedented Republican Obstructionism, which has held back hundreds of appointees, crippled the entire function of the Senate, and taken part in unprecedented filibusters, to block progress, and then turn around and blame Democratics, is so far away from reality, IMO, I can't believe that you actually fault the Democratics for continuing to try to get this through, when they have been trying to do just that, all along.

Given the economic state, and two unfinished wars, massive spreading of hatred against America, left by Bush's administration, and which this administration has been so successful in turning around, preventing Bush's Depression, and gaining every day signs of economic recovery.

Yet, in spite of consistant, unrelenting Republican Obstructionism, breaking the filibuster record, consistant even on their own policies, for over three years, to prevent progress in recovering from the disastrus results of Republican policies which the Democratics and the president, inherited, I find it baffling, reading such accusations.

One would think by this time, it would be obvious to most people, that the Democratic majority did a great job, on most things, pushing against the mud slinging lies of the Republican Party, designed to obstruct for political gain, yet Democratics were committed to doing the work of the nation, willing to pay the political price, for doing what must be done, if we are to survive continued gouging of all, by medical, insurance, energy, and pharmaceutical corporate interests, in order to address those things which have destroyed the American Middle Class.....

I surely cannot fail to speak against such an unfair accusation of pliticizing, when it is obvious that there is such a broad case of massive Republican obstructionism.

G.

pooltchr
12-16-2010, 08:12 AM
Keep blaming everything bad on the previous administration is that makes you feel better.
The fact is, the American people overwhelmingly disagree with you, as evidenced by the results of the November mid term election, and the steadily declining approval ratings of your president.

Steve

eg8r
12-16-2010, 09:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why would they vote no?

</div></div>Why is it even in there? It does not belong.

eg8r

sack316
12-16-2010, 10:55 AM
I understand what you're saying... I still think you somehow believe I'm giving republicans a pass and blaming democrats, though... which is nowhere near what I've said. It just happens to be my opinion that the left is also "using" this.

We now are also seeing the passage of the omnibus spending bill. If the 9/11 responders bill was gonna be put into another bill, and the idea was to put it into something that would pass as "a formality" (as Q said), then why not put it into the omnibus that has enough pork in it from everyone that they surely wouldn't vote against it?

I mean, I almost feel bad for still disagreeing on this... you and Q have had some pretty good and informative posts on the topic. But I'm sorry, I'm just still not sold on it being more altruistic than maneuvering.

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-16-2010, 11:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I understand what you're saying... I still think you somehow believe I'm giving republicans a pass and blaming democrats, though... which is nowhere near what I've said. It just happens to be my opinion that the left is also "using" this.

We now are also seeing the passage of the omnibus spending bill. If the 9/11 responders bill was gonna be put into another bill, and the idea was to put it into something that would pass as "a formality" (as Q said), then why not put it into the omnibus that has enough pork in it from everyone that they surely wouldn't vote against it?

I mean, I almost feel bad for still disagreeing on this... you and Q have had some pretty good and informative posts on the topic. But I'm sorry, I'm just still not sold on it being more altruistic than maneuvering.

Sack </div></div>

As I understood it, the dems tried to do just that, and Repubs threatened to filibuster.

Also, I must ask you, do you think that continued massive tax cuts for the top two percent, is an altruistic concern of Republicans?

Now we know, according to the IRS, and the cBo, these cuts do not stimulate the economy, so what are they up to, other than giving their base, what they want. After all the BS about deficits, their position surely can't be altruistic??????

I wonder, do you see the hypocrisy in this?
G.

sack316
12-16-2010, 11:32 AM
Again Gayle, please read my posts and note what I have said about republicans on this matter too. I have not said one good word about their obstruction on this matter... and in fact have said it is bad on their part to do so and they are choosing a really bad thing to "grandstand" on.

As to your question about the tax cuts and whether or not it stimulates the economy... is Obama lying now? Because I sure have heard him out there saying the exact opposite the last few weeks. Bill Clinton has as well, if I am not mistaken.

Now, if you want my opinion: We're in a catch-22 here. Given the massive expenditures and debt, we need higher taxes across the board. Given the economy's present situation, we need lower (well, current) taxes across the board. It's almost lose-lose either way. We can either continue to rack up more debt at present time, or pull more money out of the struggling economy in the form of taxes. Both sides have arguments with merit that ring true, economically and fiscally speaking. But both also have a downside to them.

I know it won't happen, but I'd personally like to see a good old fashioned "do for your country and yourself" bond drive. Would have been good to do a few months back, advertise and push for Christmas maybe even. Parents buying bonds for their kids and themselves. Basically what we do with China already, except it cycles back through our own economy when it pays off. It encourages some form of consumer long-term saving (which is bad short term, but necessary long term), raises money for the government, and given inflation projections the end payoff would essentially be cost neutral.

Now of course, it would require "us" to be patient investors... which is a rare breed anymore. And also would require the government to do it's part in fiscal responsibility, which is also rare. But in theory, with all parts working equally doing their share it would help with a lot of woes. Won't solve them, but would be a big help.

Sack

eg8r
12-16-2010, 11:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I mean, I almost feel bad for still disagreeing on this... you and Q have had some pretty good and informative posts on the topic. But I'm sorry, I'm just still not sold on it being more altruistic than maneuvering.

</div></div>Me either.

eg8r

pooltchr
12-16-2010, 12:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> We're in a catch-22 here. Given the massive expenditures and debt, we need higher taxes across the board. Given the economy's present situation, we need lower (well, current) taxes across the board. It's almost lose-lose either way. We can either continue to rack up more debt at present time, or pull more money out of the struggling economy in the form of taxes. Both sides have arguments with merit that ring true, economically and fiscally speaking. But both also have a downside to them.

</div></div>

You skipped the obvious solution. Downsize government, get spending under control, and have a government that operates strictly within the parameters set forth in the Constitution.

Our government is telling kids they can't eat at McDonalds. WTF????????? They are pushing a "nutrition" bill that is going to eliminate the ability of schools to hold bake sales, or sell those boxes of Krispy Kremes as fundraisers. They are continuing to grow and expand into areas of our personal lives where they have no business, and every time they do, it costs more money.

You've posted the list of ways to cut back on government. That is the only solution. If we allow government to continue to grow, it will always require more and more tax moeny to operate.

We simply can't afford the government we are getting. And, in my opinion, we really aren't getting all that much for what it costs. Smaller government would be much easier to monitor and control. Washington is out of control and it needs to get fixed.

I worked for a very large company one time that would occasionally impose a hiring freeze for the simple reason of keeping things under control. It worked very well. Washington should try it.

Steve

Steve

Gayle in MD
12-16-2010, 02:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again Gayle, please read my posts and note what I have said about republicans on this matter too. I have not said one good word about their obstruction on this matter... and in fact have said it is bad on their part to do so and they are choosing a really bad thing to "grandstand" on.

As to your question about the tax cuts and whether or not it stimulates the economy... is Obama lying now? Because I sure have heard him out there saying the exact opposite the last few weeks. Bill Clinton has as well, if I am not mistaken.

<span style="color: #990000"> I haven't heard either of them say that the cuts for the top two percent, are essential for economic recovery, I thought the president had staated, throughout, that he doesn't want that, but that Republicans have held the cuts for the rest of Americans, hostage, in order to get those cuts for the top. </span>

Now, if you want my opinion: We're in a catch-22 here.

<span style="color: #660000"> Absolutely, how much of that catch, is due to corporate greed? </span>


Given the massive expenditures and debt, we need higher taxes across the board. Given the economy's present situation, we need lower (well, current) taxes across the board.

<span style="color: #660000">Did you know that Democratics tried to put to a vote, cuts for all up to a million dollars, but Repubicans voted against it? I agree to this much, the president should have capped the cuts at over a million dollars. He also should never have gone for tis Bill, IMO.

He should have called the Republican's bluff, and let everything expire, and then VETO any extension of the Bush cuts, that were given to any individual making over a million dollars a year. </span>




It's almost lose-lose either way. We can either continue to rack up more debt at present time, or pull more money out of the struggling economy in the form of taxes. Both sides have arguments with merit that ring true, economically and fiscally speaking. But both also have a downside to them.

I know it won't happen, but I'd personally like to see a good old fashioned "do for your country and yourself" bond drive. Would have been good to do a few months back, advertise and push for Christmas maybe even. Parents buying bonds for their kids and themselves. Basically what we do with China already, except it cycles back through our own economy when it pays off. It encourages some form of consumer long-term saving (which is bad short term, but necessary long term), raises money for the government, and given inflation projections the end payoff would essentially be cost neutral.

<span style="color: #660000">That's a good idea, should have been done before we got into two wars, and no tax cuts should have been given out, until both wars were over. IMO, no wars should ever be fought without two things, raised taxes, and a draft.</span>

Now of course, it would require "us" to be patient investors... which is a rare breed anymore. And also would require the government to do it's part in fiscal responsibility, which is also rare. But in theory, with all parts working equally doing their share it would help with a lot of woes. Won't solve them, but would be a big help.

Sack

<span style="color: #660000"> </div></div>
I know this situation has been much more complex, because we have never faced a deep recession, under a Global Econoomy. Yet, I know as well, we wouldn't be where we are, without years of warring, spending, cutting taxes, and failing to regulate and oversee the markets.

Seems to me that no one at all, has learned a lesson from any of that, and with Republicans still denying climare change, and China and others leaving the U.S. in the dust, because of the complete denial of climate change, and the on going foreign threats from failing to address the coming energy crises, and the overall picture of energy, for decades, which still exists, going forward,

May I ask, do you see the connection between corporations buying representatives, the lack of regulatory action running up to this crash, and if so, do you approve, or disapprove, of the recent Supreme Court ruling on secret campaign contributions, from multi-national corporations?

Also, if did you see this thread?
http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=329836#Post329836

G.</span>

sack316
12-16-2010, 03:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
May I ask, do you see the connection between corporations buying representatives, the lack of regulatory action running up to this crash, and if so, do you approve, or disapprove, of the recent Supreme Court ruling on secret campaign contributions, from multi-national corporations?

</div></div>

You certainly may ask, and I appreciate your interest in my opinion. And, as with my original comments on the topic of this thread, I do stress that it is MY opinion. Some will agree, some will disagree, and they may be right or wrong... or more likely right to some extent and wrong in other ways.

Also, it is difficult for me to confine my thoughts and explain my rationale on topic such as these to a board friendly length. Such as my bond idea and thoughts on taxes... I could write an entire book on those subjects to include my full thoughts, explanations, examples, forecasting, etc. that would better lay out my point. So apologies if my succinct method of explanation sometimes doesn't fully "prove" exactly what I'm trying to say... but I do want to TRY to get my point across in a way that is generally easy to read.

Disclaimers now aside:

Yes, there is a stark connection between money and those in power (to paraphrase your corporations buying representatives). It exists on both sides, and more often than not with coincide with whoever is in power. As such, recent history will show the tie between corporations and big money with republicans... as they have held the ball more often over the last few decades. We began to see some examples on the other side the last two years, namely I recall big pharma getting "involved" (let's say) in the HC bill. Two things that influence and corrupt are money and power... they go hand in hand, and are also two things that once gotten most can never have enough of. So to answer your first question simply, yes I see it plain as day.

The second part gets murky, where you ask about multi-national corporations and campaign contributions.

I'll preface with the example of church and state. Why are Churches tax exempt? To put it quite bluntly, it's a mutual "stay out of my way" from gov't and the churches. The Church doesn't want gov't telling it how to do it's thing. At the same time, "Church" is large enough that were it to have a say in gov't, Church would basically run the country. If they paid taxes, which would result in a helping heapload of money to government, they'd have that say... as vested stakeholders so to speak. That would muddy things up quite a bit on how things go here for sure.

Now we arrive to almost another catch-22. Corporations that pay taxes into our government, are stakeholders in our government. Be it their bottom line company income, sales tax revenue generated, payroll tax, license, etc. whatever... by virtue of providing something into the system, they have a right to have a voice in that system... and as well a right to "back" whatever candidate they may feel is in their own vested interest for survival and/or prosperity. Now is this fair? Not really, because obviously that voice would be much louder and more influential than mine or yours as normal citizens. And certainly not fair that in many instances that voice will come in the form of a non-citizen. But on the other side, it wouldn't be fair of the gov't to come to me and you, say they are taking taxes from us, but we don't get to vote or contribute to a campaign of our choosing either. So from that perspective I VERY RELUCTANTLY must agree with the SC, even if I don't like it personally.

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-16-2010, 04:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
May I ask, do you see the connection between corporations buying representatives, the lack of regulatory action running up to this crash, and if so, do you approve, or disapprove, of the recent Supreme Court ruling on secret campaign contributions, from multi-national corporations?

</div></div>

You certainly may ask, and I appreciate your interest in my opinion. And, as with my original comments on the topic of this thread, I do stress that it is MY opinion. Some will agree, some will disagree, and they may be right or wrong... or more likely right to some extent and wrong in other ways.

Also, it is difficult for me to confine my thoughts and explain my rationale on topic such as these to a board friendly length. Such as my bond idea and thoughts on taxes... I could write an entire book on those subjects to include my full thoughts, explanations, examples, forecasting, etc. that would better lay out my point. So apologies if my succinct method of explanation sometimes doesn't fully "prove" exactly what I'm trying to say... but I do want to TRY to get my point across in a way that is generally easy to read.

Disclaimers now aside:

Yes, there is a stark connection between money and those in power (to paraphrase your corporations buying representatives). It exists on both sides, and more often than not with coincide with whoever is in power. As such, recent history will show the tie between corporations and big money with republicans... as they have held the ball more often over the last few decades. We began to see some examples on the other side the last two years, namely I recall big pharma getting "involved" (let's say) in the HC bill. Two things that influence and corrupt are money and power... they go hand in hand, and are also two things that once gotten most can never have enough of. So to answer your first question simply, yes I see it plain as day.

The second part gets murky, where you ask about multi-national corporations and campaign contributions.

I'll preface with the example of church and state. Why are Churches tax exempt? To put it quite bluntly, it's a mutual "stay out of my way" from gov't and the churches. The Church doesn't want gov't telling it how to do it's thing. At the same time, "Church" is large enough that were it to have a say in gov't, Church would basically run the country. If they paid taxes, which would result in a helping heapload of money to government, they'd have that say... as vested stakeholders so to speak. That would muddy things up quite a bit on how things go here for sure.

Now we arrive to almost another catch-22. Corporations that pay taxes into our government, are stakeholders in our government. Be it their bottom line company income, sales tax revenue generated, payroll tax, license, etc. whatever... by virtue of providing something into the system, they have a right to have a voice in that system... and as well a right to "back" whatever candidate they may feel is in their own vested interest for survival and/or prosperity. Now is this fair? Not really, because obviously that voice would be much louder and more influential than mine or yours as normal citizens. And certainly not fair that in many instances that voice will come in the form of a non-citizen. But on the other side, it wouldn't be fair of the gov't to come to me and you, say they are taking taxes from us, but we don't get to vote or contribute to a campaign of our choosing either. So from that perspective I VERY RELUCTANTLY must agree with the SC, even if I don't like it personally.

Sack

</div></div>

Thanks sack,
While I don't agree, with your positions, it is refreshing to have a reasoned debate...

As you can probably guess, I have a very different take on all of this, but it's interesting to know your thought process on the subjects involved.

G.

sack316
12-16-2010, 04:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Thanks sack,
While I don't agree, with your positions, it is refreshing to have a reasoned debate...

As you can probably guess, I have a very different take on all of this, but it's interesting to know your thought process on the subjects involved.

G. </div></div>

Agreed, and I figured your thoughts on the matters would differ. But our discussions the last day or two have been very refreshing and enlightening as to where we each are coming from.

Sack

Qtec
12-17-2010, 01:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who gains if the bill is passed? Who loses?

Q </div></div>

The people that deserve to gain will if the bill is passed, and as far as I'm concerned nobody loses if it is passed. I've never contended otherwise, and do fully support its passage... and think it's a shame republicans are grandstanding on this. I've also explained several reasons why I don't necessarily buy into the dems being completely altruistic in the passage of the bill, either. It's a shame that something like this is used as part of the "game". Republicans should fully support it, and should have 4 years ago. Dems should have pushed it through as they did so many other things without republican support over the last few years, too.

Sack </div></div>

Good post. I agree with most of it ...but.....not all of it.

Lets face it, 87 filibusters in 20 months! The GOP proposed 1,000s of amendments to the HC bill and then voted no. With these kind of stalling tactics it is impossible for the Dems to get all the things wanted passed.
How about judicial nominations? Did you know that only 41 have been confirmed? Under Bush, after the same amount of time, 100 were approved!

Like I said before, this bill is a no brainer.

I will let Jon S tell the story.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On Monday night's "Daily Show," Jon Stewart continued to criticize the lame duck congress, particularly the GOP for blocking important legislation such as a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and the Dream Act. But the most important item, which Stewart has repeatedly covered and dubbed the "Least We Can Do/No Brainer Act" of 2010, is the 9/11 First Responders bill.

"Since when do Republicans make 9/11 first responders stand over in the corner with the gays and Mexicans?" Stewart wondered.

Not only is the bill, which provides health care for those who helped save lives on 9/11, not passed, but no Republicans appeared on TV to say why they voted against it



Stewart made a declaration. He banned all Republicans from using 9/11 as a political device, including as an excuse for the Bush era or a reason to go to war with other countries and oppose mosques in our own, until the 9/11 First Responders bill is passed. </div></div>

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/14/stewart-to-gop-no-more-us_n_796338.html)

Q....... video....watch it to the end (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-13-2010/lame-as-f--k-congress)