PDA

View Full Version : For Sack



Qtec
12-14-2010, 02:10 AM
Rewriting history on Fox.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fox & Friends on <span style='font-size: 14pt'>9/11 health care bill</span>: A whitewash of GOP obstructionism set to music

December 13, 2010 1:40 pm ET by Christine Schwen

As regular Fox & Friends viewers know, <u>it's sometimes hard to separate the hosts' truly outrageous segments out from the non-stop barrage of falsehoods, GOP talking points, and cheap shots at Democrats. Today, however, was not one of those days, </u>as <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Fox & Friends contributor and frequent guest host Peter Johnson Jr. set a new low in faux sanctimonious outrage, and in carrying water for the GOP. That's because today, <u>Johnson gave an entire monologue attacking the U.S. Senate for not acting on the 9/11 health care bill in which he completely whitewashed the shameful GOP obstructionism that led to its failure.</u></span> Instead, he lectured both sides of the Senate for failing to pass the bill, and punctuated his speech with music: </div></div>

link (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012130016)

Right at the start of the video she says,

"..the Senate voted 57 to 42, blocking a bill.."

?

Its very subtle but for anyone watching who doesn't follow politics like we do , it sounds like the Dems voted to block the bill!

Then this.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, in perhaps the first ever example of conservative spin beat poetry, Johnson declared "shame" on the Senate for turning its back on the first responders and decried that senators will excuse themselves for doing this "injustice [which] makes words hard to come by." </div></div>

He never mentions that it was the GOP who voted to block the bill!



The truth is that when the GOP had the chance to pass a clean bill with no partisan amendments, they didn't. Like Weiner said, they say they want debate, they say want amendments and they still vote no. Just like the HC bill and many other bills, they all still voted no.

In the bizzaro world of Fox News, voting to pass a bill is blocking it.


Q


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the Senate voted 57 to 42 </div></div>

Gayle in MD
12-14-2010, 06:34 AM
And, while the right is still promoting the lie that there is any liberal press left in this country, from the same link, this:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> GOP blocks 9/11 first responders bill; ABC, CBS, and NBC ignore the story
December 10, 2010 2:17 pm ET by Eric Boehlert

It was kind of a big deal.

The bill is officially known as the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 and is named after a first responder who died from a respiratory disease attributed to his rescue efforts on the morning of the Sept. 11 terror attack. The bill easily passed the House in September with a rare bout of bipartisan support. The bill's backers expected passage in the Senate, as well.

But yesterday, every Republican senator voted against the bill. The action was part of the GOP's obstructionist strategy of not allowing any senate action to proceed until the chamber votes on a bill that will continue to Bush era tax cuts, including those for the very wealthy.

The fact that the 9/-11-related legislation was defeated was news. Period. The fact that it was defeated as part of the larger Republican strategy to tie the Senate in knots made yesterday's vote even more newsworthy.

But not at ABC, CBS or NBC. Last night, all three evening newscasts failed to report on the fact that Republicans had voted down a previously bipartisan bill designed to provide medical coverage for Sept. 11 emergency workers. At the major networks, that development was not considered newsworthy.

That's pretty remarkable. But the larger point here is that Republicans are now practicing an unprecedented brand of obstructionism and they're doing without having to pay much of a political price. Why? Because the press is giving them a pass. The press is pretending what Republicans are doing is normal and everyday. It's not. It's radical.

UPDATED: Guess which show last night did cover the fact that Republicans voted down the 9/11 first responders bill? The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.

</div></div>

I would hope to see Sack move off his accusation against the Dems,....now.

dems didn't block it for political gain, Republicans did that.

sack316
12-14-2010, 07:08 AM
Hey thanks and all good info. It's not to much that I don't see what y'alls point is. But this bill also happened to come about in september '06, didn't even make it through the House Judiciary Committee in time for that congressional session to end and was cleared from the books.

Now, I'm not saying the republicans are great guys or doing right by this by any means, so please don't think that. But I just also happen to think if this was all so important and such a pressing issue for democrats they may have brought it back in a little quicker than four years later were their proposal 100% altruistic. I'd think there would be plenty of time to bring it in on its own or within another bill at some point or another over the last four years

Sack

eg8r
12-14-2010, 07:27 AM
I agree Sack. If they did it back then it would have made sense. If they put it in a bill all by itself, who in their right mind votes against it. If they wait four years and try and ram it in at the last minute in a bill that the Reps already said they would not approve then who is playing games?

eg8r

pooltchr
12-14-2010, 07:36 AM
The Senate voted 57-42 to block the bill? Who holds the majority in the Senate at the moment?

Seems like even if every Rep voted against it, the Dems still would have had the numbers in their favor.

Steve

Gayle in MD
12-14-2010, 07:42 AM
Sack,
I gave you some links in the other thread about this.

Also, asked you, if you knew how many times the Dems tried to get this Bill to the floor.

Accusing Dems of being disingenuous in trying to get help for these people, is simply not fair.

Republicans completely blocked not only this, but everything they could possibly block, regardless of the merits, continually, AND they stated, very clearly, their intention, and top goal, was to destroy this president, and prevent a re-election.

Even after this last election, McConnell, AGAIN stated that removing President Obama, was his top goal.

So my question is this, do you know the full history of the Dems attempts to pass this bill for health care for our first responders?

Secondly, Why do Republicans insist on conveying that the democratics, and the president, didn't include them, when even when there were 187 amendments they still all voted NO! AND we saw the President call special meetings with them, in the White HOuuse and at Baltimore, and they were comploetely unresponsive to anythiing at all.

And lastly, how can anyone justify the Republcian obstructionism, voting in a block, against virtually EVERYTHING, including a larger stimulus early on, for the country, during a time of massive economic problems, left by BUSH, then whine for two years about deficits, and then come in and insist on spending nine hundred billion dollars, a huge part of it, for millionaires and billionaires tax cuts, in this current Tax Bill, when we alol know thata Bush's tax cuts favored the wealthy, and did NOT produce JOBS?? In fact, his job creation, was MISERABLE! One of the WORST ON RECORD!

I have yet to hear a single Republican, clearly state, exactly what they intend to do to lower the deficit, but I can assure you, they WON'T spend any money on these sick people, who came to the needs of their country, and who cannot afford health care, and they WON'T raise taxes on the wealthy, but they WILL destroy SS Medicare and Medicaid, the Middle Class and the poor.

They will continue to spend on bombs and guns and wars, to fill the pockets of their war profiteering corporate pigs, and they will cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment compensation, which we ALL PAY FOR!

Just watch what happens in this country, after that, OR study what Freidman, their hero, did to Chile, read
The Shock Doctrine or get the movie, and watch it!

More on Dems tryng to pass the bill....check the date!


http://www.mediaite.com/online/rep-antho...rst-responders/ (http://www.mediaite.com/online/rep-anthony-weiner-goes-beserk-over-defeated-bill-to-aid-911-first-responders/)

Gayle in MD
12-14-2010, 07:44 AM
September 06 was before the Democratics had the majority.

Did you ever read this???

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

G.

pooltchr
12-14-2010, 09:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> AND they stated, very clearly, their intention, and top goal, was to prevent a re-election.

Even after this last election, McConnell, AGAIN stated that removing President Obama, was his top goal.

</div></div>

I think this is the goal of many thinking Americans, considering the massive failure of the first two years of this administration.

Steve

eg8r
12-14-2010, 10:37 AM
You are correct. Who were the Dems that stood up to the other Dems?

eg8r

sack316
12-14-2010, 02:38 PM
Yes I read over your links. I did also say "thanks guys and good info" meant for both yourself and Q. I also said the republicans are not "good guys" for this either. And yes, I do know that the dems did not hold majority in '06... that wasn't the point... the point was it's been 4 years since it was brought up... plenty of time for either side to do it, both had plenty of opportunity.

That said... even with republican obstructionism there sure have been a lot of things passed the last couple of years that republicans did not want nor did they support. A lot of things passed that they tried to bring down and halt.

Why is this the exception to the rule then? Spending bills republicans were against got through. Energy bills republicans were against got through. Healthcare republicans were against got through. Everything the democrats really wanted to do, they found a way to do. So, if this is SOOOOO important to them and such a priority why didn't it get done like everything else that managed to survive through the evil republican standoffs?

Sack

Qtec
12-14-2010, 11:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree Sack. If they did it back then it would have made sense. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>If they put it in a bill all by itself, who in their right mind votes against it. </span> If they wait four years and try and ram it in at the last minute in a bill that the Reps already said they would not approve then who is playing games?

eg8r </div></div>

The truth was in G,s link . Guess you didn't read it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>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. </span><u>Specifically, they wanted to offer an amendment that would exclude illegal immigrants from the benefits provided in the bill.</u> 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.


Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/09/29/the-911-bill-and-political-maneuvering/#ixzz189mc81Rd </div></div>

Q

Qtec
12-15-2010, 01:25 AM
hypocrites (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/lame-fk-congress)

Q

LWW
12-15-2010, 03:55 AM
Why did Harry Reid vote against it?

LWW

Qtec
12-15-2010, 04:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why did Harry Reid vote against it?

LWW </div></div>


No answers, only more stupid questions.

Q

LWW
12-15-2010, 05:34 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: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why did Harry Reid vote against it?

LWW </div></div>


No answers, only more stupid questions.

Q </div></div>

Actually he was grandstanding ... but they don't let you have such data do they.

LWW

Qtec
12-15-2010, 05:52 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"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why did Harry Reid vote against it?

LWW </div></div>


No answers, only more stupid questions.

Q </div></div>

Actually he was grandstanding ... but they don't let you have such data do they.

LWW </div></div>


link (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=329672#Post329672)

Q

Gayle in MD
12-15-2010, 08:13 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: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why did Harry Reid vote against it?

LWW </div></div>


No answers, only more stupid questions.

Q </div></div>

LOL, proves he doesn't have a clue about Senate Rules.

Reid voted against it in order to gain the right to bring it back up again.


These righties on here prove their ignorance of Washington, and how their own government works, daily, in their stunningly ignorant, and Naive' questions!


Do they even know that Republicans completely abused the Filibuster? Do they have even a clue, the unprecedented use of the filibuster by Republicans in order to cripple everything they possibly could? Including a stronger recovery?

NOPE!

G.

pooltchr
12-15-2010, 08:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=eg8r]]<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Specifically, they wanted to offer an amendment that would exclude illegal immigrants from the benefits provided in the bill.[/u] 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.</span>
Q </div></div>

So the Reps didn't want to pay benefits to illegal aliens, but the Dems were afraid to take a stand on the issue <u>for purely political reasons.</u>

Seems the Reps were being a little more fiscally conservative and reasonable in this matter, but the Dems had no backbone.

Steve

sack316
12-15-2010, 09:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes I read over your links. I did also say "thanks guys and good info" meant for both yourself and Q. I also said the republicans are not "good guys" for this either. And yes, I do know that the dems did not hold majority in '06... that wasn't the point... the point was it's been 4 years since it was brought up... plenty of time for either side to do it, both had plenty of opportunity.

That said... even with republican obstructionism there sure have been a lot of things passed the last couple of years that republicans did not want nor did they support. A lot of things passed that they tried to bring down and halt.

Why is this the exception to the rule then? Spending bills republicans were against got through. Energy bills republicans were against got through. Healthcare republicans were against got through. Everything the democrats really wanted to do, they found a way to do. So, if this is SOOOOO important to them and such a priority why didn't it get done like everything else that managed to survive through the evil republican standoffs?

Sack </div></div>

Reposting the above as it seems to have either been overlooked or ignored altogether.

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-15-2010, 09:10 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: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes I read over your links. I did also say "thanks guys and good info" meant for both yourself and Q. I also said the republicans are not "good guys" for this either. And yes, I do know that the dems did not hold majority in '06... that wasn't the point... the point was it's been 4 years since it was brought up... plenty of time for either side to do it, both had plenty of opportunity.

That said... even with republican obstructionism there sure have been a lot of things passed the last couple of years that republicans did not want nor did they support. A lot of things passed that they tried to bring down and halt.

Why is this the exception to the rule then? Spending bills republicans were against got through. Energy bills republicans were against got through. Healthcare republicans were against got through. Everything the democrats really wanted to do, they found a way to do. So, if this is SOOOOO important to them and such a priority why didn't it get done like everything else that managed to survive through the evil republican standoffs?

Sack </div></div>

Reposting the above as it seems to have either been overlooked or ignored altogether.

Sack </div></div>

Sack,
You need to study the whole issue of the legislative history of this bill, including the unprecedented use of, and threat of the filibuster, by the Republicans, who missused the entire Filibuster process, as most politicos have stated during the recent Republican Obstructionism.

G..

eg8r
12-15-2010, 09:11 AM
You guys ramrodded HC through why couldn't you put the same effort for the first responders? Why did your guys wait two full years before trying to help the first responders?

eg8r

sack316
12-15-2010, 09:15 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"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes I read over your links. I did also say "thanks guys and good info" meant for both yourself and Q. I also said the republicans are not "good guys" for this either. And yes, I do know that the dems did not hold majority in '06... that wasn't the point... the point was it's been 4 years since it was brought up... plenty of time for either side to do it, both had plenty of opportunity.

That said... even with republican obstructionism there sure have been a lot of things passed the last couple of years that republicans did not want nor did they support. A lot of things passed that they tried to bring down and halt.

Why is this the exception to the rule then? Spending bills republicans were against got through. Energy bills republicans were against got through. Healthcare republicans were against got through. Everything the democrats really wanted to do, they found a way to do. So, if this is SOOOOO important to them and such a priority why didn't it get done like everything else that managed to survive through the evil republican standoffs?

Sack </div></div>

Reposting the above as it seems to have either been overlooked or ignored altogether.

Sack </div></div>

Sack,
You need to study the whole issue of the legislative history of this bill, including the unprecedented use of, and threat of the filibuster, by the Republicans, who missused the entire Filibuster process, as most politicos have stated during the recent Republican Obstructionism.

G.. </div></div>

I am indeed aware of this Gayle, and have studied it. In fact, I was the first one to bring to light the fact that it was first presented four years ago (previous to that, I seem to recall the comments on here saying dems fought for this "for months"). And once again I will say for I think the fourth or fifth time, I'm not saying republicans are doing right by their handling of things.

But your response still does not answer how this one thing happens to be the exception to the rule, when any other legislation the dems have really wanted to get pushed through, they found a way to successfully get it done... even with the same republican obstructionism you mention happening.

Sack

Gayle in MD
12-15-2010, 09:33 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"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes I read over your links. I did also say "thanks guys and good info" meant for both yourself and Q. I also said the republicans are not "good guys" for this either. And yes, I do know that the dems did not hold majority in '06... that wasn't the point... the point was it's been 4 years since it was brought up... plenty of time for either side to do it, both had plenty of opportunity.

That said... even with republican obstructionism there sure have been a lot of things passed the last couple of years that republicans did not want nor did they support. A lot of things passed that they tried to bring down and halt.

Why is this the exception to the rule then? Spending bills republicans were against got through. Energy bills republicans were against got through. Healthcare republicans were against got through. Everything the democrats really wanted to do, they found a way to do. So, if this is SOOOOO important to them and such a priority why didn't it get done like everything else that managed to survive through the evil republican standoffs?

Sack </div></div>

Reposting the above as it seems to have either been overlooked or ignored altogether.

Sack </div></div>

Sack,
You need to study the whole issue of the legislative history of this bill, including the unprecedented use of, and threat of the filibuster, by the Republicans, who missused the entire Filibuster process, as most politicos have stated during the recent Republican Obstructionism.

G.. </div></div>

I am indeed aware of this Gayle, and have studied it. In fact, I was the first one to bring to light the fact that it was first presented four years ago (previous to that, I seem to recall the comments on here saying dems fought for this "for months"). And once again I will say for I think the fourth or fifth time, I'm not saying republicans are doing right by their handling of things.

But your response still does not answer how this one thing happens to be the exception to the rule, when any other legislation the dems have really wanted to get pushed through, they found a way to successfully get it done... even with the same republican obstructionism you mention happening.

Sack </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">Sack,
I think what you may be overlooking, is that the party in power, in thiss case, the Dems, have to do a lot of counting among the members, ir order to attempt to bring a bill to the floor.

Neither side, wants to bring a Billo to the floor, is they are certain, there are not enough votes, and how they bring it, and how they vote, determines, also, if they can bring it back for another vote.

Now, Bush used Reconciliation to push through his tax cuts, twice, I believe...

The fact is, the Dems were against them, because they feared the rising deficits, which surely followed.

I can only tell you this much, because I do know this, for a fact.

The efforts and discussions both on the Senate Floor, and behind the scenes, about trying to provide assistance to those first responders, never ended. Every vote, is a heavy lift, and when Republicans threaten to filibuster, Democratics have to pick their battles.

So, you can see why it is frustrating when righties tallk about dems, "Shoving" things down American's throats, they prove, they have no clue about how many times Republicans used reconsiliation, to push their own things through, themselves, which, IMO, and in my studies, proved later, to be horrible for the country.

Unless one makes a habit, of watching, live, on C-span, during open debate, when the Representatives get up and speak their minds on issues currently in caucsu among their party members, in open debate, one wouldn't know, how dedicated one party or other, actually is involved in focusing on any particular legislation.

Senate rules are confising, granted, but in this case, this legislation was never panned, by the Democratics. They have been arguing for it consistantly, for years.

I will see if I can find for you the testimony when this subject was address by the Sente Investigativie panel, so that you can see for yourself, exactly how the Republican Party behaved, which will prove for you which party was actually playing politics...and which party was dedicated to getting help for these people.


<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. 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.

</div></div>

Also, Dems didn't get everything they wanted, through, far from it, BTW.
G.</span>

pooltchr
12-15-2010, 09:50 AM
Bottom line is that you can't blame the Reps for stopping the bill. If thay had that much power, we wouldn't have Obamacare!

Steve

sack316
12-15-2010, 10:02 AM
Thank you for answering the question as I asked it. I do appreciate the well thought out response.

I'm still not 100% sold on the altruistic nature of the bill from the democratic perspective, perhaps I am a bit jaded, though. But your well thought out reply does at least give me perspective as to what your thought process and reasoning behind your opinion is. And I do appreciate as well as respect that.

Sack