PDA

View Full Version : What Joy.



Qtec
02-09-2011, 06:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON — The House on Tuesday failed to extend the life of three surveillance tools that are key to the nation's post-Sept. 11 anti-terror law, a slipup for the new Republican leadership that miscalculated the level of opposition.

The House voted 277-148 to keep the three provisions of the USA Patriot Act on the books until Dec. 8. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>But Republicans brought up the bill under a special expedited procedure requiring a two-thirds majority,</span> and the vote was seven short of reaching that level. </div></div>

O, O , O , O, ...I know...I know..I heard this before. Mmmmmmmm..I remember, the First Responders Bill. The Dems thought it was a no brainer, they brought it up for 60 votes and when it failed because of GOP opposition, the whole RW here slammed Obama for it.


Any comments now?

Q......... link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/08/house-rejects-extensions-patriot-act_n_820554.html)

pooltchr
02-09-2011, 08:40 AM
You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Sometimes the party leaders play games, and sometimes they get burned.

Personally, I think it's good when the political maneuvering backfires. I'd like to think they learn from their mistakes, but I'm not all that hopeful.

Steve

Sev
02-09-2011, 09:13 AM
I have never been to sure about the patriot act.

Perhaps its time to let it sunset and what transpires.

Soflasnapper
02-09-2011, 09:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have never been to sure about the patriot act.

Perhaps its time to let it sunset and what transpires.
</div></div>

It probably only passed originally because it DID include a sunset provision (which was ignored, and railroaded back through on the first such sunset time).

Frankly, I'm now somewhat impressed and compliment some of the Tea Party types as being intellectually consistent and faithful to their principles, as other headlines on this subject have emphasized that it is (some of) THEIR opposition to the tyrannical aspects of the Patriot Act that helped make its passage problematic.

Quite so. We didn't need the Patriot Act to prevent 9/11, and although the AG and DOJ more or less swore that its end-around the 4th amendment would ONLY be used for terror-related investigations, and not for run-of-the-mill criminal matters, it has been wholly abused for exactly the non-terror, common criminal types of investigations.

Sev
02-09-2011, 01:01 PM
There is lots of debate out there.

However I think the government in general is far over reaching its authority where as the citizenry is concerned.

Qtec
02-10-2011, 10:01 AM
What happened to the Pledge??????????????????


Q

Gayle in MD
02-10-2011, 11:31 AM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Yep, where are all those jobs? LOL...

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LWW
02-10-2011, 04:42 PM
Four short months ago you assured us the recession was over and jobs were being created willy-nilly.

Where is your honor?

LWW

pooltchr
02-10-2011, 04:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Yep, where are all those jobs? LOL...

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

You mean the jobs Obama promised when he was at the Catapillar plant trying to sell us on his stimulus? Those jobs?????????

Steve

LWW
02-10-2011, 05:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> O, O , O , O, ...I know...I know..I heard this before. Mmmmmmmm..I remember, the First Responders Bill. The Dems thought it was a no brainer, they brought it up for 60 votes and when it failed because of GOP opposition, the whole RW here slammed Obama for it.


Any comments now?

Q......... [/url]
</div></div>

Yes ... link us to this or withdraw your ridiculous statement.

LWW

Qtec
02-10-2011, 08:39 PM
<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"> O, O , O , O, ...I know...I know..I heard this before. Mmmmmmmm..I remember, the First Responders Bill. The Dems thought it was a no brainer, they brought it up for 60 votes and when it failed because of GOP opposition, the whole RW here slammed Obama for it.


Any comments now?

Q......... [/url]
</div></div>

Yes ... link us to this or withdraw your ridiculous statement.

LWW </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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:

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The first House vote on the 9/11 bill was brought up in a way requiring a 2/3 majority vote</span> to pass and prohibiting any amendments. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Enough Republicans voted against the bill for it to fall short of a 2/3 majority</span> 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.

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/09/29/the-911-bill-and-political-maneuvering/#ixzz1Dc6NfPH4
</div></div>


and,
link (http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/worker-safety/132907-health-bill-for-911-workers-fails-key-vote)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Senate GOP blocks 9/11 first responders health plan bill
By Alexander Bolton and Jason Millman - 12/09/10 12:14 PM ET

Senate Republicans on Thursday morning filibustered legislation to monitor and treat first responders and emergency workers who suffered illnesses related to 9/11.

A vote to quash the filibuster failed by a vote of 57 to 42, three votes short of the necessary threshold. As a result, the proposal is unlikely to pass this year.

..Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) blasted Republicans after the vote.

“Republicans denied adequate health care to the heroes who developed illnesses from rushing into burning buildings on 9/11. Yet they will stop at nothing to give tax breaks to millionaires and CEOs, even though they will explode our deficit and fail to create jobs. That tells you everything you need to know about their priorities,” Reid said in a statement.

..<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Last week, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) released a letter signed by every Senate Republican pledging to block all legislative action until Congress acts on the expiring Bush tax cuts and passes a measure to fund the federal government into 2011.</span></div></div>

Pick one. link (http://www.google.nl/search?q=GOP+blocks+9%2F11+first+responders+bill&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:nl:official&client=firefox-a)

Q

pooltchr
02-10-2011, 09:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
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.



Q </div></div>

So, they had their chance, but because they didn't want to take a stand against illegal immigration, they let it go.

Gutless wimps! Why are they afraid of standing up to criminals who are here illegally????

Steve

Qtec
02-10-2011, 09:52 PM
What does illegal immigration have to do with HC for 9/11 responders?
The very people who the GOP says the country owes a debt of gratitude!

Fact is they were playing political games while First Responders were dying to illnesses they received at Ground Zero..

Q

LWW
02-11-2011, 03:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pick one. link (http://www.google.nl/search?q=GOP+blocks+9%2F11+first+responders+bill&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:nl:official&client=firefox-a)

Q </div></div>

If you would have offered even one ... just ONE ... link that supported your ridiculous accusation, I would have.

You didn't.

You know you didn't.

Now ... make some more smoke in a vain effort to hide the fact that you have exposed yourself. Again.

LWW

LWW
02-11-2011, 03:33 AM
Then why did the dems present the bill in a fashion that required more than a simple majority?

Answer ... they wanted it to not pass, IOW they were playing h=games and spoon feeding you lies.

And you believed them without qualm nor trepidation.

Imagine that.

LWW

Qtec
02-11-2011, 04:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then why did the dems present the bill in a fashion that required more than a simple majority?</div></div>

Can't you read?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Answer ... they wanted it to not pass, IOW they were playing h=games and spoon feeding you lies.

LWW</div></div>




According to <u>your</u> 'logic', the GOP wanted the Patriot Act extensions to fail.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But Republicans brought up the bill under a special expedited procedure <span style='font-size: 17pt'>requiring a two-thirds majority</span>, and the vote was seven short of reaching that level. </div></div>

So why did they do that?

Why did they sabotage their own legislation?

Q

LWW
02-11-2011, 04:24 AM
Stop trying to change the subject ... and stop trying to imply that I am a stooge for the R's the way you are for the D's.

LWW

Qtec
02-11-2011, 04:27 AM
Try answering a question for once.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So why did they do that?

Why did they sabotage their own legislation?

Q </div></div>

?

LWW
02-11-2011, 04:45 AM
My guess is that they tried to pull the same game as the democrooks and lacked the sense to realize that the state ran media would exonerate the democrooks and crucify the republichickens for the same thing.

You are walking, talking, breathing proof of the far left's willingness to do exactly that.

Anything else I can help you with?

LWW

Stretch
02-11-2011, 05:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My guess is that they tried to pull the same game as the democrooks and lacked the sense to realize that the state ran media would exonerate the democrooks and crucify the republichickens for the same thing.

You are walking, talking, breathing proof of the far left's willingness to do exactly that.

Anything else I can help you with?

LWW </div></div>

That's your guess?? lol just like everything else! Pure BS. St.

Qtec
02-11-2011, 05:40 AM
..and also a 180 degree turnaround.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My guess is that they tried to pull the same game as the democrooks </div></div>

He seems to admit that he thinks the republicans intended this vote to fail which to my mind is lunacy.


Q





Q

LWW
02-11-2011, 03:13 PM
So was it lunacy when the dems did the same thing?

LWW

Qtec
02-12-2011, 02:20 AM
So you admit it.

Q

LWW
02-12-2011, 02:50 AM
Why are you ducking such a simple question?

And, FWIW, that was rhetorical question ... we all know the answer.

LWW

Qtec
02-12-2011, 03:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why are you ducking such a simple question?

And, FWIW, that was rhetorical question ... <u>we all know the answer.</u>

LWW </div></div>

WE do, YOU don't.

Both parties were trying to get their bill passed.
The Dems failed because of the filibuster and every Rep Senator voting against it.
The Pat Act failed in the house because Republicans voted against it.

Two entirely different scenarios.

Q..as far as I know.

LWW
02-12-2011, 04:16 AM
And that's because you refuse to know.

As has been pointed out to ad infinitum ... the first responder's bill had sufficient support to get a majority, that would have meant the bill was passed.

Instead of going that route, the dems inserted poison pills so that the bill was unpalatable to a sizable minority ... notice the word minority, meaning it still would have passed.

So ... they then presented the bill under a legislative maneuver which wouldn't allow it to be passed with a simple majority ... it required a 60% vote as opposed to a 50% +1.

The lapdog media then spoon fed you the lie that you have clung to so desperately ... that the dems were fighting to pass a bill when in fact they were constructing the bill and the vote in a manner which guaranteed it's failure.

Now, the R's tried to pull the same nonsense ... and they foolishly believed the lap dog media would report it in the same manner.

They didn't.

LWW

Qtec
02-12-2011, 04:20 AM
here we go again. <span style='font-size: 26pt'>What poison pills?</span>

Q

LWW
02-12-2011, 04:40 AM
Read the data presented to you countless times.

I'd bet you walk through nature cursing whoever planted all those trees spoiling your view of the forest.

I can lead you to knowledge, I can't make you think.

LWW

Gayle in MD
02-12-2011, 12:30 PM
<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">My guess is that they tried to pull the same game as the democrooks and lacked the sense to realize that the state ran media would exonerate the democrooks and crucify the republichickens for the same thing.

You are walking, talking, breathing proof of the far left's willingness to do exactly that.

Anything else I can help you with?

LWW </div></div>

That's your guess?? lol just like everything else! Pure BS. St. </div></div>

Excellent post! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Gayle in MD
02-12-2011, 12:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">here we go again. <span style='font-size: 26pt'>What poison pills?</span>

Q </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LWW
02-12-2011, 12:52 PM
For the willingly ignorant among us:

1 - It violated PAYGO.

LWW

LWW
02-12-2011, 12:53 PM
For the willingly ignorant among us:

2 - It provided benefits to illegals.

LWW

LWW
02-12-2011, 12:57 PM
Now ... prepare to see the far left cabal wet the floor and run under the couch ... why did the dems construct the bill in a manner where a simple majority wouldn't get it passed?

LWW