Mosque = big story, Republicans block aid to 9-11 victims = non story

even the liberal media, from time to time, knows bs when it sees it

 

A better question is why don't other Democrats in the House and the Senate, and that Democrat in the White House, show some passion about the crap being spewed by the GOP, and the Republican hypocrisy that is so blatantly obvious a child can figure it out, and I know children that have.

 

I posted it yesterday in another thread, but it bears repeating:



The Republicans should be ashamed for being more focused on "honoring" 9/11 by marginalizing Muslims rather than actually aiding those who risked their lives that day.

And the Democrats should be ashamed for not having the backbone to stand up, in the halls of Congress and on every tv station, in every newspaper, on every website they can, and proclaiming what is right and decent. To roll over and do nothing is almost worse than to seek to do harm.

It is a sad time to be an American, and its not because of who is in the White House.

 

Man i couldn't agree more thats worst then the second mosque being built near ground zero.

 

How is it the liberal media is good at letting the GOP dominate its agenda?

 

It's because the "liberal" media is the crying defense of the conservative right to protest against unbiased reporting. Neutral = ultra liberal.

The truth is that the media doesn't really care unless they can make a story about it.

And it's much easier to great a story on jingoistic fears than laws affecting a handful of people.

You have to hand it to the GOP - they are the party of fear. They have long learned that it's much easier to control people based on their fears versus their aspirations. And they out class the Dems on that really well.

The Dems can't do much about this, I mean, who would have ever thought - the GOP screwed up 2 wars, wreaked the economy, allowed the environment oversight to go to crap...and yet they still are able to make the Dems look bad.

Brilliant.

 

I think this was already debunked in the last such thread about the same topic.

1) The Democrats are responsible for bringing the bill to the House under "suspension of the rules" which called for a two-third majority vote instead of just a simple majority as it would have under the normal rules. So you can thank your fellow Dumb-o-crats for setting up the bill for complete failure.The final vote 255 – 159. Not a single GOP would be needed if Democrats had the common sense to use simple majority. Again, we can continue to blame the GOP and bash them but the fact is the Democrats wanted to use this opportunity to frame the Republicans for not supporting the heroes of 9/11.

2) That angry rant by Weiner is directed at none other than Peter King one of the Republican co-sponsors of the bill. So there you go screaming at the guy who actually helped get this bill to the floor for a vote.

As despicable as the defeat of this bill was, the GOP alone is not responsible for its failure. But I guess we can continue to bash the GOP from all sides. There is a reason you liberal media has no interest in covering this story because the Democrats look far worse than the GOP for using partisan politics to take advantage of the heroes of 9/11. Please ask Anthony Weiner why he won't slam Steny Hoyer on TV for failing at his job as majority leader?

 

Sam you are something, do you even understand the basic procedures of the House or are just trying to ignore the argument here altogether?

Democrats invoked the suspension of the rules which backfired because it called for a 2/3 vote to pass instead of a simple majority. They wanted limited debate of 40 minutes and no amendments so they player political grandstanding. In the actual role call 243 Democrats voted "Yes" so if they had only used the normal rules then there would be no need for a single to GOP vote to matter. Again, Republicans never used the procedure argument to vote against the bill. You're just trying to use false logic to protect your Democrats from bad political maneuvering. I've called out the Republicans several times in the last thread about this same topic but you have yet you place blame on any single Democrat for failing at what should have been a simple majority.

 

The reason the Republicans voted no was because the bill cost 10 billion dollars for 10 years. It doesn't cost that much to give health care to the responders. The bill was in actuality a slush fund for New York politicians (mostly Democrats). The Democrats knew the Republicans would vote against something so repulsive especially with the national debt the way it is. It was a political maneuver and for the most part it worked well.

 

The way the money is set up is that it's an account to be distributed by the New York government however they see fit (slush fund). The Republicans wanted this changed and they also didn't want the money coming from businesses (because it kills jobs when businesses have less money). The Democrats introduced this bill under a procedure that would require 2/3 votes instead of the majority. Introducing the bill in such a manner prevents any changes to be made to the bill after passing (which as previously stated the Republicans wanted to do). If the Democrats wanted this bill to pass they should of introduced it by the normal procedure and let the house vote on whatever changes the Republicans thought the bill needed (to fix the inappropriate 10 billion dollar price tag and the means of distribution of the money).

 

If you are having trouble understanding the "slush fund" concept think the stimulus bill all over again. Money spent on whatever the hell any politician wants such as studying ants in Ethiopia.

 

Perhaps they were tired of having everything they propose shot down unless they add a plethora of unrelated slushy crap attached and the teeth of whatever they are trying to accomplish removed.. Nahh, that can't be it, that never happens.

 

Here is one of the reasons the bill cost too much: it was giving health care to illegals

 

If an illegal immigrant was a first responder to the 9/11 tragedy and helped saved lives, you don't think he deserves some medical help for doing so? Illegal or not?

The fact is, it was a bill for medical help for first responders that now have ailments (mostly in the lungs). These people deserve help. The bill would've been paid for my fixing a loophole corporations used to pay less tax than they should. There is no reason not to sign this bill unless you are: (a) against helping the first responders, (b) against fixing a tax loophole corporations are taking advantage of, or (c) so partisan that you don't care about facts or other people.

 

No I wouldn't want taxpayer money paying for health care for illegal immigrants. Personally I don't see much of a difference between a first responder and a fire fighter from Houston and I would not support health care if either was here illegally.

That is one way to look at it. I see it as The Democrats took a bi-partisan idea (the Republicans have stated they would support giving health care to 9/11 responders if the price was not incorrect) and added on items they knew the Republicans would disapprove of (health care for illegals). Then they used the previously mentioned political maneuver to prevent other votes to amend these added items so that Republican are forced to say no (or else why did they use this unusual political tactic). I see it as sleezy politics by the Democrats on an important issue.

 

"Deficits don't matter" -- Vice President Cheney

really? You want to deny help to first responders of 911 because of how the costs break down?

BTW, New Yorkers probably know the best way to spend this money, not republicans.