Deadbeat Senate (1 Viewer)

[Imudman]

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050715-093730-9587r

There's really something wrong with the Senate. It's almost unbelievable they would vote this down. Hey Senate! We're at war, remember...?

 

[cnredd]

"Homeland security isn't served when we steal from firefighters, police officers and other first responders to hire Border Patrol agents," said David Wade, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry. "If the Republicans who run Congress had drafted a bill that actually meets our needs, none of these votes would be necessary."

I can see the logic of the first statement, but the second one is laughable...

And ONLY Repiblicans can draft bills? Maybe if Kerry himself drafted a bill that "serves" Homeland Security but doesn't "steal from firefighters, police officers and other first responders", then I'd give him some credit. But it's the same thing that's been done last last couple of years...

Democrats - "This Republican bill sucks!"
Republicans - "What's your altrnative?"
Democrats - (sound of crickets chirping)

 

[shuamort]

"Homeland security isn't served when we steal from firefighters, police officers and other first responders to hire Border Patrol agents," said David Wade, a spokesman for Mr. Kerry. "If the Republicans who run Congress had drafted a bill that actually meets our needs, none of these votes would be necessary."

I can see the logic of the first statement, but the second one is laughable...

And ONLY Repiblicans can draft bills? Maybe if Kerry himself drafted a bill that "serves" Homeland Security but doesn't "steal from firefighters, police officers and other first responders", then I'd give him some credit. But it's the same thing that's been done last last couple of years...

Democrats - "This Republican bill sucks!"
Republicans - "What's your altrnative?"
Democrats - (sound of crickets chirping)

Well, who runs congress right now? Who had majority control of congress? If you agree that the bill blows and it was written by Republicans, where should your beef lie?

 

[26 X World Champs]

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050715-093730-9587r

There's really something wrong with the Senate. It's almost unbelievable they would vote this down. Hey Senate! We're at war, remember...?

I would suggest that you read the bill before making ill-advised comments?

These bills would have taken funding AWAY from States & cities funding for police and firefighters. Robbing Peter to pay Paul!

How come Republicans can't come up with a bill that protects us on the border and in our hometowns?

 

[26 X World Champs]

And ONLY Repiblicans can draft bills? Maybe if Kerry himself drafted a bill that "serves" Homeland Security but doesn't "steal from firefighters, police officers and other first responders", then I'd give him some credit. But it's the same thing that's been done last last couple of years...

Democrats - "This Republican bill sucks!"
Republicans - "What's your altrnative?"
Democrats - (sound of crickets chirping)

:rofl
In case you forgot, the Republicans control all branches of our Federal Government? Bills sponsored by Democrats regarding homeland security have zero chance of passing or even getting out of committee due to partisan politics.

Rove loves to say that all he wants is "an up or down vote" but bills sponsored by Democrats are never voted on....

 

[cnredd]

Well, who runs congress right now? Who had majority control of congress? If you agree that the bill blows and it was written by Republicans, where should your beef lie?

My beef lies with all of the Senate...even if it was 99-1 in favor of one party, that doesn't stop the "1" from drafting a bill.

The ONLY thing I was referring to was when people(yes, mostly all the time partisan) accuse the other side of doing things wrong when they, themselves, don't provide an alternative.

You see no hypocracy in that?

 

[shuamort]

My beef lies with all of the Senate...even if it was 99-1 in favor of one party, that doesn't stop the "1" from drafting a bill.

The ONLY thing I was referring to was when people(yes, mostly all the time partisan) accuse the other side of doing things wrong when they, themselves, don't provide an alternative.

You see no hypocracy in that?

Not hypocrisy, much as lazy partisanship.

 

[Imudman]

I would suggest that you read the bill before making ill-advised comments?

These bills would have taken funding AWAY from States & cities funding for police and firefighters. Robbing Peter to pay Paul!

How come Republicans can't come up with a bill that protects us on the border and in our hometowns?

What's ill-advised about wanting to protect the borders? There was nothing wrong with the bill. It would've put more border patrol agents on duty. Right now priority #1 is protecting our borders, I don't care how they pay for it. And your last question is a good one. But we should also ask why the dems can't either...

 

[Imudman]

Not hypocrisy, much as lazy partisanship.

You say tomato, he says tomahto... you're both right. Hypocritical partisanship from both sides of the deadbeats in Congress...

 

[ShamMol]

Let's break this down. They did what politicians do. They express themselves both through speeches and through voting. I remember in the 2004 election when certain politicians voted a certain way to express discontent about a war that was not beneficial to our troops security. Let's get one thing straight-this is what politicians do.

Onto the Democrats response and possible inaction. Let's break this down politicially. Politically, it matters who drafts a bill. It matters who co-authors a bill. A bill drafted by Democrats alone would be doomed to failure both in the house or senate. You may say that would not happen. False-it would. Without Republican support, and we see by this bill they tried to pass there would not have been any, any bill offered up by Democrats would be doomed to failure.

Is this partisan-hell yes. Does it suck-hell yes. But it is politics. Live with it.

 

[cnredd]

Onto the Democrats response and possible inaction. Let's break this down politicially. Politically, it matters who drafts a bill. It matters who co-authors a bill. A bill drafted by Democrats alone would be doomed to failure both in the house or senate. You may say that would not happen. False-it would. Without Republican support, and we see by this bill they tried to pass there would not have been any, any bill offered up by Democrats would be doomed to failure.

Is this partisan-hell yes. Does it suck-hell yes. But it is politics. Live with it.

Whoever said bill has to be drafted by a Democrat alone? Kerry-Santorum bills aren't allowed?

Are you saying that Kerry could write a sensible and logical bill, go up to every Republican Senator, and get NO support just because of who he is?
I would think he'd be on the news every night screaming that his legislation was being blocked.

Why is he still in the Senate? If you're telling me that anything he does will get rejected, then why be there?

Here's the quote from Kerry's spokesman again...
"If the Republicans who run Congress had drafted a bill that actually meets our needs, none of these votes would be necessary."

With your implication, this quote would have an addendum...
"My boss, Senator Kerry, would be more than happy to draft a bill that actually meets our needs, but the big, bad Republicans would just quash him like a bug, so why bother?"

I think its a cop-out..If Kerry drafted 38 bills on border control and every one of them was rejected, then he would have a claim, and my evil eye would turn toward the Republicans for blocking good legislation, AND I would publicly call them on it.

But his record isn't 0-for-38...it's 0-for-0.

On John Kerry's own website explaining his Senate record, most of the stuff that he drafted or fought for is from 19**...It does say this...

Putting principle ahead of partisanship, John Kerry works with his Republican colleagues on important issues like balancing the budget and keeping government spending under control.

It does not give any specifics...

He sought improved prescription drug benefits and authored legislation in 2003 to let veterans fill prescriptions written by non-VA doctors through the VA pharmacy.

He sponsored the bipartisan U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2002

These are the ONLY two things mentioned specifically after 2001...

That's it? Nothing concrete in the last two years? I searched this webpage for "2004" and "2005"...Not one match.

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/senate.html

 

[Imudman]

Let's break this down. They did what politicians do. They express themselves both through speeches and through voting. I remember in the 2004 election when certain politicians voted a certain way to express discontent about a war that was not beneficial to our troops security. Let's get one thing straight-this is what politicians do.

Onto the Democrats response and possible inaction. Let's break this down politicially. Politically, it matters who drafts a bill. It matters who co-authors a bill. A bill drafted by Democrats alone would be doomed to failure both in the house or senate. You may say that would not happen. False-it would. Without Republican support, and we see by this bill they tried to pass there would not have been any, any bill offered up by Democrats would be doomed to failure.

Is this partisan-hell yes. Does it suck-hell yes. But it is politics. Live with it.

Meanwhile, the country suffers. Feinstein and Boxer both voted against it. That means our very own Senators have gone south, so to speak. California needs a good house cleaning...

 

[debate_junkie]

What's ill-advised about wanting to protect the borders? There was nothing wrong with the bill. It would've put more border patrol agents on duty. Right now priority #1 is protecting our borders, I don't care how they pay for it. And your last question is a good one. But we should also ask why the dems can't either...

Well, if your house is burning down, what good is having border patrol agents, when there are no fireman? Here in Lebanon, they're spending so much damn money on stuff MANY of us residents have no say in. They laid off 3 firefighters last year in order to meet the budget, and then tried to damn the residents for demanding they make cuts ELSEWHERE to keep a city firestation staffed. The firefighters were eventually rehired, BUT they raised taxes.. again.. in order to do it. One issue isn't more important than the other. Firefighters cannot protect the border, but in the same breath, border patrol agents WON'T be putting out fires.

 

[Imudman]

Well, if your house is burning down, what good is having border patrol agents, when there are no fireman? Here in Lebanon, they're spending so much damn money on stuff MANY of us residents have no say in. They laid off 3 firefighters last year in order to meet the budget, and then tried to damn the residents for demanding they make cuts ELSEWHERE to keep a city firestation staffed. The firefighters were eventually rehired, BUT they raised taxes.. again.. in order to do it. One issue isn't more important than the other. Firefighters cannot protect the border, but in the same breath, border patrol agents WON'T be putting out fires.

That's silly. Of course some issues are more important than others. And it's absurd to believe the crap the dems said about cutting firemen out of the budget. We're talking about 2000 border agents, not 200,000. The money is just a drop in the bucket. I know, how about let's keep the money we're paying the Senators...?

 

[debate_junkie]

That's silly. Of course some issues are more important than others. And it's absurd to believe the crap the dems said about cutting firemen out of the budget. We're talking about 2000 border agents, not 200,000. The money is just a drop in the bucket. I know, how about let's keep the money we're paying the Senators...?

Then I guess you answered your own question. And of course some issues are more important.. but in the instance of border patrol vs fireman... I don't think anyone can say one is more necessary than the other. Both are protection of Americans, in different ways, yes, but both are EXTREMELY necessary in this country, correct?

 

[26 X World Champs]

What's ill-advised about wanting to protect the borders? There was nothing wrong with the bill. It would've put more border patrol agents on duty. Right now priority #1 is protecting our borders, I don't care how they pay for it. And your last question is a good one. But we should also ask why the dems can't either...

I'm guessing that you do not live in NYC or DC? I live in Manhattan and I'm a lot more concerned about taking the subway to work everyday than the borders, sorry.

Don't get me wrong, I want our borders protected too, with TOO being the key word. The bill that you supported wasn't a TOO bill, it was an INSTEAD of bill.

Re the Dems not "solving" the problem thru legislation, as previously mentioned if a Dem proposed a bill the Republicans would never let it out of committee. It would never receive the "up or down vote" that Republicans so hypocritically claim that Democrats prevent thru filibuster.

The Republicans have control of the Congress & the White House, if they are unable to get a proper bill passed they are too blame. It is quite lame to blame the Dems for the inability of the Republicans in this matter.

How come some of you insist on blaming Democrats for everything the Republicans cannot do? I don't get it, aren't you all wise enough and humble enough to accept responsibility for your parties decisions? If you defend their decisions you need to also accept their shortcomings.

I know I accept things that Democrats do poorly like choosing Kerry as a Presidential candidate....

 

[Imudman]

Then I guess you answered your own question. And of course some issues are more important.. but in the instance of border patrol vs fireman... I don't think anyone can say one is more necessary than the other. Both are protection of Americans, in different ways, yes, but both are EXTREMELY necessary in this country, correct?

Except one is paid for with primarily local dollars, while the other is paid by federal dollars. While both are important, it's the Congress' job to protect the borders. They're not doing it, and no amount of uttering mealy-mouth petty excuses will change that. I say they should either do their jobs or get out of the way and let someone who will. Goes for reps and dems...

 

[26 X World Champs]

Except one is paid for with primarily local dollars, while the other is paid by federal dollars. While both are important, it's the Congress' job to protect the borders.

Except in the bills that were just defeated they TOOK money away from States so your point is moot in regards to these particular bills.

Maybe if Rove had not cut taxes we'd have enough for both? I mean, even the very wealthy depend on firefighters, police and border patrol agents.

 

[Imudman]

Except in the bills that were just defeated they TOOK money away from States so your point is moot in regards to these particular bills.

Maybe if Rove had not cut taxes we'd have enough for both? I mean, even the very wealthy depend on firefighters, police and border patrol agents.

There's plenty of money. Maybe if the federal government wasn't in the business of expanding it's power over the state governments, it would have the will-power to do what it's supposed to do - protect the border. This isn't an either/or proposition. The federal government is bound to protect the border, and they're not doing it. Money is just their very transparent excuse to continue the status quo...

 

[ShamMol]

Meanwhile, the country suffers. Feinstein and Boxer both voted against it. That means our very own Senators have gone south, so to speak. California needs a good house cleaning...

They express their displeasure through votes. I would say that only one of them is liberal, and the other one can think for herself.

 

[Imudman]

They express their displeasure through votes. I would say that only one of them is liberal, and the other one can think for herself.

That's pretty funny, letting me figure out which one you think is which, lol. Hmm, I'd say they're both clueless about what their jobs are, since they can't seem to figure out how to solve the border problem. Really, the whole group, reps, dems, and even the self-avowed socialist from Vermont are pretty much worthless.

HEY CONGRESS! ARE YOU READING THIS? GET A CLUE, WHY DON'T YOU...?

 

[ShamMol]

Well, it is obvious where you stand on hate.

Anywho, Feinstein is the moderate who thinks for herself (liberal on women's issues though) and Boxer is the straight up liberal I know and love (plus you can't not love her use of diagrams to the 10th degree).

Do you realize that without illegal immigrants, it is quite possible that the California economy would collapse? You realize how many are working here? Don't go into taking jobs away from Americans, cause we know that Americans typically don't do these jobs...ever. That would likely cripple the economies of at least 3 states, not to mention how badly the national economy would be hurting. But again, this is all for security...and in that regard, I say allow more legals in per year. Get more people processing these things (cause they don't have basically any right now) and get the process moving faster (much faster) and then we can talk about not allowing illegals in, cause I really like my economy, you know...working.

 

[Imudman]

Well, it is obvious where you stand on hate.

Anywho, Feinstein is the moderate who thinks for herself (liberal on women's issues though) and Boxer is the straight up liberal I know and love (plus you can't not love her use of diagrams to the 10th degree).

Do you realize that without illegal immigrants, it is quite possible that the California economy would collapse? You realize how many are working here? Don't go into taking jobs away from Americans, cause we know that Americans typically don't do these jobs...ever. That would likely cripple the economies of at least 3 states, not to mention how badly the national economy would be hurting. But again, this is all for security...and in that regard, I say allow more legals in per year. Get more people processing these things (cause they don't have basically any right now) and get the process moving faster (much faster) and then we can talk about not allowing illegals in, cause I really like my economy, you know...working.

See my username? Use your imagination and realize I know all about illegal immigrants. Don't tell me Americans won't do the jobs they do - that is a bold faced lie. Fully 75% of the people working in my trade are illegal. I know because I work side by side with them. And cripple the state? Hardly. Just the opposite. Wonder why California's broke? Just look around...

 

[26 X World Champs]

There's plenty of money.

Get a grip dude! We've got a $400 Billion DEFICIT! I think dealing with reality is a better form of debate than make believe.

I know! Stop spending $5 Billion per week in Iraq and we can protect ourselves HERE rather than wasting so much money on this damn war.

Sadly the aholes in charge of our government are so fiscally irresponsible and warped in their values that they have no problem spending $5 Billion per week in Iraq while jeopardizing OUR safety here, not to mention the great job of recruiting we're doing for our enemies!

 

[Imudman]

Get a grip dude! We've got a $400 Billion DEFICIT! I think dealing with reality is a better form of debate than make believe.

I know! Stop spending $5 Billion per week in Iraq and we can protect ourselves HERE rather than wasting so much money on this damn war.

Sadly the aholes in charge of our government are so fiscally irresponsible and warped in their values that they have no problem spending $5 Billion per week in Iraq while jeopardizing OUR safety here, not to mention the great job of recruiting we're doing for our enemies!

See? We agree they're deadbeats. The deficit would go away almost instantly if only they'd quit wasting money on (pick your program). I tend to agree with you about Iraq, but we're there now so I think we should spend whatever amount it takes to get out without hurting the new Iraqi government...