It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Courageous Rep. Anthony Weiner slams Republicans

page: 1
38
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+23 more 
posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   


I wish he was my Congressman, he would get my vote for sure. He is standing up for the people in his District and all 9/11 Rescue workers who are dying from the materials in their lungs. The Republicans don't want them to receive guaranteed Healthcare because they say it will hurt jobs.

These people risked their lives to save thousands of innocent Americans from a terrorist attack or a government massacre on its' own citizens and the Republicans said JUST DIE!!

[edit on 7/30/2010 by Misoir]



+31 more 
posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


You may not have noticed, but the "progressives", or as you know them, marxists, have spent us into a state of immenent collapse. You see, he's simply run out of other peoples money to spend. The folks you mentioned are already very well covered. There is, in this country.....or used to be....such a thing called risk. It works like this. I risk my capital to start a business. I employ people. I spend my own money to make it work. If I fail, I lose my home. So I work really hard. I succeed. But now, to cover their irresponsible spending, they hack into about two thirds of the profits, using the power of police. Funny, it's a certainty that they wouldn't have bailed me out had I failed. In other words, they didn't share the risk. In fact, they like to buy votes by removing risk. In the same breath, they also remove freedom and choice. It's called communism.
If I took a position as a firefighter, I'd expect a slightly greater risk of being injured on the job. I'd look at the healthcare plan in place and make a decision if the reward was worth the risk. Then make a decision. So now we change the rules. The other problem you aren't speaking of, would be that the marxists have a bad habit of taking a peice of legislation, take war funding for example, then tripling the cost by adding things like social programs for illegals, or any other vote buying scheme you can imagine to the legislation. Fortunately, it was blocked. But it just goes to show you what an disengenuous prick Weiner really is. And how very gullable liberals really are. You guys never smell the coffee and realize that we inevitably will become a third world country if this is not only stopped, but reversed.


+34 more 
posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by astrogolf
 



You may not have noticed, but the "progressives", or as you know them, marxists, have spent us into a state of immenent collapse.


You got it all wrong, that would be BUSH and the GOP that spent us into near collapse. Remember: Clinton (surplus) - Bush (record deficits).

TARP, to the tune of a 700 billion bailout to the greedy bankers that started the financial collapse? That was Bush, too.

Sorry, but it was the GOP under Bush that drove this country into financial ruin, and left us with two unfounded wars.


+13 more 
posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Absolutely shameful how the republicans block healthcare for heroes and children and the majority of working americans, time and again.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
This shouldnt even be an issue.

These people need all the proper healthcare that they need.

I am appauled that the republicans said no to this.

There is absolutely no reason at all


Like I said earlier, these republicans better get their heads out of their asses real fast.

This does not look good on them, at all.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Oops...i just posted this too. Will remove.

Go Rep. Weiner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
S&F

Anyone who voted against this is evil. If it was buried in pork or something REMOVE the pork but pass this bill.

Idiot Congress.

[edit on 7/30/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I want to know WHY they didnt vote yes. I dont think that they would be that stupid to not vote for something so personal to the people of this nation.

If so, they officially made me sick today.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Common Good
I want to know WHY they didn't vote yes. I don't think that they would be that stupid to not vote for something so personal to the people of this nation.


Well I wanted to know that too so I looked it up,


Dems pursued a procedural tack that required two thirds of the House to prevail, enabling Republicans to defeat it, and obviously opposing this bill was a morally questionable thing to do.

Dems enjoy comfortable majorities.


Also this bill has been around since 2004?

Dems pursued a procedural tack that required two thirds of the House to prevail,

Why do you think they did this?
voices.washingtonpost.com...

www.nbcnewyork.com...

Since I learn something new everyday, my guess would be both sides playing politics as usual.
Why would they do that?

[edit on 113131p://bFriday2010 by Stormdancer777]


+5 more 
posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by astrogolf
 



You may not have noticed, but the "progressives", or as you know them, marxists, have spent us into a state of immenent collapse.


You got it all wrong, that would be BUSH and the GOP that spent us into near collapse. Remember: Clinton (surplus) - Bush (record deficits).

TARP, to the tune of a 700 billion bailout to the greedy bankers that started the financial collapse? That was Bush, too.

Sorry, but it was the GOP under Bush that drove this country into financial ruin, and left us with two unfounded wars.


I'm sorry but that is utterly ridiculous.

Sure the bailouts were proposed under Bush's watch, but they were carried out under Obama and he could have stopped them if he wanted to. Additionally, his administration has come out with propaganda videos declaring the bailouts were a good thing.

Of course, the bailouts never would have passed without democratic support in the congress either.

The bailing out of financial institutions and corporate shills is still going on to this day.

Obama has outspent what Bush did in 8 years already, and he's not even done with his first term.

If you still think this is a republican vs. democrat issue, I fear for this country.

We are doomed, make no mistake about it, but its not because of republicans. Its because of the STATE.


[edit on 30-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Thanks for the links, Given me a little more insight on all of this.

I think they are about to eat each other.

The fact that they are playing politics over this issue(both sides) is not only disturbing, but it also makes me glad that I am not a part of either of these parties.

According to my ballot this November, I am going to give all of the independants a vote. Both parties prove that they are unable to do what the people want, and instead choose to play politics with peoples lives.
THIS is why people DO NOT trust their government, because our government IS NOT looking out for the interests of their people, just themselves and their jobs.

Strong emotional outbursts like this only make the democratic party look weak, and at the same time, the republican party ceases to do what is right just to get a reaction out of the democrats, and it worked. It also made them(repubs) look bad at the same time.

These bastards make me sick.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe
 


when did the republicans gain the majority? How can they "block" anything?
Why did so few democrats vote for this bill that they needed help from the republicans?

I did not read the bill have any of you? Perhaps there is something else in there that people do not want there fingerprints on.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



Sure the bailouts were proposed under Bush's watch, but they were carried out under Obama and he could have stopped them if he wanted to. Additionally, his administration has come out with propaganda videos declaring the bailouts were a good thing.


They were more than just proposed by Bush, they were executed under Bush and the 2008 Congress. Obama was still just a senator when that was passed.

If you don't like the bailouts that's fine, I don't either, but place the blame for TARP where it belongs, on Bush and Paulson. They were the ones who bailed out AIG, MS and Wall Street.

edit to add:
America’s Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Blackmarketeer]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Heh... "Courageous" I like that.

There hasn't been a "courageous" person in Congress for decades. They're ALL detestable cowards, showboating for the cameras and then toasting each other behind closed doors. And you'd better believe it, people.

The country (and world) won't be safe until we have castrated and gutted the abomination of Central Government (metaphorically speaking, of course) and stand over its twitching corpse with our boot on its neck.

One World Government aint happening, folks, not as long as one sovereign nation remains. And the biggest, ugliest, stinkingest 800 lb Gorilla in the room is the USA, which WILL NOT go silently into the night.

I'm proof of that. Yes, including the stinking part.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
There hasn't been a "courageous" person in Congress for decades. They're ALL detestable cowards, showboating for the cameras and then toasting each other behind closed doors. And you'd better believe it, people.



Yep.
That particular word when used in the same sentence with a US politician pretty much guarantees a case of indigestion.

Not a single politician in DC that wouldn't sell us all down the river tomorrow if he could make some cash while doing it.

A good portion of the politicians we have would do it just for a laugh.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



Sure the bailouts were proposed under Bush's watch, but they were carried out under Obama and he could have stopped them if he wanted to. Additionally, his administration has come out with propaganda videos declaring the bailouts were a good thing.


They were more than just proposed by Bush, they were executed under Bush and the 2008 Congress. Obama was still just a senator when that was passed.

If you don't like the bailouts that's fine, I don't either, but place the blame for TARP where it belongs, on Bush and Paulson. They were the ones who bailed out AIG, MS and Wall Street.

edit to add:
America’s Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Blackmarketeer]


I'm not talking about TARP (which could have been rescinded by the democrats ex-post facto), I'm talking about the rest of the insanity.

I never said Bush wasn't responsible, but saying he is ONLY responsible is idiocy.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
After reading what all is the hold up, and reviewing the problems here is my take on this entire issue:
Both sides should be ashamed of themselves for their actions and behaviors, as it is political grandstanding at the expense of the people who really matter. Both sides are correct in their stance, yet neither is willing to compromise on their principle. The bill is good and noble doing the correct action, however, what the Republicans are objecting to is that the Democrats who, do hold the majority in the congress, and that could get any bill passed if they wanted, and the admendment, that has absolutely nothing to do with the aid, should not have been attached to the bill. The Democrats are correct that this is shameful and it is holding up alot of what they could get done. But both are wrong at the same time, cause they have ultimately lost focus on what matters in this case, and that is the people and citizens of the country, for whom the people in the halls of power have a social contract with to govern wisely and act in the best interest of the entire country. To use this as a means of political grandstanding to either gather votes or to make the other side look bad, in the aspect of this being a year where the balance of power could shift. It gives the general population a sense that maybe that we the people need to take matters into our own hands and enforce a change at the polls to where the people can get people in who are going to speak with one voice of the entire population, and not just one group or the other, or worry about getting re-elected.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Whenever republicans say "It will cost jobs" you can bet what it means is, "It will cost big corporations profit loss". The Dems aren't squeaky clean on this either but reps are historically monsters when it comes to denying the little man in favor of the rich. Remember Bush tax cuts?

"So you are a republican huh?"
"Yes"
"Are you really rich? Do you own a corporation, or are you just stupid?"

or

"Too poor to vote republican"



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by damwel
 


I know this may be hard to comprehend, but big corporations employ a lot of people.

Therefore taking money from them means they can employ less people.

Hence, it will cost jobs.

Democrats on the other hand think they know how to create jobs better than the private sector, therefore they claim that taking money from major corporations and spending it on "green jobs" or whatever other government program strikes their fancy will "create jobs".

Of course, this is utterly ridiculous since to create jobs they must first destroy jobs by taking from the productive private sector of the economy.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
well thank you for for doing some actual research!

could you tell us what that added admendment was? I was only half paying attention to the radio, and thought it was said to have been a foothold to AMNESTY hidden in the bill.



sorry this was to be in relpy to sdcigarpig

[edit on 30-7-2010 by nocents]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   
From what I can ferret out from other sites, President Obama asked for 150 million dollars (a year) for the bill and it came out at a price tag of over 8 billion. Some are seeing the add money as pure pork and a "slush fund' that could be abused.

The bill would spend $3.2 billion on health care over the next 10 years for people sickened from their exposure to the toxic smoke and debris of the shattered World Trade Center.

It would spend another $4.2 billion to compensate victims over that span, and make another $4.2 billion in compensation available for the next 11 years.

With that being said, there could have been a straight up & down vote and democrats could have passed it no problem.




top topics



 
38
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join