Courageous Rep. Anthony Weiner slams Republicans

Originally posted by Common Good
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.

Common Good, there's more going on here than meets the eye. The Republicans are NOT going to deny full health coverage for the 9/11 first responders. The Dems could pass this bill without Republican support but chose a procedure that demanded more than the Dem majority to pass.

This is political gameplaying: a manufactured situation so Wiener could grandstand. "Look at the nasty Republicans who won't protect the health needs of our heros!"

And I would not be surprised if the Dems loaded this bill with "extras" that would guarantee Republican objections.

SeaWind

They have already spent 7 1/2 billion dollars on these folks and now you want to extend the benefits out to 2031 and add another 7 1/2 billion on top of it?
I guess the Chinese will just have to let us borrow their debit card again!

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by Come Clean
Here is my liberal issue. You guys won't give the President credit for anything. The only thing you give him some resemblance of credit is increasing troop strengths. The only reason you do that is because the GOP can't bail out on starting two illegal wars. There are not even wars. We never declared war against them. It's two illegal occupations that Bush and the puppet master Cheney started to line their pockes with blood money.

Hmm... Last time I checked they were both legal. One war was provoked on 9/11/2010, and the other was provoked from 1990 through 2003.

Hmmm…I think there a mix up on the facts - and dates. In January 1991, Congress gave Bush, Sr. a War Powers Resolution authorization, which authorizes force in specific, limited circumstances, and is not a declaration of war. This was (in general) about Iraq invading Kuwait in 1990. This war was called “Desert Storm” or the “Persian Gulf War.” This war ended in March 1991. Some people thought this war was “unfinished” because Saddam was still kicking it at home, but still, Bush, Sr. acted within the scope of his authorization.

Ten years later, in October 2001 Bush, Jr. also got a War Powers Resolution authorization for going into Afghanistan. This war is simply called the “Afghanistan War.” This was to get bin Ladin for 9/11 and break up (scatter) Al Qaeda cells. However, UN officials and attorneys have formally declared this war violates international law, military acts do not have legal justification, and the acts constitute war crimes. Obama’s escalation of the “Afghanistan War” is considered “illegal" as well – but what are we gonna do? We don’t have bin Ladin yet, and it's the only support Obama gets from the Republicans - a tiny bit of support, anyway.

Nevertheless, in 2003, another war began under the instruction of Bush, Jr. According to leading experts on international law, this was/is not a “legal” war by any stretch of the imagination. For the sake of simplicity, we’ll call this war the “Invade-Iraq-‘cause-Saddam’s-hiding-weapon-that-don’t-exist-Iraqis-want-to-be-liberated-anyway-besides-he’s-responsible-for-9/11-but-not-rea lly” War.

Now, SOME people call this the “I’m-gonna-finish-what-my-dad-started-and-he’ll-be-oh-so-proud” War. If that were the case, then I suppose you could say this war was “provoked from 1990 through 2003,” but then again, not really, because – well – it’s 2010 and it’s not over yet – oh – and neither is the “Afghanistan War.”

reply to post by SeaWind


Damned if they do, Damned if they don't. There is no winners here, only losers. Washington is full of fail and will continue to be that way as long as our politicans remain at each others throats and seek only to destroy the other party through the pursuit of zero cooperation agendas. The Gop wins more seats in November? Do you honestly think things will get better? Do you think anything would be really different right now if McCain had won? If you do, I want some of the stuff you are smoking.

I would say that America is like watching a car accident, but the truth is the accident is over, we are in the ditch arguing about who fell asleep at the wheel as we bleed to death in the mud.

Originally posted by enigma91

God liberals are #ing retarded.

Wow. That was really grown-up.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I never said Bush wasn't responsible, but saying he is ONLY responsible is idiocy.

He's more responsible than Obama, so blaming him must be the height of absolute lunacy.

Remember when all the REAL fiscal conservatives were hitting out at Bush and his administration for their outrageous and irresponsible spending habits?

Why are people trying to rewrite history?

The Bush Deficit Bamboozle

Can we agree that the deficit in the first quarter of 2009 — Obama didn’t even take office until Jan. 20, the ARRA wasn’t even passed until Feb. 17, and essentially no stimulus funds had been spent — had nothing to do with Obama’s polices, and was entirely a Bush legacy? Yet the deficit had already surged to almost 9 percent of GDP. Even in 2009 II, Obama’s policies had barely begun to take effect, and the deficit was already over 10 percent of GDP.

What this chart really tells us is what you should have known already: the deficit is overwhelmingly the result of the economic slump, not Obama policies. But the usual suspects want to fool you. NY Times

This is also accurate:

America’s Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making

You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.

About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.

Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.NY times

I mean it's like the minute he took office the effects of the Bush administration on America was now something that originated with him instead.

THAT is what is really insane.

- Lee

[edit on 31-7-2010 by lee anoma]

reply to post by SeaWind


Thats why I am voting for NEITHER party come election time. I am voting all of these bastards out.
I am voting STRICTLY INDEPENDANT this time around.

I dont care about these parties feuds, because it is all about securing their positions and power. AINT GUNNA HAPPEN.

Both sides are idiots.

reply to post by SeaWind


Once again you're not being honest with us. They need 60 votes or the Rethugblicans will filibuster. What they are doing is using procedural rules to stall the peoples business.

They refuse to have an up or down vote on ANYTHING.



[edit on 31-7-2010 by Come Clean]

You guys claim to know the constitution and how Obama is attacking it but it's obvious you know very little about the constitution.

You know when you can spot an operative.

They continue to try and make it about the president or one party.

They continually try and divide.

They continually try and separate.

They continually try to obfuscate.

They continually try and deny that the FEDERAL government has overstepped it's bounds in almost EVERY situation.

Come on people.
There is nothing courageous about his outburst, so don't allow yourselves to be fooled that he is standing up for the firefighters, or anybody else for that matter.

This is nothing but phony outrage.

The boy is scared to death because he knows his job is on the line so of course he feels he needs to act like a little drama queen to stir up some sentiment.
You can expect more and more of these tantrums from other members of our government as we get closer to November.

nevermind. tmi.

[edit on 7/31/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Originally posted by endisnighe
You know when you can spot an operative.

They continue to try and make it about the president or one party.

They continually try and divide.

They continually try and separate.

They continually try to obfuscate.

They continually try and deny that the FEDERAL government has overstepped it's bounds in almost EVERY situation.

Let me ask you something. If a small business takes out a loan to buy new equipment is that considered a wise investment or a bad investment?

No one knows until it pans out or doesn't pan out. Bottom line, that small business is still in the red because he took out a loan.

Same thing here. Obama took out an investment loan. No other president had as much faith in the American people as President Obama has. Bush and Reagan only trusted big business. Trickle down the table scraps economics HAS NEVER WORKED.

I mean really, why hire someone when I can buy myself a new villa on the French Riviera? Or a new luxury yatcht? Or add a basketball court in my mansion? What incentive do I have to RE-INVEST in America?

Instead of thinking Obama is threatening you try think that he is trusting you.

reply to post by Come Clean


Well with that argument, why did he not just take that 27.3 Trillion dollars that the Federal Reserve created out of thin air and give it to the people instead of his progressive/communist buddies in the banking/corporate crony empire?

Yes, of course Obama expects us to pay back the money he stole from us and our progeny to give to the banksters and the government's corporate whores. That is what is called slavery.

Oh and by the way, Bush is the same as Obama. Get it yet?

27.3 Trillion/300 Million=$91,000 per person

Now if the progressive/communist in chief would have LET the corporate cronies fail, like a Constitutional Scholar would have or at least someone that FOLLOWS the Constitution, maybe I would not call him the progressive/communist in chief.



[edit on 7/31/2010 by endisnighe]

Question:

Let's say you hire someone and get a 30K tax break Let's say you pay this person 40K a year.

OR

Let's say you don't hire someone and get taxed at 50% on our total income. Let's say you only made 40K that year.

What's more lucrative?

Example One, 10 K is taxed at 50%. which measn you pay 5k in taxes.

Example Two, well that means you pay 20K in taxes which leaves 20K in your pocket.

Trickle down doesn't work. Never has.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Come Clean]

He's a joke , can you say smile your on tv. Worst acting I've seen in a while, must be his job is on the line.

reply to post by Come Clean


Here is an idea, why don't you start your own damn company?

Instead of the company ripping you off, you can rip off the government you think always happens.

Show me the part of the Constitution that states you have the right to a job. Show me the part of the Constitution that states you have the right to anything.

The Constitution is written to LIMIT the power of the government, nothing more nothing LESS!

Originally posted by Come Clean
You guys claim to know the constitution and how Obama is attacking it but it's obvious you know very little about the constitution.

Since you keep repeating this line, after people have made a strong defense, I can only conclude that there is a serious psychological problem. I feel really bad for your frustrations. Since the president is falling into oblivion, I can understand why his supporters are outraged. I don't think there is anyone here qualified to fix this problem. I think you are taking out your frustrations with Obama onto the people of this forum. It is okay to be mad at Obama. Until you admit your frustration with him, I will be ignoring your next posting.

*Poof you are off my field of vision.*

When it comes to Anthony Weiner's outburst, I see a desperate man trying to prevent supporters from abandoning him. Second, the outburst looked like a temper-tantrum of a five year old, and almost no one really gave a damn about what he had to say. I don't either.

What people should be asking is --- Was there anything inside this form of legislation, which tainted the good nature of the bill? I am willing to bet the details will be made soon. I would hold off on judging the Republicans until that time.

When it comes to innocent legislation, the devil is always hidden in the details.


[edit on 31-7-2010 by Section31]

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by Come Clean


What people should be asking is --- Was there anything inside this form of legislation, which tainted the good nature of the bill? I am willing to bet the details will be made soon. I would hold off on judging the Republicans until that time.

When it comes to innocent legislation, the devil is always hidden in the details.


[edit on 31-7-2010 by Section31]

My understanding is that in order to keep the Republicans from tacking on amendments to the Bill...the Democrats chose a procedure available to them that would negate the GOP from doing so.

However, in exchange for a simple majority, they would need a 2/3 majority.

IOW, they painted themselves into a corner by thinking they outsmarted the Republicans.

OBSERVATION: Does anybody Democrat supporter on this forum know that the Democrats hamstrung Bush for 8 years, in refusing to confirm judicial appointments? When the Democrats don't get their way, Mr. Weiner's outburst is what we see.

Gotta love the republicans! First they use lame tactics to block bills, then blame the economic crisis and resulting mess on the Democrats when the whole thing is the result of 8 years under Bush, and lastly they pretend that the tax break for the richest 1% running out by the end of this year is a major inconvenience for the "people".

Healthcare for children and heroes = no
Keeping the tax break for the richest 1% = yes

Sure, I'd totally vote for that

And people need to stop with the whole "but the constitution" bull#! Where were you when Bush cut liberties and privacy like never before in US history??? Whatever Obama's done so far doesn't even come close to what Bush did to cut liberties and freedom. I'm not a huge fan of Obama, but saying he's "ruining the country" is unfair given he has to deal with Bush's "legacy".

[edit on 31-7-2010 by MrXYZ]