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.

 

Due to thier failure to pass The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009...

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
...the following House members should be swiftly voted out of office:

Rep. Melissa Bean [D, IL-8] Nay
Rep. Robert Berry [D, AR-1] Nay
Rep. Bobby Bright [D, AL-2] Nay
Rep. Jim Cooper [D, TN-5] Nay
Rep. Robert Aderholt [R, AL-4] Nay
Rep. Rodney Alexander [R, LA-5] Nay
Rep. Steve Austria [R, OH-7] Nay
Rep. Michele Bachmann [R, MN-6] Nay
Rep. Spencer Bachus [R, AL-6] Nay
Rep. James Barrett [R, SC-3] Nay
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R, MD-6] Nay
Rep. Joe Barton [R, TX-6] Nay
Rep. Judy Biggert [R, IL-13] Nay
Rep. Brian Bilbray [R, CA-50] Nay
Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R, FL-9] Nay
Rep. Rob Bishop [R, UT-1] Nay
Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R, TN-7] Nay
Rep. Roy Blunt [R, MO-7] Nay
Rep. John Boehner [R, OH-8] Nay
Rep. Jo Bonner [R, AL-1] Nay
Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R, CA-45] Nay
Rep. John Boozman [R, AR-3] Nay
Rep. Charles Boustany [R, LA-7] Nay
Rep. Kevin Brady [R, TX-8] Nay
Rep. Paul Broun [R, GA-10] Nay
Rep. Henry Brown [R, SC-1] Nay
Rep. Virginia Brown-Waite [R, FL-5] Nay
Rep. Vern Buchanan [R, FL-13] Nay
Rep. Michael Burgess [R, TX-26] Nay
Rep. Dan Burton [R, IN-5] Nay
Rep. Stephen Buyer [R, IN-4] Nay
Rep. Ken Calvert [R, CA-44] Nay
Rep. David Camp [R, MI-4] Nay
Rep. John Campbell [R, CA-48] Nay
Rep. Eric Cantor [R, VA-7] Nay
Rep. Shelley Capito [R, WV-2] Nay
Rep. John Carter [R, TX-31] Nay
Rep. Bill Cassidy [R, LA-6] Nay
Rep. Michael Castle [R, DE-0] Nay
Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R, UT-3] Nay
Rep. Howard Coble [R, NC-6] Nay
Rep. Mike Coffman [R, CO-6] Nay
Rep. Tom Cole [R, OK-4] Nay
Rep. Michael Conaway [R, TX-11] Nay
Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R, FL-4] Nay
Rep. John Culberson [R, TX-7] Nay
Rep. Geoff Davis [R, KY-4] Nay
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart [R, FL-25] Nay
Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart [R, FL-21] Nay
Rep. Charles Djou [R, HI-1] Nay
Rep. David Dreier [R, CA-26] Nay
Rep. John Duncan [R, TN-2] Nay
Rep. Vernon Ehlers [R, MI-3] Nay
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson [R, MO-8] Nay
Rep. Mary Fallin [R, OK-5] Nay
Rep. Jeff Flake [R, AZ-6] Nay
Rep. John Fleming [R, LA-4] Nay
Rep. Randy Forbes [R, VA-4] Nay
Rep. Jeffrey Fortenberry [R, NE-1] Nay
Rep. Virginia Foxx [R, NC-5] Nay
Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2] Nay
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R, CA-24] Nay
Rep. Scott Garrett [R, NJ-5] Nay
Rep. Jim Gerlach [R, PA-6] Nay
Rep. John Gingrey [R, GA-11] Nay
Rep. Louis Gohmert [R, TX-1] Nay
Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R, VA-6] Nay
Rep. Kay Granger [R, TX-12] Nay
Rep. Samuel Graves [R, MO-6] Nay
Rep. Tom Graves [R, GA-9] Nay
Rep. Ralph Hall [R, TX-4] Nay
Rep. Gregg Harper [R, MS-3] Nay
Rep. Doc Hastings [R, WA-4] Nay
Rep. Dean Heller [R, NV-2] Nay
Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R, TX-5] Nay
Rep. Walter Herger [R, CA-2] Nay
Rep. Duncan Hunter [R, CA-52] Nay
Rep. Bob Inglis [R, SC-4] Nay
Rep. Darrell Issa [R, CA-49] Nay
Rep. Lynn Jenkins [R, KS-2] Nay
Rep. Samuel Johnson [R, TX-3] Nay
Rep. Timothy Johnson [R, IL-15] Nay
Rep. Jim Jordan [R, OH-4] Nay
Rep. Steve King [R, IA-5] Nay
Rep. Jack Kingston [R, GA-1] Nay
Rep. John Kline [R, MN-2] Nay
Rep. Doug Lamborn [R, CO-5] Nay
Rep. Thomas Latham [R, IA-4] Nay
Rep. Steven LaTourette [R, OH-14] Nay
Rep. Robert Latta [R, OH-5] Nay
Rep. Christopher Lee [R, NY-26] Nay
Rep. Jerry Lewis [R, CA-41] Nay
Rep. John Linder [R, GA-7] Nay
Rep. Frank Lucas [R, OK-3] Nay
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer [R, MO-9] Nay
Rep. Cynthia Lummis [R, WY-0] Nay
Rep. Daniel Lungren [R, CA-3] Nay
Rep. Connie Mack [R, FL-14] Nay
Rep. Donald Manzullo [R, IL-16] Nay
Rep. Kenny Marchant [R, TX-24] Nay
Rep. Michael McCaul [R, TX-10] Nay
Rep. Tom McClintock [R, CA-4] Nay
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R, MI-11] Nay
Rep. Patrick McHenry [R, NC-10] Nay
Rep. Howard McKeon [R, CA-25] Nay
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R, WA-5] Nay
Rep. John Mica [R, FL-7] Nay
Rep. Jeff Miller [R, FL-1] Nay
Rep. Gary Miller [R, CA-42] Nay
Rep. Sue Myrick [R, NC-9] Nay
Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R, TX-19] Nay
Rep. Devin Nunes [R, CA-21] Nay
Rep. Pete Olson [R, TX-22] Nay
Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14] Nay
Rep. Erik Paulsen [R, MN-3] Nay
Rep. Mike Pence [R, IN-6] Nay
Rep. Thomas Petri [R, WI-6] Nay
Rep. Joseph Pitts [R, PA-16] Nay
Rep. Todd Platts [R, PA-19] Nay
Rep. Ted Poe [R, TX-2] Nay
Rep. Bill Posey [R, FL-15] Nay
Rep. Tom Price [R, GA-6] Nay
Rep. Adam Putnam [R, FL-12] Nay
Rep. Dennis Rehberg [R, MT-0] Nay
Rep. Dave Reichert [R, WA-8] Nay
Rep. Phil Roe [R, TN-1] Nay
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, MI-8] Nay
Rep. Harold Rogers [R, KY-5] Nay
Rep. Michael Rogers [R, AL-3] Nay
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R, CA-46] Nay
Rep. Thomas Rooney [R, FL-16] Nay
Rep. Peter Roskam [R, IL-6] Nay
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R, FL-18] Nay
Rep. Edward Royce [R, CA-40] Nay
Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1] Nay
Rep. Steve Scalise [R, LA-1] Nay
Rep. Jean Schmidt [R, OH-2] Nay
Rep. Aaron Schock [R, IL-18] Nay
Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R, WI-5] Nay
Rep. Peter Sessions [R, TX-32] Nay
Rep. John Shimkus [R, IL-19] Nay
Rep. William Shuster [R, PA-9] Nay
Rep. Michael Simpson [R, ID-2] Nay
Rep. Lamar Smith [R, TX-21] Nay
Rep. Adrian Smith [R, NE-3] Nay
Rep. Clifford Stearns [R, FL-6] Nay
Rep. John Sullivan [R, OK-1] Nay
Rep. Lee Terry [R, NE-2] Nay
Rep. Glenn Thompson [R, PA-5] Nay
Rep. William Thornberry [R, TX-13] Nay
Rep. Patrick Tiberi [R, OH-12] Nay
Rep. Michael Turner [R, OH-3] Nay
Rep. Frederick Upton [R, MI-6] Nay
Rep. Greg Walden [R, OR-2] Nay
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R, GA-3] Nay
Rep. Edward Whitfield [R, KY-1] Nay
Rep. Addison Wilson [R, SC-2] Nay
Rep. Rob Wittman [R, VA-1] Nay
Rep. Frank Wolf [R, VA-10] Nay

Look at this list. These are the people who denied care to the men and women who responded to 9/11. This bill was to be paid for by closing some tax loopholes for foreign corporations with US subsidiaries, but in the end it was blocked by House GOP leaders... because they feel it creates "a massive new entitlement program". This is really boiling my blood, especially after the last (almost) decade of politicians using 9/11 to win elections and re-elections (not to mention to get certain legislation passed due to the fear caused by 9/11).

Are our 9/11 First Responders NOT entitled to proper care after what they did for this country?!






posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Thank you for making this thread. I do believe our first responders deserve better treatment than they are receiving, this is beyond ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Getting the same exposure here as at Fox News I see.


Oh well, I'm sure they're all busy looking for links between these so-called "firefighters" and the Union of Radical Islamic Late Term Abortionists.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 


If you want this thread to go anywhere, you have to blame Obama for it. That's what the right does, seeing all those (R)s by the names will just put the Right Wingers off.

So, my suggestion is re-title the thread "Kenyan born Obama in his Muslim anti American jihad to slaughter us all like sheep kills 9/11 heros" THEN the good people on the Right will care.


Because if you can't blame Obama, it didn't happen.

But your right, these people deserve better. What happened to them on 9/11 was not their fault and they worked bravely to try and save as many people as they possibly can, if anyone has any conscience at all they would have voted for this bill.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Reply to post by negativenihil
 


www.youtube.com...

Deny ignorance.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
The reason is because the Dems blocked anyway for the Bill to be altered. Therefore, the Repubs pretty much boycotted it, because they "have no say so".

The Dems used special rules and basically said that "Hey, we wrote this Bill, you can't change it and we know that this makes it more difficult to pass. If you don't vote yes to it then it is political suicide."

So if anything the assumption can probably be made that Democrats counted on this as another measure to try to save their seats in the House this November. Republicans of course voted per party lines, because the people don't matter to them, only the party leaders.


[edit on 7-8-2010 by Zaxxon]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaxxon
 


Maybe Republicans on this one shouldn't have towed the GOP line and acted like REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PEOPLE for a change eh?



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaxxon
The reason is because the Dems blocked anyway for the Bill to be altered. Therefore, the Repubs pretty much boycotted it, because they "have no say so".

The Dems used special rules and basically said that "Hey, we wrote this Bill, you can't change it and we know that this makes it more difficult to pass. If you don't vote yes to it then it is political suicide."

So if anything the assumption can probably be made that Democrats counted on this as another measure to try to save their seats in the House this November. Republicans of course voted per party lines, because the people don't matter to them, only the party leaders.


[edit on 7-8-2010 by Zaxxon]


Who gives a snip!

Do what's right by the people and stop playing politics!

That goes for both sides, I'm tired of these lame arguments.

Always a but this, but that. So what, think about the people you serve. Nay from me



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Zaxxon
 


Maybe Republicans on this one shouldn't have towed the GOP line and acted like REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE PEOPLE for a change eh?

That is what I indicated is it not?

I'll paste a quote from my post from above:

Republicans of course voted per party lines, because the people don't matter to them, only the party leaders.
Underlines added by me for emphasis of course.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaxxon
 


It was what you indicated and I was agreeing with you. Maybe our legislative branch should act more like representatives for the people instead of representatives for their parties?



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ISHAMAGI

Originally posted by Zaxxon
The reason is because the Dems blocked anyway for the Bill to be altered. Therefore, the Repubs pretty much boycotted it, because they "have no say so".

The Dems used special rules and basically said that "Hey, we wrote this Bill, you can't change it and we know that this makes it more difficult to pass. If you don't vote yes to it then it is political suicide."

So if anything the assumption can probably be made that Democrats counted on this as another measure to try to save their seats in the House this November. Republicans of course voted per party lines, because the people don't matter to them, only the party leaders.


[edit on 7-8-2010 by Zaxxon]


Who gives a snip!

Do what's right by the people and stop playing politics!

That goes for both sides, I'm tired of these lame arguments.

Always a but this, but that. So what, think about the people you serve. Nay from me


I take it you think I have some sort of agenda just as whatnuko. Did I not blame both sides? Did I not indicate that they were playing politics?

So in essence I said what you said, yet you condemn my post?

Awesome. Maybe I should have been voted into the House and I could have voted "yes" for the Bill as an Independent and you guys could send me letters blasting me for Republican and Democrat antics.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Zaxxon
 


It was what you indicated and I was agreeing with you. Maybe our legislative branch should act more like representatives for the people instead of representatives for their parties?

Exactly.

And my mistake. It looked like a sarcastic rhetorical to me. I suck at tone in writing.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Zaxxon]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Reply to post by whatukno
 


Why were Republicans needed?

Don't Democrats have a majority?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


I saw your video, and I understand the fact that the dems used a rule to make it so that they had to have a larger majority to allow the bill to pass. The reason for this was to stop useless amendments like the one that the video said the GOP wanted to insert.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Reply to post by whatukno
 


So both sides are to blame.


It would not be fair to blame just one "side."



[edit on 8/7/2010 by Lemon.Fresh]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by whatukno
 


So both sides are to blame.


It would not be fair to blame just one "side."



I'm sorry, but i disagree with this idea that both parties share equal portion of blame here. It is not the Democrats' fault that the Republicans did not vote for this issue.

9/11 is not a Republican issue, it's not a Democratic issue - it's an AMERICAN issue. No matter how the vote was put up - this should have been a no-brainer to vote YAY for.

Why was there any need to make this bill any more complex by allowing amendments?

[edit on 7-8-2010 by negativenihil]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil


I'm sorry, but i disagree with this idea that both parties share equal portion of blame here. It is not the Democrats' fault that the Republicans did not vote for this issue.

. . .


The Democrats do not need much, if any Republican support to pass most bills. They have the majority.

If the rules had not been changed, the bill would have passed overwhelmingly, with or without Republicans.

Who changed the rules? Democrats.

They changed the rules, and because of that, they doomed the bill to fail.



Why did they change the rules? To make sure that the minority (Republicans) could not put in an amendment to make sure that none of the money goes to illegals.

What does this amendment matter, to either side?

@ Republicans: Were there that many illegal volunteers, that this would be an issue? Answer - No. It was grandstanding to try and score conservative points.

@ Democrats: Is there a reason to not include said amendment, whether by vote, or by changing the rules? Answer - No. It was grandstanding to try and score liberal points.

[edit on 8/7/2010 by Lemon.Fresh]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

The Democrats do not need much, if any Republican support to pass most bills. They have the majority.

If the rules had not been changed, the bill would have passed overwhelmingly, with or without Republicans.

Who changed the rules? Democrats.

They changed the rules, and because of that, they doomed the bill to fail.


Yes, it's rather clear that the current circulating meme is that it's the Democrat's fault the Republicans didn't vote for this.

But come ON. This is an issue that politics shouldn't even come into the picture. Yet it did, and now people will suffer because the Republicans were blocked from adding any silly amendments to this bill.

Let that sink in for just a minute. 9/11 first responders - the men and women of the NYPD, NYFD and the EMTs are the ones suffering. The people who dug out bodies, the people who provided on the spot emergency care are the ones suffering.

This whole flap about the Republicans wanting to ensure no money goes to illegals from the bill is flat out silly. First, this thread is the first i have heard of that, and Second, are you and the Republican powers that be insinuating that the State of New York is unable to verify the men and women on their police and fire and EMT squads as proper citizens?

That's downright insulting.


[edit on 9-8-2010 by negativenihil]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 

As I understand it...

The idiot Democrats invoked the idiot 2/3s rule because the idiot Republicans were going to add a provision to block illegal immigrants from getting paid if they helped at ground zero. Apparently they didn't want this known.

The OTHER issue was that the bill contained a law that would have stopped certain companies from avoiding income taxes in offshore accounts. Like we can't use more taxes. One guess who didn't vote for it because of THAT.

In other words, they're all idiots. Vote the idiots who didn't vote for this bill out of office.Vote out the people who invoked the 2/3s rule too. I agree.

I don't think the OP blamed one side at all. Not that I saw.

[edit on 8/9/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Reply to post by negativenihil
 


Reread what I wrote.

Both sides are to blame.

Counter both arguments I made. Don't cherry pick.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join