Beck to rally on anniversary of King's 'Dream' speech

12345679»

Comments

  • __ Posts: 6,651
    OnTheEdge wrote:
    Nice try, but now I know this topic is over with.

    :lol:
  • OnTheEdgeOnTheEdge Posts: 1,300
    edited September 2010
    Cosmo wrote:
    OnTheEdge wrote:
    I understand that it had to have 2/3 vote cosmo, what I do not understand is why????


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyb7_Byli7U

    This one is the follow up.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ML3cGq5 ... re=related

    You blame people for partisan bullshit while you deny the fact that both parties played a roll in the results. :?
    ...
    Okay. If you are going to come out gunning for me, I suggest that you come armed with the facts. The first fact is you rarely find facts on a morning show broadcast over the cable stations. You get a lot of opinions and conjecture... which makes for great television.. in a Jerry Springer kind of way... but, rarely facts.
    I provided you with the facts... here is the source:
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h847/actions_votes
    Note: This is the actual roll call from the House floor, not from cable television.
    ...
    Now, you ask WHY was this called? Because who in their right mind would vote against providing first responders the health care that they have proved they earned? Even IF... and that is a big IF... some illegal immigrants were to get health care for the affects they had incurred while conducting search and rescue operations and clearing of rubble... IF they were to recieve aid... WHY would anyone vote to quash the bill and leave the first responders hung out to dry because of that?
    And this is a procedure that the House uses to pass bills in a timely manner. Example: In 2005, the $718 billion bill to support combat operations in Iraq passed because who in their right mind would have denied the troops fighting in Iraq the resources they needed... even if it was ladened with pet projects and favors to Haliburton and Blackwater? The same procedure was invoked to pass that bill. The bill had Republican sponsors who typically, lobby their peers to convince them to vote to pass the bill. That is how laws and public policy is conducted. It was tauted as a 'Bi-Partisan Bill' by both sides.
    ...
    Also... I never said anything about the Democrats or the Republicans. YOU were the one that placed all of the blame on one party over the other... not me. You can search through the past messages to find where I said is was all the Republican's fault... but, I warn you, you will be wasting your time because it does not exist because I never said it. YOU were the one playing the partisan politics... defending the Republicans, not me.
    I was simply debunking your false claims and never defended the Democrats or blamed the Republicans. I pointed out the fact that 3 of the bill's Republican sponsors voted against it. The ones who sat and worked on the bill... voted against it! Explain THAT to me.
    And YES... I do blame THOSE 3 Specific Representatives for their actions. That is not being partisan... that is calling those 3 specific congressmen assholes.
    ...
    Finally... the fact remains... the Democrats DO NOT hold a 2/3s majority in the house. That is indisputable. So, your statement:
    "Democrats had enough votes to pass that bill. But didn't , just so they could say.....look what the republicans did. But still, Pretty shallow of them not to vote on that bill, even with the provisions that were going to insure the illegals."
    was false, at best and clearly has a partisan stench attached to it. THAT was the basis of my arguement... that you don't have a clue on what you are talking about. YOU are partisan, not me.
    ...
    There. Are you happy, now?


    This post is so full of arrogance and ignorance i'm only guessing you didn't even watch the links.


    BOTTOM LINE...THE FUCKING DEMOCRATS DID HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO PASS THIS BILL UNTIL THEY DE`CIDED TO RAISE IT TO A MAJORITY AFTER REALIZING IT WOULD MAKE THE REPUBLICANS LOOK BAD....GET IT!!!!!!! SO MUCH FOR YOUR OUTSTANDING FACT CHECKING BECAUSE I'M GUESSING YOU DIDN'T EVEN FUCKING KNOW THAT. SO TAKE YOUR FUCKING INSULTS AND FUCK OFF!!! :evil:

    And if you think i'm defending the republicans, why don't you do some of your fact checking and check out the I love Weiner thread.
    Post edited by OnTheEdge on
  • OnTheEdgeOnTheEdge Posts: 1,300
    All better now that I got that off my chest. :D
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    OnTheEdge wrote:
    Cosmo wrote:
    OnTheEdge wrote:
    I understand that it had to have 2/3 vote cosmo, what I do not understand is why????


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyb7_Byli7U

    This one is the follow up.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ML3cGq5 ... re=related

    You blame people for partisan bullshit while you deny the fact that both parties played a roll in the results. :?
    ...
    Okay. If you are going to come out gunning for me, I suggest that you come armed with the facts. The first fact is you rarely find facts on a morning show broadcast over the cable stations. You get a lot of opinions and conjecture... which makes for great television.. in a Jerry Springer kind of way... but, rarely facts.
    I provided you with the facts... here is the source:
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h847/actions_votes
    Note: This is the actual roll call from the House floor, not from cable television.
    ...
    Now, you ask WHY was this called? Because who in their right mind would vote against providing first responders the health care that they have proved they earned? Even IF... and that is a big IF... some illegal immigrants were to get health care for the affects they had incurred while conducting search and rescue operations and clearing of rubble... IF they were to recieve aid... WHY would anyone vote to quash the bill and leave the first responders hung out to dry because of that?
    And this is a procedure that the House uses to pass bills in a timely manner. Example: In 2005, the $718 billion bill to support combat operations in Iraq passed because who in their right mind would have denied the troops fighting in Iraq the resources they needed... even if it was ladened with pet projects and favors to Haliburton and Blackwater? The same procedure was invoked to pass that bill. The bill had Republican sponsors who typically, lobby their peers to convince them to vote to pass the bill. That is how laws and public policy is conducted. It was tauted as a 'Bi-Partisan Bill' by both sides.
    ...
    Also... I never said anything about the Democrats or the Republicans. YOU were the one that placed all of the blame on one party over the other... not me. You can search through the past messages to find where I said is was all the Republican's fault... but, I warn you, you will be wasting your time because it does not exist because I never said it. YOU were the one playing the partisan politics... defending the Republicans, not me.
    I was simply debunking your false claims and never defended the Democrats or blamed the Republicans. I pointed out the fact that 3 of the bill's Republican sponsors voted against it. The ones who sat and worked on the bill... voted against it! Explain THAT to me.
    And YES... I do blame THOSE 3 Specific Representatives for their actions. That is not being partisan... that is calling those 3 specific congressmen assholes.
    ...
    Finally... the fact remains... the Democrats DO NOT hold a 2/3s majority in the house. That is indisputable. So, your statement:
    "Democrats had enough votes to pass that bill. But didn't , just so they could say.....look what the republicans did. But still, Pretty shallow of them not to vote on that bill, even with the provisions that were going to insure the illegals."
    was false, at best and clearly has a partisan stench attached to it. THAT was the basis of my arguement... that you don't have a clue on what you are talking about. YOU are partisan, not me.
    ...
    There. Are you happy, now?


    This post is so full of arrogance and ignorance i'm only guessing you didn't even watch the links.


    BOTTOM LINE...THE FUCKING DEMOCRATS DID HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO PASS THIS BILL UNTIL THEY DE`CIDED TO RAISE IT TO A MAJORITY AFTER REALIZING IT WOULD MAKE THE REPUBLICANS LOOK BAD....GET IT!!!!!!! SO MUCH FOR YOUR OUTSTANDING FACT CHECKING BECAUSE I'M GUESSING YOU DIDN'T EVEN FUCKING KNOW THAT. SO TAKE YOUR FUCKING INSULTS AND FUCK OFF!!! :evil:

    And if you think i'm defending the republicans, why don't you do some of your fact checking and check out the I love Weiner thread.

    later.... :wave:
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    OnTheEdge wrote:
    This post is so full of arrogance and ignorance i'm only guessing you didn't even watch the links.


    BOTTOM LINE...THE FUCKING DEMOCRATS DID HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO PASS THIS BILL UNTIL THEY DE`CIDED TO RAISE IT TO A MAJORITY AFTER REALIZING IT WOULD MAKE THE REPUBLICANS LOOK BAD....GET IT!!!!!!! SO MUCH FOR YOUR OUTSTANDING FACT CHECKING BECAUSE I'M GUESSING YOU DIDN'T EVEN FUCKING KNOW THAT. SO TAKE YOUR FUCKING INSULTS AND FUCK OFF!!! :evil:
    i do not think you even understand how the political game is played. i have rehashed this strategy in two other threads about this topic. if they had done an up or down vote the gop would have voted against it and it would not have passed because the gop would have put a provision in there denying the illegal resposders the same protections as the legal ones, and the dems would not have supported that. the dems opted to have them not be allowed to make ammendments to the proposed legislation so they had to get a 2/3 majority instead of simple majority, which they did not have the 2/3 majority. so either way, nobody in the gop was going to vote for it anyway...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    OnTheEdge wrote:
    This post is so full of arrogance and ignorance i'm only guessing you didn't even watch the links.


    BOTTOM LINE...THE FUCKING DEMOCRATS DID HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO PASS THIS BILL UNTIL THEY DE`CIDED TO RAISE IT TO A MAJORITY AFTER REALIZING IT WOULD MAKE THE REPUBLICANS LOOK BAD....GET IT!!!!!!! SO MUCH FOR YOUR OUTSTANDING FACT CHECKING BECAUSE I'M GUESSING YOU DIDN'T EVEN FUCKING KNOW THAT. SO TAKE YOUR FUCKING INSULTS AND FUCK OFF!!! :evil:

    And if you think i'm defending the republicans, why don't you do some of your fact checking and check out the I love Weiner thread.
    ...
    Look... if you are going to have the arrogance call me out, specifically... you can expect a response.
    The videos you referenced was the Joe Scarborough Show, 'The Morining Joe'... which I did, in fact, review. I love how you assume that watching pundits argue on cable T.V. is somehow proof of your point.
    If you had read my post... it was about your ignorance of Congressional Protocol. How the 'Suspension Of Rules' works is that it requires a 2/3s vote to pass and is used to immediately pass bills that no one in their right mind would vote ahgainst, such as providing Health Care Aid to 9/11 First Responders or sending resources to troops in a combat zone.
    And AGAIN... I never said anything about Republicans or Democrats because I am non-partisan on this thing. I don't care WHICH party they support... passing this bill to get immediate aid to the workers is the most important thing. YOU were the one who brought partisan politics into the fray, not me.
    ...
    I have a question to you:
    Do you.... personally... agree that the bill should not have passed because of the possibility that there were some search and rescue and/or recovery/ground clearing workers might have been here, illegally, and would qualify for aid?
    I ask this because I don't feel this way. I don't mind paying of ANY human being that was on site, doing the hard labor in that disaster... legal or not... because passage would have meant immediate response to those who did. NYPD, FDNY, Port Authority, construction workes or bus boys... I don't care. Those people displayed a great spirit of selflessness at a time when our country most needed it. They all have earned my deepest respect.
    ...
    Now... I'm glad you got that childish conniption fit out of your system. And I thank you for providing me a little laugh at your comical rant. But, the fact of the matter remains... the Democrats did NOT have the REQUIRED 2/3s vote to pass the bill in the manner it was addressed. Yes, a simple majority vote... which I never denied... would have done. I blame the entire Congress for this fiasco, not one party or the other. That is called 'Non-Partisan'.
    YOU, on the other hand, DID blame one party over the other... which is called 'Political Partisanship'. That was the point I was making.
    ...
    Now... adjust your panties and have some ice cream or something.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    "i have a dream, that one day, people in this country would come together, and stop listening to anything that glenn beck has to say.....i have a dream today...."

    gst27, 15 sept 2010
    from the chair at my desk....
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    "i have a dream, that one day, people in this country would come together, and stop listening to anything that glenn beck has to say.....i have a dream today...."

    gst27, 15 sept 2010
    from the chair at my desk....


    great, now I cannot come up with any new thoughts in my desk chair out of respect to you on 9/15/11, hope it is a saturday or my boss may be pissed
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    "i have a dream, that one day, people in this country would come together, and stop listening to anything that glenn beck has to say.....i have a dream today...."

    gst27, 15 sept 2010
    from the chair at my desk....


    great, now I cannot come up with any new thoughts in my desk chair out of respect to you on 9/15/11, hope it is a saturday or my boss may be pissed
    you can always reclaim that day for yourself.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • mikepegg44 wrote:
    "i have a dream, that one day, people in this country would come together, and stop listening to anything that glenn beck has to say.....i have a dream today...."

    gst27, 15 sept 2010
    from the chair at my desk....


    great, now I cannot come up with any new thoughts in my desk chair out of respect to you on 9/15/11, hope it is a saturday or my boss may be pissed
    you can always reclaim that day for yourself.

    I had a thought from the chair at my desk yesterday. I wasn't aware of the significance of the day though, it just so happened that it was the only day in my schedule I had time to think. It might have been divine providence.
    And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
  • OnTheEdgeOnTheEdge Posts: 1,300
    Yes, a simple majority vote... which I never denied... would have done. I blame the entire Congress for this fiasco, not one party or the other.


    :clap:
Sign In or Register to comment.