…which didn’t include a ban on illegal immigrants.
Again, figure the GOP will phrase it the other way around: is the inclusion of illegal immigrants so danged important that Dems couldn’t bend on this one point?
I asked “complete, factual, and neutral.” You’ve affirmed your beliefin the factuality and neutrality of your position, but implicitly conceded your summary was not complete.
So now your argument is, “Even so, they shouldn’t have taken this position as to illegal immigrants.”
And perhaps you’re right. But they didn’t vote to kill the bill entirely. They simply refused to permit it without amendments. And while you may be convinced that excluding illegal immigrants may be “sociopathic,” you can hardly claim it’s covered by your original summary.
The Republicans wanted to do things the way they’re traditionally done in Congress – by debate and amendment. They propose an amendment to bar illegal aliens. “Sociopathic,” according to you, but not according to most polls. So what you’re really saying here is that the Republicans are being sociopathic for taking a position a substantial portion of the country agrees with.
But you didn’t even have the guts to say that honestly. Instead, you presented an incomplete version of the bill and sought to gain support for your position this way.
They can phrase it any way they like. It doesn’t change the fact that their version of the bill would have presented Democrats with the choice of sociopathy or bigotry. This version supports neither of those approaches.
before or after you nailed her?
Well, if you believe that I did not deliberately omit that fact, then you can’t really say I was being dishonest. But that’s beside the point. Was there actually a poll that asked people whether they felt illegal immigrants should be excluded from receiving benefits for 9/11-related diseases?
Then that’s what the GOP should have said. I didn’t vote for it because it’s ostly pork with a sympathetic name. I could respect that. To vote it down and cite procedure sounds awfully weaselly to me.
“as”?
This may be true but I keep asking why the Pubbies didn’t just pass it. So what if they needed 2/3. If it’s a good bill pass it. Take credit for bipartisan good work and deny the Dems the chance to grandstand. Why vote it down and then look like asses for whining about procedure?
I’d ask for a cite but I’m pretty sure you made this up and it’s a load of bullshit.
Yes. I see no reason to deny aid to an illegal immigrant who was a victim of this tragedy, other than pure malice.
That must also be why when they were asked about voting it down they whined about procedure rather than offering this explanation.
Contributory negligence principle. If they had not been in the country illegally, they wouldn’t have been victims. That’s not malice; it is, in a sense, simple logic.
You can say it’s cold- I would- but you can’t say it can only be malice.
Not seeing how that provides any wiggle room. Any evaluation of the situation through conventional morality would recommend equitable treatment. Besides, wouldn’t that suggest that they should have anticipated an increased threat of a terrorist attack due to their physical location? :dubious: This whole line of reasoning is moot.
I’m going to go on a limb and say that I’m sure the bill was much longer than" Article 1: All people whose health conditions worsened as a result of their direct work in the tragedies of 9/11 shall receive immediate and endless medicare benefits after the condition has been establsihed by a competent medical council."
It’s is easy to oppose a bill with a right-sounding name because of all the shit that is in it.
They said why they opposed it, and it seems “procedure” was the main reason. The illegal immigrant thing is a possible second. If there was anything else in there that they had a problem with, I’m sure we’d be hearing about it.
No it is malice. Let’s say someone ran a stop sign and T-boned you driving somewhere to buy beer on a Sunday in blue law state. The T-bone wouldn’t have happened had you followed the law and stayed home. Would anyone but a jackass would wag their finger and say you had it coming?
And food stamp recipients? Be just like those Dems to try to sneak in some provision so welfare queens can drive up in their Cadillacs and get cosmetic surgery! Clearly, that calls for an amendment. And Muslims? Gay atheists? Amendment, amendment. Child molestors? Better believe thats an amendment…
No, but in your hypothetical you haven’t broken the law yet.
Political reasons.
The thing is, it isn’t a one-sided street, the Democrats could have taken the higher road. I’m not defending either side, both are playing politics with people’s lives. But that’s what politicians do and it doesn’t surprise me. What annoys me is people acting like somehow the Republicans are any different from the Democrats in this. If the Dems had just allowed a straight up and down vote, which would have meant some Republicans got to make air time out of it, it would have passed and the workers would have their money.
At this point, and I say this as a fiscal conservative, the train is so far off the tracks it almost feels immoral to deny $7bn to Americans that performed an important task for the public good and suffered immensely for it. We now spend so much money that arguing about $7bn is like a party of 6 multi-millionaires stopping into a Denny’s and then arguing about who has to leave a $5 tip.