What if his position is that he doesn’t care about the illegal aliens, but he doesn’t believe the bill should cover every person whose place of employment was at any time between September 11, 2001, and May 31, 2003 in lower Manhattan?
Tell you what, Bricker. I have some trust in your integrity, bruised and battered as it may be. If you look me straight in the monitor and tell me three times that you sincerely believe that Republican intransigence on this, and all those other issues, is based solely and exclusively on principled and sincere conviction… And not, repeat NOT, a matter of grandstanding and maneuvering for political advantage…
I will believe that you believe it. At the moment, I’m sorely pressed.
I can respect someone who just says “I want to help but the bill is too wasteful and not clearly defined” and then vote no. Then say you voted no because it’s to wasteful. It’s billions of dollars of the taxpayers money and it’s your job to make those judgement calls.
Don’t vote no and then whine about procedure only to vote it in later. It’s not going to be perfect and as several people have correctly pointed out, you have to balance your priorities accordingly. That’s the job as well.
If you vote no because you think it’s wasteful say so and take the political fallout for standing up for your opinion. Don’t complain about how the mean ole Democrats played some political game and forced into voting no. That’s pure bullshit.
I believe that the Republican stance is infected with grandstanding and maneuvering for political advantage… but so is the Democrats’. Neither party is free from this motive.
But “it’s wasteful” is not the only issue. Under normal circumstances, “it’s wasteful” is cured by an amendment. “Madam Speaker, I support the general goals of this bill, but believe that the provision extending coverage to anyone who worked in Lower Manhattan even one day for the three year period following the attack is too broad, and I offer this amendment to strike that language.”
So the lack of ability to do that becomes the complaint: the Democrats tried to push this bill sans amendments not because of their selfless concern for puppies and kittens, but because they wished to shield it from amendments to remove crap like that.
And of course the liberal crowd here buys the excuse hook, line, and sinker.
And look at the title of this thread.
It doesn’t say, “Conservatives Overwhelmingly Oppose Healthcare for all people who worked even one hour, in any occupation whatsoever, in any area of Lower Manhattan for years after the disaster.”
Why not?
Because the truth is so powerful, that there’s no need to adulterate it to sell your story?
So far as the title of the thread goes, it would appear a wee bit too long.
Something like that being in the OP might be a better question.
Why is it that conservatives are willing to spend a trillion plus dollars on a War On Terror inspired by 9/11, but when it comes to helping the victims of terror they start becoming penny pinchers? Where was the rigorous cost/benefit analysis for the two wars?
A pound of prevention is worth an ounce of cure, or something.
If the Republicans don’t wannt to vote on thsi bill because of the non-exception for illegal immigrants, that’s fine. But they should be grown ups about it and own their actions, instead of being weasels about it. And maybe they should also realize that the reason they are where they are is because of the shitty way they have governed therefore putting them in a minority. The Republicans, supposedly the party of responsibiliy, cannot take any responsibility for their own demise these past two election cycles.
Not quite. The Dems position is that the Republicans will amend it to death, dragging in all manner of irrelevancies, if not to defeat, then to foot-drag it until it becomes impractical to proceed. And to accomplish this end without putting their fingerprints on its rejection.
This position is wholly false? Given the Republican record, loathe, these many months, of screaming NO! NO! NO! and setting their hair on fire…
You can look me in the eye and tell me that this scenario is a fabrication?
Or are you simply presenting an alternative interpretation, in a lawyerly fashion, to shoehorn some doubt? An interpretation that, when pressed, you admit you don’t really believe yourself, offering us the equivalency that a man with a severe sunburn and a man with leprosy both have skin conditions?
You force us to choose either your sincerity or your intelligence.
Because they are unimportant ,not rich people. They lied about taking care of the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. We love our soldiers and call them heroes in the field. Once they are home they are useless to the repubs. They will not provide what they promised.
The people who helped in 911 were proclaimed heroes by all. But we don’t need them anymore. They cost money.
The repubs wanted to stick in an amendment that would deny help for illegal aliens who were hurt in 911. Many of them tried to help the people in the towers and many worked to help cleanup. But that work is done. We don’t need them anymore. Besides they are ramping up anti aliens fear and hatred in America now and that amendment would play big on the Palin/teabagger crowd. It was political chicanery as usual.
Despite being told that the bill covers anyone who worked for even one hour in the vicinity of lower Manhattan over a multi-year period, you persist in talking about “victims of terror.”
Why is that?
As to your second question: why do you assume there was no cost/benefit analysis. There was one: just not one in which you agreed with the weighting of the factors. The benefit of regime change in Iraq and protection of ourselves and our allies from potential attack was given great weight, and the cost to accomplish this task seemed acceptable. Obviously you don’t agree… but that’s not the same as claiming it didn’t exist.
So that’s two incorrect claims: “victims of terror,” instead of “people who worked near Battery Park for an hour in January 2003;” and “no cost benefit analysis,” instead of “a cost benefit analysis I happen to disagree with.”
Two false claims. But CONSERVATIVES are the bad guys. When liberals don’t tell the truth, it’s for a higher, good cause. Or something.
Although I’ve mostly been on your side in this thread, this is bollocks. Nobody competent could possibly have thought the benefits of regime change in Iraq were worth a dozen lost US aircraft, let alone 32,000 American casualties, uncountable numbers of Iraqi casualties and 736 billion dollars.
“To tell the truth is self-defeating…if you’re a liberal.”
~Rush Limbaugh (ca. 1992)
Lies and/or misrepresentations like those made by Blalron above, asserted by the OP in the thread title, and by Cisco and others about conservative motives are what enable Rush Limbaugh to fill three hours a day saying things like this.
Why can’t liberals simply debate things objectively and on their merit alone? Why is any and all opposition to anything liberal always loaded with subjective, biased interpretations of conservative motives and insults such as “greed”, “selfishness”, “hate” and “racism”? One would think you’re at a loss to get anything done without them. Why is that?
And on preview note the post by RNATB. See how nobody could possibly disagree with his position unless they were ‘incompetent’?
Same old same old.
Quoting Rush Limbaugh on telling the truth. Brilliant.
Thanks for your vigorous assistance thus far.
Why not? What are the dollars associated with regime change in Iraq? How many people did Saddam and his sons torture in 1998, and how much money do you assign to each?
You misunderstand. I’m showing how the lies and misrepresentations which are so typical of leftie activism on virtually any subject provide Limbaugh with the ammunition he needs to be able to say things that like and have them carry the ring of truth.
And I see you’ve chosen not to try to explain why the left can’t seem to argue in favor of its objectives without insulting the motives and character of its opponents. Good move, probably.
He says after the last few pages of discussion on ‘Regime Change,’ like that was remotely the load of bullshit we were given over why we needed to go to war in Iraq?
I haven’t told a lie in this thread. All I’ve really claimed is that you’re an asshole, and you keep proving me right.
And I still haven’t accused you of racism, you paranoid fuck, but you’re making me wonder.