- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 20, 2012 at 12:08 am #604918
JanSParticipantseriously? Their own bill? <shaking head>
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/19/13966931-senate-republicans-kill-veterans-jobs-bill
September 20, 2012 at 2:32 am #771573
TanDLParticipantReally? Are the Republicans trying to commit political suicide? Alienate as many groups as possible right before a major election?
September 20, 2012 at 2:36 am #771574
jamminjMemberwhatever it takes to make sure those job #’s don’t move upwards.
Remember, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
not jobs, not the middle class, not the economy.
the number ONE goal, take down obama.
September 20, 2012 at 2:58 am #771575
NFiorentiniMemberMany of those 47%ers are vets and…well…they’re a bunch of freeloaders and moochers. They probably have never witnessed the spectacle that is dressage or even purchased their first summer home. Dirty plebs! Screw ’em.
signed,
The GOP
September 20, 2012 at 5:05 am #771576
jamminjMemberGOP to Jobless Vets: Drop Dead
conservatives’ plan this week was to block a pro-veteran bill that had the support of the GOP-led
Congress, all the Senate Democrats, and five Republicans in the upper body. “These men and women have worn our uniform, shouldered the burden and faced unthinkable dangers in forward areas during a very dangerous time,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told the New York Times.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/gop-jobless-vets-drop-dead
September 20, 2012 at 5:10 am #771577
JoBParticipantAnd some of you still think you want to put these clowns in charge of our nation’s business?
September 20, 2012 at 7:55 pm #771578
DBPMember[Yawn] Another fact-free “hooray for our side” opinion piece by Rachel Maddow.
That’s opinion, folks.
Not fact. Not really even news.
Please learn the difference. It’s important.
September 20, 2012 at 8:36 pm #771579
jamminjMember“Not fact. Not really even news.”
FACT – republicans voted against the bill.
here is your fact: http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2012/s/193
as far as it being ‘not really even news’- that is how the GOP view our vets nowadays.
It is BIG news for those vets who needed the help after serving our country.
September 20, 2012 at 10:08 pm #771580
kootchmanMemberI am a vet… I won’t vote for Obama. That makes me qualified to weigh in, If republicans are so “anti” vet… why is the democratic party supressing the vote of active duty military members? The cool thing about vets.. the reason I love em’ is they can smell a turd better than most. whew… what a stench!
Bet that left shill Maddow won’t cover this…
Six Republican senators are asking Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta personally to intervene to ensure that U.S. troops stationed away from home get the chance to register and vote in the upcoming election.
They say Pentagon officials are ignoring a 2009 law that ordered the military to set up a special voting-assistance office at every U.S. base around the world, to make sure troops can negotiate the confusing patchwork of 50 different sets of state registration and absentee voting requirements, and get their ballots mailed in time.
“The price of [the Department of Defense‘s] failure to follow the law will likely be paid this November by military service members and their families, whose voting rights were to have been safeguarded by this provision,” wrote U.S. Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, John Barrasso of Wyoming, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and James Inhofe of Oklahoma.
what tax increase or spending or debt increase did the Democrats attach to the bill that made it indigestible?
September 20, 2012 at 10:25 pm #771581
jamminjMemberFederal Voting Assistance Program – the the overall military voting assistance program is providing sufficient, if not improved, voter registration assistance.
the military is not only registered at higher
rates, but also voting at higher rates than their civilian counterparts. Furthermore, active duty
military voter participation improved appreciably between 2006 and 2010, likely due to the
improvements of the MOVE Act and shift in FVAP’s program focus.
September 20, 2012 at 10:34 pm #771582
jamminjMemberI guess unemployed vets is more digestible for the republicans.
and again, money for wars (even paying for iraqi citizens health care) is welcomed with open arms from the GOP,
but taking care of our own… heaven forbid!
September 20, 2012 at 10:56 pm #771583
DBPMemberj-j . . . glad to see you’re feeling better. I’m feeling rather splenetic myself.*
Tomorrow perhaps I shall deconstruct Rachel Maddow’s opinion-based opinion piece to discover whether there’s really any there there.
Meanwhile, I’ve got to hit the sack early tonight. Gotta Vanity Fair article to write.
In my sleep.
***************************************************************************************
*Would you like to know what that word means: “splenetic”? –Look it up. There’s probably a picture of me in the dictionary.
September 21, 2012 at 1:01 am #771584
KenParticipantFrom previously posted list of Republican lies:
e. “Obama wants to prevent the military from voting.” This has to do with the attempts by the Ohio GOP to impede voting by blocks that tend to cast their ballots for the Democrats. A rule was adopted by which limits were placed on the ability of locals to vote, cutting into the time where there is the highest turnout of minority voters. However, an exception was made for members of the military. This was challenged by the Obama administration, not to stop members of the military from voting, but to allow everyone else to have the same rights. Rather than admitting they were trying to favor one block of voters over the other, the GOP turned reality on its head. And P.S. – the courts agree that Obama is right. *
* http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120831/NEWS/308310102
September 21, 2012 at 2:02 am #771585
JayDeeParticipantThanks Ken. The truth is out there and you illuminated it.
September 21, 2012 at 3:52 am #771586
miwsParticipantSeptember 21, 2012 at 7:56 am #771587
JanSParticipantlook, Kman. I don’t give a damn if you were a general. I’m a vet, too. The fact is (DBP – you reading this?) . The GOP was asked to help write the damned bill, so it would truly be bi-partisan. It was already funded. And then they voted against it with some lame excuse. We all know that it was so it didn’t look like Obama did something positive right before election. After all, that’s their #1 priority – to make him look bad enough to not get reelected. Well, now it’s dead – the bill, I mean. It can’t be brought up again until next year. And this is right? We send our children into the hell of Afghanistan, and these jerks pull this? Unconscionable. It has not a damned thing to do with Obama. If you don’t want to vote for him, then don’t. This was wrong, period . Just because it was spoken about in a Maddow blog, so damned what? If I had posted something like that from some right wing rag, would that have been better? Do any of you actually pay attention to the real congress, to the real news? Do you actually give a damn? It doesn’t seem like it..You all just want to sit here and argue that you’re more right than me or Rachel Maddow or someone else. It’s all stoopid! There I’ve said it. I had a long damned day…a thing up my femoral artery in prep for more surgery. And then I read the reactions to this and I shake my head. You care about the troops coming home needing jobs? Doesn’t seem like it…it’s all just an effing power play to you. Get a life , as someone else said on here. Don’t wave a flag around me…it seems to mean nothing !!!!!!!
September 21, 2012 at 11:10 am #771588
kootchmanMemberAfter authorized by congress and voted into law, less than 50 per cent of the Voter Assistance centers have stood up. This is what the Obama administration has done since his ascent to the top of the minaret. Faithfully execute those laws he likes, subvert the ones he doesn’t. Vets and active duty military are polling at 65 per cent in favor of Romney. Voter suppression, pure and simple. Yes, Obama has sent others children to Afghanistan, as commander-in-chief, over 70 per cent of those casualties occurred on his watch. Yep.. as I suspected it was another federal jobs bill. Same old democratic claptrap… hire more federal employees. Figure out how to get your great great grandchildren to pay for it. Carter and Reagan gave tax credits to private businesses to hire… and in the process got taxpaying veterans, not tax consuming federal employees. For sure give them preference for government jobs.
Congress needs to get the economy going to absorb the 211,000 unemployed post 9/11 vets. Say.. how about some jobs in the private sector… and ya told another whopper JaN it AS NOT funded….
“Republicans said the spending authorized in the bill violated limits that Congress agreed to last year”
Huff n Puff Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/veterans-jobs-bill_n_1897377.html
September 21, 2012 at 2:40 pm #771589
jamminjMemberso republicans spend money in the states to suppress votes, and wants to spend money overeseas where military voter turnout is at an all time high.
reduce spending my ass.
” Same old democratic claptrap… hire more federal employees. “
more bullshit lies from the right. go ask your uncle ronnie about that.
and if its private sector jobs you want, republicans suck at that as well.
September 21, 2012 at 3:56 pm #771590
miwsParticipantSeptember 21, 2012 at 4:02 pm #771591
kootchmanMemberIs this a new thread or a distraction jj ?
This brought the labor force participation rate down to 63.5 percent, the lowest it’s been since September 1981
September 21, 2012 at 5:45 pm #771592
miwsParticipantThat article sounds as if it were written by a certain WSB poster that doesn’t like speed limits…
Mike
September 21, 2012 at 5:46 pm #771593
JanSParticipantkootchman..you repeat things you read, period. Actually we all do. Perhaps “fully funded” was not the best terminology. It was a program that would have paid for itself over a period of 10 years.. The Republicans helped to write the damned bill, and then they said it violate spending limits? Are they delirious? That was an excuse. They knew damned well going into it what it would cost.
And then there’s your comments…you just twist everything into more bashing of the president. Guess how many on here take you seriously now? No comments about how you think we should help our veterans get jobs..or don’t you see a problem with that? I think we need to bend over backwards to help them.it’s the least we could do….it’s the least our congress could do…and yes, it might cost a few bucks…money well spent.
September 21, 2012 at 6:25 pm #771594
JanSParticipantkootch…here’s a comment from one vet about the defeat of the jobs bill…can you argue with this?
“”Support the troops”. “We thank you for your service”. Hollow platitudes that are nothing more than lies that are piled on top of all the other lies that are the tattered threads that are barely holding together late stage American empire. You know all the others, We’re #1, best health care system in the world, yada, yada, frigging yada…
It looks like our “leaders” can no longer contain the contempt and distain they have for the rest of us. They no longer even want to help you get a job after you spent years firing off munitions, and wearing down military hardware, (all the while risking your life), that made billions for the military contractors that bribe these same politicians.
They continue to say, “Screw you!”, right to all our faces, yet most will get reelected without breaking a sweat. The two political parties that are looking for our votes are responsible for passing every law that has run this country into the ground, but they tell us this time it will be different. Vote for them this time around and they promise they wont screw you over like they have every chance they got over the last 40 years.
Vote for them in November and they will pass a jobs bill for the vets. Vote for them in November and they will vote down permanent detention of Americans without a trial. Vote for them in November and they will pass laws to prevent outsourcing of jobs overseas. Vote for them in November and they will close Guantanamo. Vote for them in November and the PROMISE to grant you any wish you’d like. Then the day after the elections, its back to “Screw you!” right to our faces.
Rinse and repeat the process until the inevitable collapse. So be sure to get out there and vote this November for the Dem or Repub of your choice , and continue playing your part in your own self destruction.”
vets are bitter at their treatment by us..by partisan politics. This jobs bill would have helped our vets get a foot up in life. Was it perfect? Perfection is illusive…but..politics again reared it’s ugly head in the likes of Rand Paul, Jess Sessions, etc. It’s disgusting…and you defend them. What the hell world do you live in?
September 21, 2012 at 11:05 pm #771595
DBPMemberOK, I’m wide awake now and ready to take on the world. Or at least Rachel Maddow.
Let’s look at the OP’s linked blog post a little closer, shall we? Turns out that it actually does have a couple of facts sprinkled in there for good measure. Only problem is they’re not meaningful facts. And they are not meaningful because they are (a) not explained in context and (b) not balanced with facts from the other side of the argument.
Let’s take this by paragraph by paragraph.
*************************************************************************************
Paragraph 1 asks a leading question and does so in a rather hyperbolic way.
Senators would have to be out of their minds . . . it begins.
In other words: You, dear reader, would have to be out of YOUR mind to disagree with the conclusions that I’m about to jump to.
Paragraph 2 tells us that a Republican Senator blocked a spending bill by raising a “point of order” (whatever that is.)
Note that this paragraph is the first and last time we hear from the “opposition.” And note, too, that we do not even get a direct quote, but rather a paraphrase, namely that Senator Sessions “said the bill violated a gap on spending agreed to by Congress last year.”
So that’s a dozen or so words from the other side, and they’re all loaded into the front end.
Paragraph 3 gives the bill’s sponsor, Senator Patty Murray, two long lines to tell her side of the story, again paraphrased. Senator Murray claims the bill was offset by new revenues, but this is not explained, and the opposition is not given a chance to refute this claim.
The author has Murray accusing Sessions of “exploiting a technicality,” though many people would question whether violating a spending limit is really such a trivial matter. But this is not as much of a problem with Murray’s comments as it is a problem of how the blog poster arranged the material, counterposing Murray’s use of the term “technicality” to the idea of “violating a spending cap.”
The blogger ends the paragraph by claiming the vote would “deny thousands of veterans a shot at getting hired as police officers, firefighters and parks workers.” Oh really? How ya figure? Are the veterans in question now legally blocked from even applying for jobs as police officers, etc.? Are their qualifications for the job somehow going to be downgraded by this vote? Their job applications tossed in the round file? How could that be? This comment seems to make sense at first, but when you look at it, it actually raises more questions than it answers. And when they are answered (sort of) still more questions are raised.
Paragraph 4 says the Senate voted pretty much along party lines.
Paragraph 5. Again with the leading statements. The bill should have been a no-brainer . . . Yes. In other words, people who don’t see things the same way as the blogger (and Democrats) have no brains. Oh good. That’s very helpful to me.
The paragraph then goes on to make some statements that seems like they might contain actual information, but which, again, raise more questions than they answers.
The bill would have given “grants to federal, state, and local agencies, which in turn would hire veterans [ . . .] to work as first-responders and in conservation jobs at national parks.”
–But wait a minute. Are these jobs actually needed or not? And what about the revenues that will supposedly be offsetting them? Where are those going to come from? The blogger doesn’t answer either of these key questions, here or elsewhere.
Paragraph 6. “The bill was fully paid for” – again, HOW was it paid for?
“Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) had his own set of ideas for the bill, and Murray incorporated all of them into her legislation.” – So? This bit is utterly useless.
Paragraph 7. Useless.
Paragraph 8. Worse than useless. By appealing to the authority of another editorial opinion – this time (finally) with an actual direct quotation to make it look solid – the blogger demonstrates his total want of originality or logical thinking.
Bad form, blogger dude. Bad form.
**************************************************************************************
You know, the funny thing is, after reading this article a few times, I have yet to form an opinion on the “story” itself. And that’s not my fault; it’s the blogger’s. This guy hasn’t given me nearly enough bona fide information to understand what went on with this bill or why people voted the way they did on it. However, his repeated implications that you’d have to be stupid to disagree with him did cause me to downgrade his particular opinion a couple notches.
September 21, 2012 at 11:55 pm #771596
JanSParticipantI love you DBP, but you know what? I don’t give a damn about your last post. This was not meant to be a critique of Rachel Maddow, and you damned well know it. I want your opinion about the topic of her blog…what about the effing bill that was voted down. That’s what this is about. If you don’ t like R. Maddow, fine. But..don’t change the subject here, OK? It’s not about Maddow, it’s about the Vets Jobs Bill…oh, you don’t know about that? Google is your friend…educate yourself..
and then…you called Rachel Maddow “dude” and referred to HER as HIM…what the hell did you really read?
hope you’re having a good Friday …
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.