“Those DAM republicans. Sick bastards. I hope they all die. How could they NOT fund the poor hero’s during 9/11?”
This is a tough charge. How do you fight this? (You don’t.) You never should have to in the first place.
Let me start this out by saying that republicans couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag, even if they had a knife. Whenever you stand back, silently, and allow the democrats to frame the debate, you will lose. Democrats are doing a fine job of running with this issue, and they are winning the debate. (But democrats are not telling the people the whole truth.)
Shorty after 9/11, it was decided that we (the government) would help out ALL of the hero’s who risked their lives during 9/11, with tax funded medical care. However, congress placed a time limit on when a hero could apply for this help. Hero’s, being who they are, (hero’s) they didn’t necessarily run to the government for FREE medical care. They felt fine. They didn’t have any problems. They went home.
Problem…
Today, some of these hero’s are coming up with strange cancers that cannot be explained by normal activity (smoking, foods, etc.) But, it is past the time that they can apply for this original government medical aid.
I understand what republicans are doing, I just can’t understand why republicans have chosen this issue to do it. Republicans heard us loud and clear during the last election: “Stop the dam spending.” So they are trying to be conservative and ask for committees to study this problem, and they want a detailed accounting of where the money will come from, and they want to give speeches on the matter; and they look like DAM fools. (And they are getting their asses handed to them.)
When we said “stop the dam spending”, we meant stop giving tons of money to GM, and Fanny Mae, and GE. When we said “stop the spending”, we meant stop spending 2 million dollars to study monkeys on cocaine. When we said “stop the dam spending” we meant stop spending money to build a bridge to nowhere.
We did NOT meant stop spending money on firefighters who now have cancer from saving lives during 9/11.
Do we have to spell it out for you assholes? We want you to stop spending $800 billion to bail out AIG, but it is OK to spend $8 billion to bail out hero’s like 9/11 firefighters and police. Can you understand that?
Never, never, ever say: “Duhhh, I cannot support this bill to get 9/11 firefighter’s money, because we need to study the bill.” (How freaking stupid are you?)
You say: “We will get funds to any hero who has become sick due to their activities at ground zero, during 9/11. But we cannot pass a bill that does MORE harm than good. Help is on its way. As soon as the democrats sit down and work on a bill that gets the maximum benefits to you without favoring certain labor unions and hospital systems, you WILL receive the help that you deserve.”
One thing that I have learned in politics: never sit back and be quiet on a political issue; it doesn’t go away. Bush tried this strategy and he was dogged during his entire second term. Even Rove has admitted that they should have fought back on these second term allegations.
In the game of politics, you have to be right, and you have to be louder than the next guy.
So, I was sitting here, writing, and I was watching MSNBC. (They “lean forward”, in case you didn’t know.) And Rep. Barney Frank was on, and he said that he wished he would have pushed the government into “helping” (regulating) apartments for the poor. You see, the government did such a FINE job in the house ownership market, getting houses to the poor; Rep. Barney thinks that the government could have brought some of that magic to rental units and rental homes.
God, all mighty..!! They just do not get it?
Also, which could be filed under the: “they just do not get it” category, congress wants to regulate the Internet. The Internet isn’t broken. It has been working fine without governments help all these years. But now, government wants a piece of the action. They will do it by way of the FCC.
My next posts have a lot to do with free speech and the government wanting to get its grubby hands on this freedom.
I hope that I have done the topic justice.
19 Senators who voted to censor the internet:
• Patrick J. Leahy -- Vermont
• Herb Kohl -- Wisconsin
• Jeff Sessions -- Alabama
• Dianne Feinstein -- California
• Orrin G. Hatch -- Utah
• Russ Feingold -- Wisconsin
• Chuck Grassley -- Iowa
• Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
• Jon Kyl -- Arizona
• Chuck Schumer -- New York
• Lindsey Graham -- South Carolina
• Dick Durbin -- Illinois
• John Cornyn -- Texas
• Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland
• Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma
• Sheldon Whitehouse -- Rhode Island
• Amy Klobuchar -- Minnesota
• Al Franken -- Minnesota
• Chris Coons -- Delaware
This should be a list of shame. You would think that our own elected officials would understand the First Amendment but, apparently, they have no problem turning the US into one of the small list of authoritarian countries that censors internet content it does not like (in this case, content some of its largest campaign contributors do not like). We already have laws in place to deal with infringing content, so don't buy the excuse that this law is about stopping infringement. This law takes down entire websites based on the government's say-so.
LINK- By Mike Masnick
NEXT UP...
What part of- Interpret the Constitution- do you NOT understand?
The sad shape of American courts
“..If you look at the values and the historical record, you will see that the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated..” Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer contended on Fox News Sunday.
Breyer believes that the only reason the Second Amendment appears in the Constitution is because founding father Madison feared that states would not ratify it, if it wasn’t spelled out for them. (The right to bear arms, and the Feds would not intervene with this right.)
We, the people, hire these justices to interpret the Constitution, and what do they freaking do? They disregard the Constitution, and what is written with in it; and try show that the Constitution is wrong because Madison was drunk one day and said he didn’t think every American should have guns. Or Jefferson wrote in a letter that there should be a wall of separation between church and state. So this must mean that we cannot have a Christmas tree in the city park.
It boggles my mind that these people SWEAR to uphold the Constitution, and then immediately begin to tear it apart.
Hey Justice Breyer, the law says that I cannot rape your daughter. But does this law REALLY mean that I cannot rape your daughter? What if she is horny and I am horny? Let’s dig around the correspondence between the lawmakers who wrote the rape laws and see if we can work around that silly little rape law.
Here is the good part; Justice Breyer says this:
“..Since the Founding Fathers did not foresee how modern day would change individual behavior, government bodies CAN impose regulations on guns..” (And forget what that silly little Constitution says.)
LINK- Strange days, too much weed smoking, Breyer knows Madison personally.
