Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous Twitards Pay Attention! | Do I Stomp The Yard, Or Do I Mow The Yard? Next »
Anthony Weiner
THE GENTLEMAN WILL OBSERVE REGULAR ORDER THE GENTLEMAN WILL OBSERVE REGULAR ORDER THE GENTLEMAN WILL OBSERVE REGULAR ORDER THE GENTLEMAN WILL OBSERVE REGULAR ORDER THE GENTLEMAN WILL OBSERVE REGULAR ORDER THE GENTLEMAN WILL OBSERVE REGULAR ORDER
You lose sir! You get NOTHING!! Good DAY!
 | Geary on Famous Alumni |
| Geary on Talking Horse Pleads the … |
 | itsybit on Day One By Jimmy Kimmel |
| Geary on Money Shot |
 | Archer on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
| itsybit on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
| Geary on Day One By Jimmy Kimmel |
| itsybit on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
 | Tommycat on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
| itsybit on Famous Alumni |
Cheezburger Company Blog
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures 
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies 
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode. 
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz 
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
first
Anthony David Weiner (pronounced /ˈwiːnər/; born September 4, 1964) is a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, representing New York’s 9th congressional district since 1999. The district includes parts of southern Brooklyn and south central Queens. In Queens, the 9th includes the neighborhoods of Forest Hills, Maspeth, Fresh Meadows, Glendale, Howard Beach, Kew Gardens, Kew Gardens Hills, Middle Village, Ozone Park, Rego Park, Rockaway Beach, and Woodhaven. Its Brooklyn section includes, Gerritsen Beach, Marine Park, Midwood, Mill Basin and Sheepshead Bay.
Weiner defeated Republican Louis Telano in the 1998 U.S. House election, by a margin of 66%–23%. He was re-elected in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008, never receiving below 65%. In the House, he is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and Committee on the Judiciary. He was an unsuccessful candidate for Mayor of New York City in the 2005 mayoral election.
A graduate of SUNY Plattsburgh, Weiner was an aide to then-U.S. Representative Charles Schumer (1985–91) before serving as a member of the New York City Council from 1992 to 1998.
FEC violations
The Federal Election Commission had two cases (MURs, or Matters Under Review) concerning Weiner. Both cases have the same name, Friends of Weiner. MUR 4995 resulted in a $47,000 fine (“civil penalty”) against Weiner because of financial misconduct in one of his reelection campaigns.[26] MUR 5429 involved a $28,000 loan that Weiner’s parents made to one of his campaign committees.[
http://www.weinerfacts.com
LOL weiner facts… I’m surprised that wasn’t taken before
Wow…just…wow… I think I’d like to do that in my next Staff Meeting…
Reminds me a little of Tim Ryan’s rant a while back.
“No, I will NOT yield!”
“The gentleman thinks that if if he gets up and yells he’s going to intimidate people into thinking he’s right. He is wrong.”
hmm… Is that irony or just hypocrisy? Or something in between?
I think it’s a bit of brilliance lol.
Neither. That is a politician who has momentarily lost his sh*t.
Nah he was yelling at the guy because who was speaking out of order. Although that was a silly thing to say at that time, even if i agree with why he was angry.
It was even funnier when Weiner and the Republican he was yelling at appeared on CBS news this evening and neither would give a straight answer. The newscaster (Chris Wragge) said, “And this is why Congress only has an 11% approval rating!” to which Whiner – er, Weenie – excuse me, Weiner, sniped, “Don’t get snarky, pal!” Wragge gave him a dirty look and ended the report, shaking his head in disgust.
Considering most reports from CBS are biased in Democratic favor, Weiner couldn’t have been more childish. Congress does have only an 11% approval rating, and it’s nonsense like this that’s the reason why! Maybe Weiner was po’d because his fellow Dem and good buddy Rangel is now in the hot seat and going to trial for 13 counts of Ethics Violations and he’s worried he’s next…
Idiot. He’s PO’d because the Republicans wouldn’t cast a vote. Part of the fvcking constitution is that the leaders have to vote either for or against a bill. The Republicans got away with doing neither. If that doesn’t piss you off, then maybe you don’t love this country as much as you love your BS political party.
The Dems can have anything and everything they want right now with their super majority. Everything and I mean everything is all about Democrats right now. If Weiner is POed, it’s because his Dem buddies are jumping ship.
They don’t have a supermajority. They have 59 senators instead of the needed fillibusterproof 60, and even if they did have 60, quite a few senators 9and representatives) are conservatives pretending to be independent (see: Joe Lieberman et al.)
I’m being a little more aggressive than i need to be. The people defending the other side of this argument should know that the Congressman that Weiner was yelling at “to sit down, sir”. Actually voted FOR the bill in the end. This wasn’t some horrible socialization death-panel tyranny take-over like most bills presented by the evil Liberal Congress. This was helping people who needed help. Like all bills, it costs money. It was paid for by raising taxes on investing in foreign companies based in the US. Guess who has the most to lose from that deal?……….you guessed right if you answered Republican congressmen. Stop blinding yourself with hatred of only one party….hate them both if nothing else. Stop defending these pricks, it’s pathetic.
Don’t be a frakking idiot.
This bill was strictly for the purpose of providing the 9/11 first responders with badly needed medical care, and it was brought forth in a procedure designed to keep the Republicans from adding poison pill amendments having nothing to do with the subject. Had the bill been brought forth under normal procedure, GOP leadership was determined to lard it with a bunch of extraneous crap amendments on immigration issues that had NO logical connection to the health of our rescue personnel.
To avoid stupid distractions and keep the bill focused, House leadership made the decision to use a procedure that required a 2/3 vote rather than simple majority, but didn’t allow any amendments. The bill ought to have been an easy pass – everyone wants the heroes of 9/11 to be treated properly.
But the Republicans want to score their political points and they don’t care who gets hurt along the way. If they couldn’t force a vote on their pet peeve wedge issue, they were prepared to deny medical care to the rescue workers.
That’s what you’re defending, idiot.
Hey! Haven’t seen you around here in forever! How have you been?
Umm is this guy related to Boober?
Umm did you read the bill? Why would the Mayor of NYC be against the Bill if it was so grand?
That particular vote needed 2/3 of the House. Just note how many Republicans voted to cut benefits for 9/11 survivors.
More politicians like this please. It’s heartening to see someone with a bit of f’ing passion and who seems to know that the votes that they take impact on people’s lives – probably not the lives of politicians in their sheltered bubbles, but the lives on ordinary people trying to get by. Good for him, and I wish there were people with that kind of passion in UK politics.
Seconded. More like him, please!
It’s rare that I’m proud of a vote I’ve cast. Most of the time, I have to wince at the results and either remind myself that it could have been worse, or hope to do better next time.
But today, I’m glad I got the chance to vote for him while I was living in Rego Park. And I think Jefferson Smith, were he a real person, would have been proud of him as well.
You do realize most of this is feigned, right?
What is your evidence for that?
It’s not feigned, akshully. He IS that passionate.
he’s a self serving phony like that schmuck Chuck Schumer, he’d give his grandmother a black eye if he thought it would attract media attention.
That *would* bring media attention. Why haven’t they done it yet?
Oh, right, Pedro Espada.
You mean, Chuck “I never met a camera I didn’t like” Schumer? Too right!
B/c he was only yelling at Republicans and not the Democrats who were against this bill. Since this is the HOUSE there is a super majority in place, therefore the Democrats aren’t united on this Bill. If he was truely pi$$ed off he would have yelled at EVERYONE and not just the Republicans. Grand Standing at its finest, and y’all seemed to have eaten it up.
You do realize you’re speaking out your @ss, right? Dude’s the real deal. Check him out of Bill Maher.
seriously, i wish they had a guy in congress whose whole job is to sit there with a bullhorn, and yell at all the representatives to stop acting so selfish and stupid
I still think they should have a Bull$hit meter installed behind the podium…
I don’t think there is a device on this planet that could handle that…The way both side sling it, that thing would explode in the first day!
I will run for this job if it is ever created.
will anyone vote for me.
You have my sword, sir.
Why would anyone be against health care for 911 workers? That is retarded and wrong. Hell, every firefighter and EMT in the US should have health care, for free, if for no other reason then a big “Thank you” for everything they do.
Might be that they were against the pork attached to the bill? And the above grand standing was so that anyone who dared speak up against the pork could then be labeled as “against health care for 911 workers.”
Sure seems to have fooled you. And yes, both sides do it. They are both equally wrong and hypocritical when they do it.
Actually, it’s because the Dems used procedural tricks to prevent the Republicans from adding pork to the bill. They wanted the bill to just pertain to the Health care of the 9/11 responders, and didn’t want the Republicans adding anything questionable to it, because it should have just been a slam dunk vote.
Because of that, the Republican Caucus threw a hissy fit and voted against saving the lives of the Heroes of 9/11.
I don’t think you read the bill. You seem to have it backwards. And ignoring the fact that with a majority, they could easily shut down anything the Republicans try. All the blowhard is just for show, to dupe people like you into believing, well, exactly what you just said.
Justacarolinian, I’m a NYCer following this bill, and even though I’m a reluctant Republican, Political Nut is right. All you have to do is google the bill and read it for yourself.
From Politico.
“Navigate:
* POLITICO
* On Congress
* House GOP leaders: 9/11 first responders aid bill ‘a massive new entitlement program’
Main Content
House GOP leaders: 9/11 first responders aid bill ‘a massive new entitlement program’ – On Congress: House GOP leaders: 9/11 first responders aid bill ‘a massive new entitlement program’
July 28, 2010
Categories:
* House Republicans
House GOP leaders: 9/11 first responders aid bill ‘a massive new entitlement program’
House Republican leadership is advising its members to vote against a bipartisan bill that would, among other things, bolster medical support to Sept. 11 victims.
The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009, sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), would provide medical monitoring to those exposed to toxins at ground zero, bolster treatment at specialized centers for those afflicted by toxins on Sept. 11 and reopen a compensation fund to provide for the economic loss of victims.
And it’s all paid for by closing a tax loophole on foreign companies with U.S. subsidiaries, Democrats said.
But according to Republicans, it’s a job-killing growth of government that wou;d create a new entitlement and waste taxpayer dollars.
The bill, if passed, would reopen the Victims Compensation Fund until 2031 — instead of litigation, victims could try to get money from the fund. Republicans are calling the extension “well beyond what is needed to take care of latent claims,” according to a policy statement from the GOP.
“Republicans continue to believe that those who responded to the [World Trade Center] attack should get the treatment and liability protection they need because they dutifully answered a call for help,” the policy statement reads.
But this bill, according to Republicans, “creates a massive new entitlement program, exposes taxpayers to increased litigation and is ‘paid for’ with tax increases and potential job losses.”
Check and see who’s pockets are being lined by this bill.
Great, so where is the Republican version of the bill with no pork?
exactly.
for all their complaints about pork and demands for alternatives, the republicans don’t seem to have any response other then “No.”
I don’t see any pork mentioned in the article. Republicans tried to add an amendment to the bill and the Democrats wouldn’t allow it, so the Republicans said “fine, we won’t vote for it then”. Because an amendment attempt was made and denied, the rules say it takes 2/3rds majority for it to pass. Which is much larger than the Democrats standing majority. In other words, they would need about 21 more Republican votes than they got. There was no pork argument on the floor or in the bill that i know of.
“But this bill, according to Republicans, “creates a massive new entitlement program, exposes taxpayers to increased litigation and is ‘paid for’ with tax increases and potential job losses.”
Lining the pockets of friends is pork. Especially when there is already a way to get this done. This bill simply makes it so that there is no litigation in the process.
“The bill, if passed, would reopen the Victims Compensation Fund until 2031 — instead of litigation, victims could try to get money from the fund. Republicans are calling the extension “well beyond what is needed to take care of latent claims,” according to a policy statement from the GOP.”
Do you know what “pork” is? Pork would be if a southern Texas representative would have added in a project just for his district for the purpose of gaining localized votes. Republicans are stating that the whole bill is an expensive entitlement program and because it keeps open a Fund that has recently closed. There is no mention of pork, in your article, quotes, or in the Republican’s reason why they refuse to vote on it. Sometimes there IS a reason to get angry….before you defend these losers, take a second look. I don’t think you have the reason why they didn’t vote on it correct. There is such a thing as a GOOD bill, and I’m pretty sure this was suppose to be one of them. Weiner wasn’t arguing that they should’ve voted Yes or No for the bill, he’s yelling at them to at least cast a MuthFckn vote!!! and stop trying to stall and obstruct all while they are trying to keep their voting records clean. It’s political BS and Weiner is correct in calling them out for it. The argument isn’t about the bill, it’s about the vote.
OMG, you’re kidding… they call it a “massive entitlement program”, so it must be true?
How many 9/11 responders do you think there were?
And if you hasn’t noticed, how many of them don’t need health care anymore?
And you have the gall to echo the claim that health care for the ones that are left is a “massive entitlement program”?
Scream pork all you want, but until you show one scrap of evidence that someone other than the victims and responders are benefiting, you’re just illustrating that you’re willing to knee-jerk agree with people who have the morals of a tomcat in matig season if they’re on “your side”.
PS. Your quote says it increases litigation while your explanation says it “simply makes it so that there is no litigation in the process”. I’m not claiming to know what exactly the bill says or means, but maybe you shouldn’t be either. The whole argument here, in the case of Weiner to the House, is the Republicans trying to weasel out of a vote, not whether or not the bill is good. If you don’t want the bill then vote NO!
Read closely. The bill makes it so that those who make claims don’t have to go through the already existing channels to get help. Removing litigation.
When they don’t get what they want, they then sue, and instead of getting what would be proper, they get $9 million dollar cups of coffee.
There is already a system set up to deal with those who have legitimate claims. This bill is just pork to make sure the emotions of people are manipulated to open the govt purse strings. Pork.
Still irrelevant, vote YES or NO, don’t say if you could change the bill, you would vote YES. That is a way to try to look good on a bill you know too many of your constituents would want you to vote for.
I think maybe you are missing that the entire bill and process was a planned gimick to get footage for November.
And both sides are guilty of doing it. I like what you said below about limiting bills to be only about what they say. Then we could have yes/no votes. And stop all the posturing. (On both sides)
This bill was pork and presented in such a way so that any disagreement or efforts to stop it would be viewed as evil. It IS fear mongering.
It would be different if there wasn’t a functioning mechanism in place to do what this bill claims to do.
You’re the one who didn’t read the bill. It was brought forth under a special procedure that required a 2/3 vote rather than simple majority, and ALLOWED NO AMENDMENTS.
Please make an effort to learn something about what you’re talking about; you’re just embarrassing yourself now.
Just oink when you say that. It’s pork. It should have been stopped. There are already existing channels to do what this bill was supposed to do.
As JAC said it isa political strategy to put ridiculous amounts of pork into “Yeah Ra Ra Bills” that would seem a slam dunk to approve, in order to “highjack the Bill”. It’s pretty slimey, but aren’t all politics.
Also the Mayor of NYC, Bloomberg was against the Bill b/c it required the city to fund up to 10% of a Federal Bill, AND the federal governmetn would over see NYC’s funding in the Bill, without any oversight from NYC.
Please read the Bill prior to jumping on the band wagon, “Yall are evil for not wanting to help 9/11 Workers.” We would love to help them, however let’s do it right, and with as little “fraud” as possible.
oh please, same old Republican garbage. Stall, obstruct, and then lie about the reasons for doing so. BS. Help the goddamn sick responders already. freaking BS.
The Republicans also asked the same question they asked about extending Unemployment – “Where’s the money coming from?” The entire 9/11 fund has been drained dry by NYC, there’s no buildings up to replace the Twin Towers, no budget in place, a massive deficit that cannot be filled, and the threat of layoffs from a Governor who SWORE there would be NO LAYOFFS and has now reneged. How much deeper is the City and State of NY, as well and the entire country, supposed to go? What cutbacks and concessions are the Democrats willing to make to fund all this without putting the United States into a deeper hole than it already is? Keep going, folks – we’ll eventually hit the country we owe billions to now – China!
Why don’t you ask the City and State’s Senator what he thinks the City and State Needs. I think his name is Congressman Weiner and his answer is in the video above. This is BS to defend these Republicans…..THEY WONT EVEN VOTE. If you’re gonna have the balls to obstruct the bill, you should have the balls to vote no on it. Which is exactly what the Congressman was screaming at them for.
I’m pretty sure come January, the end of the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy will offset a couple hundred billion per year of spending. The eventual end of both Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will add a couple hundred million per DAY of savings. I know you guys hate it when the B word comes up, sorry, but it takes more than 2 years to fix a 8 year problem.
Why not ask the Mayor of the City what he thinks?
Oh that’s right HE’S AGAINST IT!
Damn, that’s like British politics. Don’t see that often this side of the pond.
More republicans like this please. Then we’ll have our very own house of commons.
Umm the guy is a democrat?
To quote Wikipedia:
Anthony David Weiner (pronounced /ˈwiːnər/; born September 4, 1964) is a Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives, representing New York’s 9th congressional district since 1999.
Either you just shot yourself in the knee or you’re making an alltogether different point.
Perhaps he’s hinting that with more passionate Republicans, we’ll have ourselves a real dust-up going on up there.
Yeah, I thought that at first, too – but why would he post the Wikipedia link, unless he was taking ILPB’s rethorical question as a real one.
He also seems to have missed that the Wiki on Mr Weiner is posted in response to an ordinal.
I think he took ILPB’s sarcasm as an honest question of which side of the crotch does the Weiner lean to.
I was poisoned by the response from my democrat friends saying “So he’s a democrat, right? Me:Yes. Friend: He’s awesome.”, and, frustrated to hear that question one more time, I quoted wikipedia, again.
It seems to me that this guy is saying, ‘Support our bill, but if you don’t, I don’t like that you can still stall it out’. Question is whether or not he’d agree with that when there’s a bill out there that he himself isn’t for.
Everybody stands for the rules when they work in their own favor.
what he saying is vote Yes for the bill if you agree with it, vote No if you don’t, but don’t vote No then claim “I might vote yes if the process was different.” the republicans have gotten away with that BS for long enough.
Bigger question for me, with a supermajority in congress, why does he need to yell at anyone? If this is so clear cut, shouldn’t he just be able to get it through on a simple party-line vote? Maybe he’s yelling at the wrong side?
they don’t have a supermajority. that’s why the republicans can filibuster.
They needed a 2/3rds vote to pass this, which they don’t have.
Democrats could get more done if they’d do as republicans do.. Anyone who doesn’t 100% agree with them in their own party, they pour tons of money into someone to run against them who won’t think for themselves.
Common sense and a bouquet of ethnicities and backgrounds keep the Democrats a little more open to party line dissent than the Republicans.
As a New Yorker, I am embarrassed by this idiot. Does he even remember the democRATS blocking many of Bush’s appointees? Isn’t it the same thing that the republicans are doing here? Hypocrate of the highest order! I am embarrassed that this creep can get any votes in my state!
Do you even NOTICE he’s saying “Fine, vote no, but don’t weasel out of it by saying, ‘I might vote yes if we had a better process’”?
He’s not being a hypocrite. He’s saying vote with your CONSCIENCE–if you have one!
As a New York City Wage Tax Payer, I think you should use better use of my tax money so you can learn how to properly comprehend words.
That “creep” your state voted for is trying to help your state’s citizens and gets criticized by his state’s citizens….how appropriate. I’m guessing if he sat on the other side of the aisle you’d be cheering him on, but since he’s on the “wrong” side – screw him and screw the 911 responders.
As a New Yorker, I applaud this man. What I am embarrassed about is that people like you live in my state.
Haha democrats are retarded.
You’re right: the democrats bills are being retarded by the republican party.
Doesn’t the City of New York provide healthcare benefits for it’s emergency responders?
Yes. But what do you think happens if you retire before you’re pension is fully funded, can’t work, or go out on SSI disability? You lose your benefits. Who do you think pays it then, oh wise one?
Now I do not know the entire context of this event but i will present my take on it.
First of all, the level of passion and the theme of what he is saying is to be admired. I agree representative should vote as they believe without stringing eachother on, but something to be said for the rebulican side (should it be a better option they had in mind or should it better serve the original point of the bill) would be that people should examine the bill for what it says. Many of the bills and laws currntly being passed by Congress are way bigger than they need to be and our representative DO NOT READ THEM.
I think it should be a higher worry that someone iis voting on bills they do not read, and this has a connection to why the representatives end up quibbling over little details. Congress needs to get their act together and mean what they say and say what they mean.
Props to this man for calling people out on the political positioning that slows the process of getting anything done, but I believe there is no way to simply be for or against something when the bills have their special interest footnotes and “pork”.
I believe the real answer to both sides is simplify the bills to mean what is to be done, address the problems directly and not be loaded with political positioning themselves.
Also the people voting this year need to take this idea to heart, vote for someone because of what they do and say themselves, not what they say about others or how long they have held their office.
I have more i could say but i have already rambled enough and this small forumdoes not need a big fuss.
You have your answer, an simple amendment to the constitution stating that a bill must be written by Congress, no lobbyists, no special interests, etc. Second all riders must be relevant to the bill, no highway appropriations on a health care bill, no health care on an infrastructure bill, etc.
Once a bill has nothing to do with anything outside what the bill is about, the whole process streamlines itself. No more, “I didn’t know butterfly farms were in that education bill, I can’t be expected to read every 1,000 page bill put in front of me…” Maybe bills shouldn’t be 1000 pages unless all 1000 are relevant.
Bingo.
not that im against democrats cause I’m not but that guy DOES sound like a wiener!!
I’m sure that plays well with the 6th graders.
Alright I’m a Canadian, but it seems to me that he’s speaking out against the stalling of votes. If one party has a majority, and they’re all voting together, they get to make the decisions. This is how politics works. It is not the right of the opposition to slow down the process. Debating is fine but it should not stall the vote.
This bill does sound a bit like pork barrel politics except for the 10% pitch in from the city of New York. This chunk saves it from being a request for a hand out from the feds.
Now one very interesting point is the money coming from ” closing a tax loophole on foreign companies with U.S. subsidiaries”. Having some idea of the shady business that politicians get into (see former Prime minister Paul Martin’s foreign registered Shipping fleet), it seems to me that the republicans may be more opposed to where the federal money is coming from than the federal oversight.
On another point, in Canadian politics shouting is very, very common. Remember we’re based on the British system ( Congress with a two drink minimum). However, up here our MP’s (Members of Parliament) shout just to be heard. They don’t have the passion that this guy has. I admire it.
A different perspective is always welcomed. I’ve seen him, Weiner, (teehee) on news shows before and it seems he’s always standing up for principles I believe in. I wish my representative from Texas would do the same.
I’ve seen him, Weiner….hahahahahaha
The majority should never be able to run rough-shod over any who stand in their way…That is mob rule, and it has benefits at times, however it has massive drawbacks too.
Several points to you Grim for pointing out exactly what this “pork” was going to be.
“closing a tax loophole on foreign companies with U.S. subsidiaries” Doesn’t sound like republicans actually caring about American jobs, it sounds like republicans getting afraid because some of their foreign investments might not line their pockets as well as they used to.
While I agree that NYC should be giving more than 10% to the health care of the 9/11 workers that is something that can later be amended in the process (as many things are.)
Anthony Weiner is an awesome representative and I wish the USA had more like him to call it like it is.
Amen sister!
I think it would be awesome if the US politicians took a cue from Japan and broke out into full scale brawling once in a while.
Once upon a time they did.
Hell, there are tales of duels.
I may not agree with the guy on some things, but yes more like him please.
this guy is seriously awesome!! everyone should be like this, passionate and true to what they believe.
Oh and also, his name is wiener XD
I heartily agree with him. It’s about time politicians from both sides were prepared to stand up and vote yes or no. This is coming about because Republicans do not want to be associated with voting no on such an important topic, but the current Republican mantra is “If the Democrats want it, it must be opposed” – they are just not honest enough to admit it.
They realize that their voting record will be held against them in November, if they vote no on important things – so they try to obstruct without actually voting no; they delay and fudge and pretend they just might vote yes if only something was different and they try and run bills out of time.
Congressman Weiner was making, I feel, a very valid point. If someone believes in a bill, they should vote yes. If not, they should vote no. But they should NOT try to delay there being a vote in the first place.
I agree that we need politicians that actually are accountable for their votes and their decisions. Unfortunately, the US legislative branch is broken. So many riders and other unrelated material ends up in a bill that is actually harmful or completely unwanted.
Fix the method of passing legislation — call it a “transparency” law, that only related items can be in a bill.
Also, the American people only have an attention span of a gnat, making it easy for unrelated rants and passionate pleas sway decisions instead of the facts of the bill (I’m not just speaking about this case, but in many other cases).
Give me a break. The bill was going to pass with 218 votes until the democrats decided to change the bill with several amendments and then declare that it needs 290 votes to pass. They did this KNOWING they wouldn’t get the votes, because they wanted to use it as a partisan attack on Republicans.
Anthony Wiener is one of the most weaseley partisan hacks in the House and he is considered by many to be a borderline sociopath. He was on Hannity today making a total clown of himself as he refused to answer simple questions like, “Why don’t you just pass the bill with 218 votes?”. The guy simply wouldn’t answer the question. Hannity literally asked him like 10 times and every time Wiener changed the subject to attacks on Republicans.
Why do you think he has to yell so loud? Because if he didn’t you might hear the other side of the story.
Why didn’t the Republicans vote? You act like this type of crap doesn’t happen for EVERY SINGLE BILL, granted normally this BS happens in the Senate, but this time it was in the House. More filibusters in two years than in the history of the filibuster. WTF? Just vote Yes or No, what’s the fvck’n problem? And you defend this crap is even more scary. They’ve actually got you defending doing nothing. Congratulations, you took the bait.
You should really try getting your facts from somewhere besides Hannity. You have it exactly backward. The House leadership used the procedure requiring a 2/3 vote TO BAR AMENDMENTS. The Democrats didn’t amend the bill – they were trying to keep the Republicans from larding the bill down with unrelated amendments on immigration issues.
The Republicans could have voted on a clean bill that would have dealt ONLY with 9/11 first responder compensation. But they demanded to score their political points with amendment votes on immigration wedge issues, regardless of who got hurt in the process. The Democrats refused to muddy up the bill, so the Republicans voted it down.
Do your research before you shoot your mouth off, kthx.
Last time I checked the Democrats have a supermajority in the House, so what’s his point? Last time I checked the Bill made NYC pay 10% of the Bill, without any oversight from NYC but the Government. Funny how the mayor of NYC would want “help” for his people, yet he’s against it. Would someone please talk to that? Or does that poke so many holes in your argument that you’ll ignore it and hope no one else notices?
LMAO THIS IS HILARIOUS!
This guy for president. A straight talker with common sense, and not afraid to cut through the BS.
The fact is, King is an originator of the bill to provide the care to the 9/11 victims. Weiner and his cohorts are trying to force a higher than usual number of votes for approval ….. in other words, trying to force a super majority to pass the bill.
Either way, there’s too much damned BS going on in Congress and too little of actual good legislation getting passed which actually does do something for people who really deserve it.
Regardless Weiner is little more than a tool, and an ass-puppet who plays politics for the special interest groups who fund his campaigns. Much like most politicians.
Oh look he’s from District 9!
Damn, I need to watch CCpan more…
Wow.
Why do we have a two party system? Other than simplifying things for voters, it just serves as a center of rationalization. Every candidate should just run on his/her own principles. Also, why do we have a senate? It just gives people in less densely populated states more representation than people in densely populated states. I suggest, following the scientific method and Rene Descartes, we reject everything and retest it. A lot of the constitution was created to appease member states so that the could join together in a moment of danger. The Founding Fathers were desperate.
Obtain and pick some good things from you and it aids me to solve a problem, thanks.
- Henry
Good post. I study one thing more challenging on different blogs everyday. It’ll all the time be stimulating to learn content material from different writers and observe a bit one thing from their store. I’d want to use some with the content material on my blog whether you don’t mind. Natually I’ll offer you a link in your internet blog. Thanks for sharing.
the problem with the bill, and the fact that both wiener and the hack from the turks is avoiding is that the govt is seeking to use the commerce clause to compel commerce, and they are using the IRS as a punitive agency should one choose not to be compelled to commerce. this is inherently unconstitutional, as many district courts have ruled. Obama and the libs are on the losing end of this one. If you stupid ass liberals are going to elect a “constitutional scholar”, make sure he knows the damn constitution. Morons.
It appears Trolls have taken over Congress
This is one of the Weiner-Tweeter’s greatest moments. I wish Australian politicians were more like this, they’re soooooooo dull.