Democrats Vote Down National Security Legislation

[theeedude]

Great failure to the Constitution.

I know, need more General Welfare

 

[nageov3t]

I know, need more General Welfare

is that who's going to be leading the border troops?

 

[Red Dawn]

It's worth adding that McCain is also an appeasement/amnesty apologist except during election season. That guy doesn't reach across the aisle, he lives there between elections.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

what else was in the bill though? Bills never have just one purpose

 

[MotF Bane]

Great success for small government

Even though we all know you love big government.

 

[her209]

what else was in the bill though? Bills never have just one purpose

It was a proposed amendment to the war supplemental bill. That's what I'm reading from the article linked in the OP.

 

[Throckmorton]

So 1,200 isn't enough but 6,000 is? I think Republicans hate America because they didn't propose 30,000. No wait...150,000!!! WAIT!! ONE MILLION

 

[nick1985]

So 1,200 isn't enough but 6,000 is?

You dont find a difference between 1,200 and 6,000? Let me help ya brah, one is 5 times the amount of the other; a significant difference.

 

[Sclamoz]

Hasn't the complaint about the national guard troops being sent that they are there as a political move and won't have any authority? Why is it when the republicans want to send troops suddenly it makes complete sense?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lwusMxiHc

 

[Hacp]

So 1,200 isn't enough but 6,000 is? I think Republicans hate America because they didn't propose 30,000. No wait...150,000!!! WAIT!! ONE MILLION

6,000 is 3 soldiers per mile.

 

[theeedude]

Even though we all know you love big government.

You don't know nothing.

 

[nick1985]

You don't know nothing.

Yes we do. We are on to your big government/pro illegal shtick

 

[Throckmorton]

You dont find a difference between 1,200 and 6,000? Let me help ya brah, one is 5 times the amount of the other; a significant difference.

You don't see my point? Obama is sending 1200, Republicans are angry because it isn't enough so they propose 6000 as a political move. If Obama had sent 6000, you think they would have said "We're satisifed, this is enough"? No, they would have proposed 30000.

Democrats should propose an amendment to send 30000 and call the Republicans soft on illegals. They can then include another 30000 to send to Afghanistan, and if Republicans don't vote for it call them soft on terror.

Hell, let's start a draft so we have enough troops to secure the border, kill terrorists, and clean up the oil spill. If you don't support it, you're soft on illegals, soft on terrorists, soft on oil spills, and probably hate America.

 

[nick1985]

You don't see my point? Obama is sending 1200, Republicans are angry because it isn't enough so they propose 6000 as a political move. If Obama had sent 6000, you think they would have said "We're satisifed, this is enough"? No, they would have proposed 30000.

No

 

[Cotswolds]

You can disagree over the details on the first draft, fine, but if you agree that there is a problem to be fixed then you should take issue with Repubs simply saying No to any debate over it.

That is a disingenuous argument. The republicans filibustered a vote that would have allowed for a specific amount of time to debate the bill upon the completion of which the bill would a recieve a straight up vote, where only 51 votes would then be required to pass the bill. The bill could be openly debated WITHOUT said vote. But by having that procedural vote to "allow the bill to be debated"(again, bullshit), they would have given the democrats the passage. The dems had no interest in debating that bill, to suggest that the republicans hindered such a debate is to play politics with the issue. This is just how the senate works.

The GOP has their finger on the pulse of what the banks want, yet has convinced many Americans it's them that they are looking out for. Utter bullshit,

Considering how most banks donate much larger amounts to democrat rather than republican candidates, I think you've got the parties' roles reversed.

Any way you slice it, that financial reform bill is a joke and a mess. And this is coming from someone that firmly believes in reforming the banking and investment sector.

 

[theeedude]

Yes we do. We are on to your big government/pro illegal shtick

Royal "we" now?

 

[Cotswolds]

You don't see my point? Obama is sending 1200, Republicans are angry because it isn't enough so they propose 6000 as a political move. If Obama had sent 6000, you think they would have said "We're satisifed, this is enough"? No, they would have proposed 30000.

Democrats should propose an amendment to send 30000 and call the Republicans soft on illegals. They can then include another 30000 to send to Afghanistan, and if Republicans don't vote for it call them soft on terror.

Hell, let's start a draft so we have enough troops to secure the border, kill terrorists, and clean up the oil spill. If you don't support it, you're soft on illegals, soft on terrorists, soft on oil spills, and probably hate America.

You are making it seem as if Obama decided to send 1200 troops and in response, the republicans came up with the 6000 number. You've certainly got it all wrong. Obama sent the 1200 in response to the request for 6000. That number wasn't made up after the fact to make Obama spin his wheels.

The fact is, those 1200 NG aren't even there to secure the border against illegal immigration. They are there, ostensibly, to stem the flow of drugs and firearms into the country. They are not authorized or allowed to detain people for invading our country unless they do so with guns and/or drugs. If it's like the last time Washington sent troops to the border, they won't even be carrying loaded weapons. It's a joke, and incredibly insulting to many of us.

 

[marincounty]

ARGH! Why don't the democrats want to protect our borders? If Hitler himself were to march in with his Nazi army, democrats would just let him in. Democrats are showing their weakness on national security and weakness on immigration.

If Hitler were to march in with his Nazi army, it would be with the assistance of the Bush family. Google Prescott Bush and Nazis.

 

[MotF Bane]

Royal "we" now?

No, that would be the plural form.

You don't know nothing.

So I do know something, and what I know is that you love big government, higher taxes and more government involvement is your answer to any problem, imaginary or real, and that you like illegal workers to keep picking your food.

 

[ayabe]

You guys do know this was just McCain pandering for primary votes, right?

Ding, ding.

The truth is he doesn't give a fuck but needs to pretend he does.

Here's McCain calling the fence a waste of money:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeWYbFvMII0

Here is McCain a few months later, trying to finish the danged fence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5cebXvTnkc

 

[kage69]

Cots,

I'm aware of how the Senate works, but help me out here: other than lip service, what has the GOP done to show that it is serious about Wallstreet reforms so that the tax payer doesn't get fuct again? Their MO lately, and not just with this issue, is to opine on how much they are for reform, but when it actually comes to debate and working out compromises it seems they'd rather set filibuster records and piss and moan about scrapping outlines and starting over. For a party that controlled Congress for 16 years and failed to accomplish anything substantive on Healthcare reform, I have absolutely zero sympathy for them getting uptight about having definitive time constraints. The Dems have made already made substantial concessions to the GOP recently on the Health overhaul, so your proclamation of them harboring no cooperative feelings towards their opposition doesn't float. If the Dems were as tyrannical and hard headed as you seem to think, there wouldn't have been what? 160 odd changes they agreed to recently with the Healthcare bill?


I don't claim to know the exact break down of bank contributions per party, but you can feel free to back up your assertion there with a link or two.

I'm not saying the bill was perfect, nor have I said the Repubs are the sole political representatives of the banks (in fact, I believe I made mention of corporatist Dems, can provide names if you need them) but the fact remains that the GOP isn't serious about fixing these problems. At least the Dems are trying. Repubs don't even seem to be interested in non-binding debate, let alone contributing ideas.

 

[Sclamoz]

The fact is, those 1200 NG aren't even there to secure the border against illegal immigration. They are there, ostensibly, to stem the flow of drugs and firearms into the country. They are not authorized or allowed to detain people for invading our country unless they do so with guns and/or drugs. If it's like the last time Washington sent troops to the border, they won't even be carrying loaded weapons. It's a joke, and incredibly insulting to many of us.

So would the 6000 NG troops the republicans want have more authority?

 

[Cotswolds]

So would the 6000 NG troops the republicans want have more authority?

The troops *I* want on the border would be quite armed. The next time some rogue elements of the Mexican military crossed that border I'd make a vapor cloud out of their ass.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/state/Mexican_military_helicopter_seen_over_US_home.html
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=45464

You don't see reports of that from the mainstream media, do you? In case you think my sources aren't credible, just google it for yourself, there's tons from which to choose.

I couldn't come up with a quick source for the banking info at work, sorry. They just block too many sites here. But it shouldn't be too hard to dig and see that Goldman-Sachs, for example hasn't donated a single dollar to republicans this year. That fact makes the little dog and pony show going on right now at the justice department smell even funnier than it already did. AIG is also another big democratic supporter, though I do believe they spread a little love towards republicans, just not as much.

 

[Danube]

I didn't realize the Dems were busy with anything other than homosexualizing the military today. No troops for the border but homosexuals for the military. A normal person can't vote for that party anymore.

 

[jackschmittusa]

I'm all in favor or stopping more illegals, deporting the ones already here, and severely punishing those who hire them (although wouldn't some say that this government intrusion into businesses?).

But I have yet to hear how military troops on the border will be effective, or even a good thing. The military is trained and equipped to kill people. This might not be what we want.

Perhaps if they were re-trained for such duty and had a clear mission statement, I could be convinced. Until then, I am not much a supporter of this.