When the jobless needed help, what were Republicans doing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
Damocles said:
You have several times in this thread, no need for me to link to legislation that passed the house that has already been linked. Do you forget the legislation that passed, do you forget your links to that legislation?
Click to expand...

Which post did that appear in?

Recall, if you will, that your position is that instead of being preoccupied with an irrelevant non-binding resolution, House Republicans were beavering away on solutions to aid the American worker, yet you can't seem to name any.
 
\\(())// said:
Which post did that appear in?

Recall, if you will, that your position is that instead of being preoccupied with an irrelevant non-binding resolution, House Republicans were beavering away on solutions to aid the American worker, yet you can't seem to name any.
Click to expand...

Yet I can, and have noted you have yourself linked to the legislation that passed several times in the thread. Can you try to make your OP relevant again while arguing against legislation that actually passed directly relating to the extension of benefits?
 
Damocles said:
Yet I can, and have noted you have yourself linked to the legislation that passed several times in the thread.
Click to expand...

Was the "legislation that passed" being debated at the same time as the non-binding resolution that you claimed was not a distraction from more productive business?
 
\\(())// said:
Was the "legislation that passed" being debated at the same time as the non-binding resolution that you claimed was not a distraction from more productive business?
Click to expand...

Ah, I see your boggle (and new humorous attempt to try to make your OP relevant)!

LOL.

Again, do you believe that a bill sponsored by one member of congress makes all other congresspersons incapable of thinking of or writing any other legislation? Is this projection because you are incapable of thinking of any other thing once somebody else thinks of it, or are you just desperate to find relevance in you OP that you are willing to say or do anything, including ignore your own posts about objections to actual legislation that passed that was clearly relevant to what the republicans were doing when jobs were on the line?
 
Rootbeer... I am truly entertained by you today...

You post with objections about a law that directly points out that your OP was total nonsense, then try to pretend that the posts never existed.

I'm fascinated by you, do you participate in life that way? Do you, in short, believe that your are so irrelevant that your own contribution should be ignored regularly?
 
So you have, in fact, no substantiation for your claim that the House was not wasting time and resources passing a frivolous non-binding resolution while American workers cried out for relief?

Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader, said earlier that he would try to prevent votes on measures that were not “substantive and meaningful.”

The House did not vote, for example, on an independent resolution, passed in the Senate this year, to honor the troops who carried out the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. His office did not respond to a request for comment...

Five Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee wrote a dissent against the motto resolution last March, and Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York spoke against it in a brief debate on the House floor.

“Why are my Republican friends returning to an irrelevant agenda?” Mr. Nadler said.

“The national motto is not in danger. No one here is suggesting we get rid of it. It appears on our money, it appears in this chamber above your head, it appears in the Capitol Visitors’ Center, all over the place.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/us/house-of-representatives-affirms-in-god-we-trust-motto.html
 
\\(())// said:
So you have, in fact, no substantiation for your claim that the House was not wasting time and resources passing a frivolous non-binding resolution while American workers cried out for relief?

Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader, said earlier that he would try to prevent votes on measures that were not “substantive and meaningful.”

The House did not vote, for example, on an independent resolution, passed in the Senate this year, to honor the troops who carried out the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. His office did not respond to a request for comment...

Five Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee wrote a dissent against the motto resolution last March, and Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York spoke against it in a brief debate on the House floor.

“Why are my Republican friends returning to an irrelevant agenda?” Mr. Nadler said.

“The national motto is not in danger. No one here is suggesting we get rid of it. It appears on our money, it appears in this chamber above your head, it appears in the Capitol Visitors’ Center, all over the place.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/us/house-of-representatives-affirms-in-god-we-trust-motto.html
Click to expand...

LOL..

Now we're back to the beginning...

The republicans were passing legislation that offered 52 weeks rather than 8 weeks of extension that also actually addressed in small part the jobs situation itself.

Do you often believe your own contributions to the conversation should be ignored by everybody including yourself?
 
Damocles said:
LOL..Now we're back to the beginning...The republicans were passing legislation that offered 52 weeks rather than 8 weeks of extension that also actually addressed in small part the jobs situation itself.
Do you often believe your own contributions to the conversation should be ignored by everybody including yourself?
Click to expand...

Please, cite the reasons why you feel the House bill originally passed on December 13 was superior to the one that Congress eventually approved....don't forget to explain the poison pill provisions that had to be weeded out.
 
Damocles said:
As opposed to nothing else towards any solution and zero attempt to create a light at the end of a tunnel and a punt that makes the argument begin again in 8 weeks?

I pointed out earlier that this was the absolute least that could be done, and one of the benefits is that it cost zero tax dollars, another benefit is that some jobs would be created in perpetuity, and another is it would be one small step towards energy independence. It would be my hope that it could later be removed when we obtain a better technology and a more "green" solution.

Do you believe that the US would be safer if they were energy independent, or do you think it is safer to continue to use outside sources for energy with no interim measure or any attempt at independence?
Click to expand...

you did not address my question

additionally, why a terminus in texas?

why not some place closer like chicago or omaha

i would prefer a solution that would extend for 52 weeks, but it appears that the reps and dems cannot come to a compromise
 
Don Quixote said:
you did not address my question

additionally, why a terminus in texas?

why not some place closer like chicago or omaha

i would prefer a solution that would extend for 52 weeks, but it appears that the reps and dems cannot come to a compromise
Click to expand...

The terminus was decided by the market, while I would prefer Denver for selfish jobs reasons and the fact that we do have refineries, not by the government who wouldn't be paying for it... Pipelines are used around the world for safe delivery of this product. I answered your question and offered reasons for further benefit. We shouldn't ignore any step towards energy independence that can help build interim solutions until we can provide other means of energy. I am a firm believer in an "every measure" approach towards independence while we use a "moon shot" approach towards sustainable energy.
 
Damocles said:
The terminus was decided by the market, while I would prefer Denver for selfish jobs reasons and the fact that we do have refineries, not by the government who wouldn't be paying for it... Pipelines are used around the world for safe delivery of this product. I answered your question and offered reasons for further benefit. We shouldn't ignore any step towards energy independence that can help build interim solutions until we can provide other means of energy. I am a firm believer in an "every measure" approach towards independence while we use a "moon shot" approach towards sustainable energy.
Click to expand...

You don't note any incongruity in holding a bill hostage by inserting a pipeline approval poison pill into it?
 
\\(())// said:
You don't note any incongruity in holding a bill hostage by inserting a pipeline approval poison pill into it?
Click to expand...

Do you believe that providing a chance towards a solution rather than only treating the symptom is the same thing as denying "coverage"? Do you see passing a 52 week extension rather than a two month punt as holding an extension hostage?

Do you note that you are once again speaking of legislation that they actually worked on when "the jobless needed help" making your silly OP irrelevant?
 
Damocles said:
Do you believe that providing a chance towards a solution rather than only treating the symptom is the same thing as denying "coverage"? Do you see passing a 52 week extension rather than a two month punt as holding an extension hostage?
Click to expand...

I don't answer loaded questions. Did you lose your notes?

So you think it's OK to tie passage of necessary legislation to additional conditions like pipeline approval...cool.
 
\\(())// said:
I don't answer loaded questions. Did you lose your notes?

So you think it's OK to tie passage of necessary legislation to additional conditions like pipeline approval...cool.
Click to expand...

Translation:

You ask hard questions that I plan on avoiding.

So you believe that working towards curing the disease is the same thing as holding the medication "hostage" even when the prescription for the medication treating the symptom has been filled out?

And again, do you note that you are once again speaking of legislation worked on and passed while "the jobless needed help" that directly makes your OP into irrelevant noise?
 
Damocles said:
Translation: You ask hard questions that I plan on avoiding. So you believe that working towards curing the disease is the same thing as holding the medication "hostage" even when the prescription for the medication treating the symptom has been filled out? And again, do you note that you are once again speaking of legislation worked on and passed while "the jobless needed help" that directly makes your OP into irrelevant noise?
Click to expand...

Explain how H Con Res 13 helped the jobless, and name the concurrently debated bills that the House worked on while the GOP sponsors took up legislators time and spent tax dollars on irrelevant grandstanding.
 
\\(())// said:
Explain how H Con Res 13 helped the jobless, and name the concurrently debated bills that the House worked on while the GOP sponsors took up legislators time and spent tax dollars on irrelevant grandstanding.
Click to expand...

Translation:

Please repeat yourself again. I can't fully understand how allowing companies to provide jobs could possibly help the jobless, and really want to pretend that my OP makes sense while I argue against the very legislation that they were clearly working on when the "jobless needed help"!

You should just admit that the OP is total nonsense "gotcha" babble that makes no sense so we can continue arguing the relevance of actually creating jobs in a measure to help the jobless rather than just extending "medication" to help with the symptom...

We need jobs, the republicans fought to include them in legislation that extended for a full year what Obama insisted must only be extended for two months.

Do you find it impossible to take yourself seriously when you do this? Can you actually understand that you are currently making an argument against legislation that was written, argued, and passed "while the jobless needed help" making your own OP worthless nonsense?
 
Damocles said:
Translation: Please repeat yourself again. I can't fully understand how allowing companies to provide jobs could possibly help the jobless, and really want to pretend that my OP makes sense while I argue against the very legislation that they were clearly working on when the "jobless needed help"! You should just admit that the OP is total nonsense "gotcha" babble that makes no sense so we can continue arguing the relevance of actually creating jobs in a measure to help the jobless rather than just extending "medication" to help with the symptom...We need jobs, the republicans fought to include them in legislation that extended for a full year what Obama insisted must only be extended for two months. Do you find it impossible to take yourself seriously when you do this? Can you actually understand that you are currently making an argument against legislation that was written, argued, and passed "while the jobless needed help" making your own OP worthless nonsense?
Click to expand...

So you can't explain how H Con Res 13 helped the jobless, or name the concurrently debated bills that the House worked on while the GOP sponsors took up legislators time and spent tax dollars on irrelevant grandstanding, and you claim that the original GOP bill (which you said you're read) allowed companies to provide jobs?

Just...wow.
 
\\(())// said:
So you can't explain how H Con Res 13 helped the jobless, or name the concurrently debated bills that the House worked on while the GOP sponsors took up legislators time and spent tax dollars on irrelevant grandstanding, and you claim that the original GOP bill (which you said you're read) allowed companies to provide jobs?

Just...wow.
Click to expand...

So you continue to argue against relevant legislation while pretending it didn't exist?

Just...wow.

Once again, it is time to just admit your OP was utter nonsense and a misapplied attempt at "gotcha" politics. While the "jobless needed help" the republicans passed legislation that you think is bad. But it wasn't this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top