PDA

View Full Version : An angry Weiner


ArlJim78
07-30-2010, 08:23 PM
Is this guy going to be the next mayor of NYC?

7AG0ddWf9TQ

Snag
07-30-2010, 08:59 PM
Makes you wonder what his rant was all about!

bigmack
07-30-2010, 08:59 PM
Weiner carted out a couple o' goats the other day because he don't like the mohair goat farming industry getting nearly $1 million in subsidies last year.

One of the goats, Lancelot or Arthur, ended up spearing him and drawing blood. Not to worry, rather than a spear, Weiner only had a little prick. :rolleyes:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/7_30_10_16_49_30.jpg

The only question left: Are those Hush Puppies on his feet?

Yours, by all means,

Ernest T. Bass
BackBay Boston, MA

Tom
07-31-2010, 12:37 AM
Truth in advertising?
A pol and his sheep?

This guy is a big enough jerk to fit right in NY politics.
We need more people of low character like him here! :rolleyes:

PaceAdvantage
07-31-2010, 01:02 AM
Gentlemen? :lol:

riskman
07-31-2010, 01:11 AM
Makes you wonder what his rant was all about!

The rant was about this:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/40091/

NJ Stinks
07-31-2010, 02:17 AM
Have I mentioned lately that I really like Anthony Weiner? :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

JustRalph
07-31-2010, 02:20 AM
It's a crappy reason to be fighting over this.

They are fighting over the procedural stuff when they ought to be making some real news and taking care of the 911 responders. No matter the discussion, the points of order, they should get stuff like this done.

But I will say, this is the kind of stuff that happens when you force things down someones throat by doing back door/behind closed door deals etc. Like the Obamacare meetings.

This is a stain on all of Congress. But then again......once you're covered in shit, what's one more flying turd

GaryG
07-31-2010, 12:07 PM
once you're covered in shit, what's one more flying turdThe Maxine Waters issue is covered on another thread.....:lol:

BlueShoe
07-31-2010, 02:04 PM
This guy is just another far left loon, ie, a typical jerk Democrat. He knew the cameras would be rolling and recording, and he got tons of free publicity and national exposure. With November getting closer, must have figured that a little attention would boost his re election chances, and perhaps his name recognition for a run for higher office sometime in the future. His little childish tantrum would indicte that Weiner is a real weenie.

jballscalls
07-31-2010, 02:56 PM
i agree with his point though, get stuff done, quit hiding behind bs.

i like weiner :)

fast4522
07-31-2010, 03:02 PM
Is he facing extinction in the November election is the question?

ArlJim78
07-31-2010, 03:26 PM
many of you are easily duped over and over. the bill would have passed, except democrats attached unrelated items to it and made a special rule that it must pass by a 2/3 vote, instead of a simple majority.

the outrage is phoney, and strictly for effect. its Weiner and the Democrats who are guilty of the BS. the 9/11 first responders are used as pawns.

They knew they didn't have the votes to pass it, but wanted to score political points so they set it up to fail. I'm sure Weiner rehearsed his tirade and finger gesturing technique over and over the night before.

mostpost
07-31-2010, 04:08 PM
many of you are easily duped over and over. the bill would have passed, except democrats attached unrelated items to it and made a special rule that it must pass by a 2/3 vote, instead of a simple majority.

the outrage is phoney, and strictly for effect. its Weiner and the Democrats who are guilty of the BS. the 9/11 first responders are used as pawns.

They knew they didn't have the votes to pass it, but wanted to score political points so they set it up to fail. I'm sure Weiner rehearsed his tirade and finger gesturing technique over and over the night before.
Just what were those unrelated items which the democrats allegedly attached? I looked at the bill's summary and table of contents and did not see anything out of the ordinary. There was no special rule made up. Any bill which is presented without the opportunity to make amendments requires a two thirds vote.

Why did democrats refuse to allow amendments. Because among other things Republicans were going to propose an amendment to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 3%. The democrats could have most likely defeated that but they felt they did not want to delay passage of the bill by voting on a long series of amendments.

The democrats undoubtedly felt the republicans would not play politics with the health of the heroes of ground zero. How wrong they were. :mad: :bang: :eek:

bigmack
07-31-2010, 04:29 PM
Why did democrats refuse to allow amendments. Because among other things Republicans were going to propose an amendment to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 3%.
You remain riddled with delusion.

1. What happened to the 6% of Dems that helped defeat the bill?
2. Where did you get the "among other things....Bush tax cut" thing?

It was idiotic on the part of Weiner to run with the procedural maneuver. If they did it to avoid any amendments and they didn't like the amendments they could have voted no. But noooooo, Weiner has to guess about what the amendments could be and have the bill fail.

ArlJim78
07-31-2010, 04:51 PM
Just what were those unrelated items which the democrats allegedly attached? I looked at the bill's summary and table of contents and did not see anything out of the ordinary. There was no special rule made up. Any bill which is presented without the opportunity to make amendments requires a two thirds vote.

Why did democrats refuse to allow amendments. Because among other things Republicans were going to propose an amendment to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 3%. The democrats could have most likely defeated that but they felt they did not want to delay passage of the bill by voting on a long series of amendments.

The democrats undoubtedly felt the republicans would not play politics with the health of the heroes of ground zero. How wrong they were. :mad: :bang: :eek:
Democrats can pass anything they want to pass. as we have seen over and over this year. They could have passed this bill at any time over the past three years. they don't need any Republican votes, and they could have shot down ANY ammendments that Repubicans might have offered.
Instead, they chose to keep the issue. they got 255 votes for the bill, more than enough to pass under normal rules. quite frankly they're chickensh1ts for trying to block the ammendment procedure and then whining about it when they didn't get to look like heroes passing this bill. they're pathetic.

toetoe
07-31-2010, 04:58 PM
Okay --- mixed in with MostPreposterous' fantasy that Whiner or any of his bedsharing Democratic apparatchiks admire heroes ( :rolleyes: ) other than Oliver Stone or Ernesto Guevara or Mousy Tongue, etc. is a fair question. Please answer it, ArlJim.

toetoe
07-31-2010, 04:59 PM
Thank you. :blush: .

mostpost
07-31-2010, 05:34 PM
You remain riddled with delusion.

1. What happened to the 6% of Dems that helped defeat the bill?
2. Where did you get the "among other things....Bush tax cut" thing?

It was idiotic on the part of Weiner to run with the procedural maneuver. If they did it to avoid any amendments and they didn't like the amendments they could have voted no. But noooooo, Weiner has to guess about what the amendments could be and have the bill fail.
1. Four democrats voted against the bill. That is 1.6% not 6%. But, to answer your question, I have no idea why they voted against it and I do not like the fact that they did.
2. Don't recall. I'll see if I can find it again.

In retrospect it was probably not the best idea. But let me ask you this. The Republican claim is they would have supported the bill if they had been given a chance to offer amendments. They didn't say if amendments were added, and you admit the Dems probably could have beaten any amendments.
If the Reublicans were willing to support the bill as is, then why not vote for it, unless you are trying to hold the bill hostage for political gain.

gl45
07-31-2010, 05:36 PM
Whiner is a smuck, does really care about the 9-11 responders? I doubt. He only care about his job, that is why the rant about it.

ArlJim78
07-31-2010, 05:42 PM
This bill was brought up using special rules (http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2010/07/30/anthony-weiner-loses-his-cool.html).

per Newsweek;

Unfortunately for all those cops and firefighters, the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act was brought up under special rules. That expites the process, but it requires a 2/3 majority to pass. All but 12 Republicans voted against the bill. Rep. Lamar Smith's (R-Texas) typical comments derided it as a "$8.4 billion slush fund paid by taxpayers that is open to abuse, fraud and waste."


the reason for the special rule wasn't as some are imagining, to expedite the process and save time. It was done precisely because it would REQUIRE republican votes to pass. Under the 2/3 rule Democrats couldn't pass it by themselves. Dem's wanted the issue, so they got it. I can just see the ad factories now working overtime on the scripts for the new ads decrying how Republicans blocked funding for 9/11 responders.

It would have passed with Republican support had they not played this game, trying to short circuit and bypass the minority once again.

Robert Goren
07-31-2010, 05:49 PM
Well we know one thing, the people who voted against it care more about procedure or letting democrats look good than they do about the 9/11 heroes.

bigmack
07-31-2010, 05:57 PM
Well we know one thing, the people who voted against it care more about procedure or letting democrats look good than they do about the 9/11 heroes.
What would Dems vote to to make Dems look bad?

Tom
07-31-2010, 06:57 PM
It is hard to look at Congress - both sides - and not throw up.
There are many species of bugs that have more integrity than these slime balls - vote against ALL incumbents.

mostpost
07-31-2010, 10:25 PM
Whiner is a smuck, does really care about the 9-11 responders? I doubt. He only care about his job, that is why the rant about it.

=fast4522Is he facing extinction in the November election is the question?

You wish!! Weiner is in a heavily democratic district. He most likely will not even have a Republican opponent.