Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HR 1327 passes (WTC VCF) with no help from these mutts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Originally posted by Huntington Guy View Post
    This funding should be considered a part of the cost of the wars we are prosecuting. A coordinated, military attack on civilian and military targets was an act of war, these funds are a consequence of those acts of war.
    I don’t see much difference between caring for the casualties of these attacks and caring for troops when they return home.
    If that’s the case you still have to limit spending to two years not 70 years with the “appropriation clause”

    plus “backdoor spending” with no oversight are practices of the left. Why contribute to the problem

    but the next time they ban or restrict firearms. Maybe you guys will suck it up since you use the same emotional arguments the left does
    The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule ...Samuel Adams, "The Rights of the Colonists" page 419

    Comment


      #77
      Happy Friday? Lol

      Comment


        #78
        Ancap your responses seem to be fragments of thoughts linked together to form one sentence. Perhaps if you would reread what you are responding to and compare it to what you are posting you then your replies might make a little more sense. What does the underlined section mean? What problems are you referring too? Is it spending, no oversight on spending, or gun restrictions? And what what is it that “you guys” will suck up, gun bans, gun restrictions, or money for which there is no oversight?
        Also I don’t believe you answered my question in regards to doctors appointments, prescriptions and family events.
        By the way the lack of over sight and backdoor spending is not limited to the “left”.


        Originally posted by Ancap View Post

        If that’s the case you still have to limit spending to two years not 70 years with the “appropriation clause”

        plus “backdoor spending” with no oversight are practices of the left. Why contribute to the problem

        but the next time they ban or restrict firearms. Maybe you guys will suck it up since you use the same emotional arguments the left does


        Comment


          #79
          Originally posted by SouthShoreShooter View Post
          Ancap your responses seem to be fragments of thoughts linked together to form one sentence. Perhaps if you would reread what you are responding to and compare it to what you are posting you then your replies might make a little more sense. What does the underlined section mean? What problems are you referring too? Is it spending, no oversight on spending, or gun restrictions? And what what is it that “you guys” will suck up, gun bans, gun restrictions, or money for which there is no oversight?
          Also I don’t believe you answered my question in regards to doctors appointments, prescriptions and family events.
          By the way the lack of over sight and backdoor spending is not limited to the “left”.


          [/U]
          You guys are using emotional arguments to overlook the constitution to pass this bill. The same way liberals use emotional arguments to ignore the same document for any of their unconstitutional bills

          agreed its not limited to the left. But all of you are bashing the politicians in this thread who are doing the right thing. Those guys have been consistent time and time again. They are gun owners best friends in D.C. and now you guys want to trash them for actually FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION. ....ITS LAUGHABLE

          The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule ...Samuel Adams, "The Rights of the Colonists" page 419

          Comment


            #80
            Ancap now you are the one sounding like a politician. I asked you several point blank questions to which you have ingnored, overlooked and or have given vague at best answers to.
            I am not the sharpest tool in the shed nor a constitutional scholar so perhaps you can point out the part in the constitution where it states that the government is only allowed fund a program for 2 years before it has to be renewed.

            Comment


              #81
              Originally posted by SouthShoreShooter View Post
              Ancap now you are the one sounding like a politician. I asked you several point blank questions to which you have ingnored, overlooked and or have given vague at best answers to.
              I am not the sharpest tool in the shed nor a constitutional scholar so perhaps you can point out the part in the constitution where it states that the government is only allowed fund a program for 2 years before it has to be renewed.
              Your question was an emotional argument. No matter how compelling it is. We still have a limited government and what they can do. Since the beginning of this country even hamilton had to say NO to veterans who wanted more benefits and that was Hamilton the one who disrespected the constitution the most. There were numerous other examples of the founders saying no to men and women who served. Such as the widows who wanted benefits

              if you use your argument then it would have to be equally applied to all Americans who are suffering individually through thousands and thousands of dollars of deductibles and copayment brought to us under Obamacare. Afterall the United States government is negligent in creating this healthcare fiasco. Maybe Jon Stewart could fight for the rest of us.

              as I mentioned in earlier posts there are appropriation clauses in the constitution to prevent a corrupt government and limit their spending. These are what the politicians mentioned in this thread are trying to follow..

              Huntington guy wanted to excercise is the enumerated power under the military in article one section 8. That is a stretch since most first responders fall under the state not federal government. But even if you allowed that, the same section limits spending to two years. Hence the reason we face government shutdown often.

              The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule ...Samuel Adams, "The Rights of the Colonists" page 419

              Comment


                #82
                Once again no answers, vague references and assumptions.

                Comment


                  #83

                  Comment


                    #84
                    Originally posted by SouthShoreShooter View Post
                    Once again no answers, vague references and assumptions.
                    No you just refuse to accept that the constitution restricts severely what the federal government can do.
                    Last edited by Ancap; 07-25-2019, 04:27 PM.
                    The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule ...Samuel Adams, "The Rights of the Colonists" page 419

                    Comment


                      #85
                      Originally posted by Ancap View Post

                      You guys are using emotional arguments to overlook the constitution to pass this bill. The same way liberals use emotional arguments to ignore the same document for any of their unconstitutional bills

                      agreed its not limited to the left. But all of you are bashing the politicians in this thread who are doing the right thing. Those guys have been consistent time and time again. They are gun owners best friends in D.C. and now you guys want to trash them for actually FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION. ....ITS LAUGHABLE
                      There is nothing emotional (well, there is) about slowly suffocating to death. Cancer eating people alive. Skin and sinus, and blood and lung and eye and on and on infections that are painful, debilitating, expensive to treat and otherwise impairing.
                      It is not an emotional argument to restate the fact that these injuries and diseases are the result of an act of war.
                      It IS an emotional argument to state that 95% of the men and women at WTC were there willingly and even if options to leave were offered (they were) very, very few of us ever considered leaving until the work of saving those who could be saved (there were only a tiny number but we didn’t know that) and then recovering the bodies or hat or nameplate or whatever might have been left....you see, once our friends had cooked over a high heat and dried out in the smoke filled air it was necessary to sift through every mound of dirt or runnable to look for the dried out pieces of meat that was left.
                      I am fairly certain the sons and daughters, the wives and mothers, the fathers and brothers and other loved ones were grateful for a piece of bunker gear or an ID card to bury instead of an empty casket.

                      So, maybe you are right. Maybe the argument is partly emotional. It is also devoid of any understanding of what the best America had to offer on her worst day were willing to do...that’s not right, not willing, driven...required...compelled to do. Not for the OT or the cool scars or the memories of seeing, doing and touching things no one should ever have to...but do and will again when necessary.

                      You are that over confident, book smart guy who was never issued his ration of common sense. Your answers may make sense to you but to, I’ll only speak for myself, you are a clueless one trick pony who should consider just thanking the people who make it possible for you to be what you are.

                      PS; sorry if I got to this late tonight, you see, I was at a dinner in memory of my dead FDNY cousin who died a slow, painful death compliments of WTC. Just another mark on a list unimportant to you but who mattered to many others.

                      Comment


                        #86
                        Ahhh, much better. Thanks Dan

                        Comment


                          #87
                          HG, my condolences on the passing of your cousin. I would also like to say thank you for your latest posts.

                          Comment


                            #88
                            Originally posted by Huntington Guy View Post

                            There is nothing emotional (well, there is) about slowly suffocating to death. Cancer eating people alive. Skin and sinus, and blood and lung and eye and on and on infections that are painful, debilitating, expensive to treat and otherwise impairing.
                            It is not an emotional argument to restate the fact that these injuries and diseases are the result of an act of war.
                            It IS an emotional argument to state that 95% of the men and women at WTC were there willingly and even if options to leave were offered (they were) very, very few of us ever considered leaving until the work of saving those who could be saved (there were only a tiny number but we didn’t know that) and then recovering the bodies or hat or nameplate or whatever might have been left....you see, once our friends had cooked over a high heat and dried out in the smoke filled air it was necessary to sift through every mound of dirt or runnable to look for the dried out pieces of meat that was left.
                            I am fairly certain the sons and daughters, the wives and mothers, the fathers and brothers and other loved ones were grateful for a piece of bunker gear or an ID card to bury instead of an empty casket.

                            So, maybe you are right. Maybe the argument is partly emotional. It is also devoid of any understanding of what the best America had to offer on her worst day were willing to do...that’s not right, not willing, driven...required...compelled to do. Not for the OT or the cool scars or the memories of seeing, doing and touching things no one should ever have to...but do and will again when necessary.

                            You are that over confident, book smart guy who was never issued his ration of common sense. Your answers may make sense to you but to, I’ll only speak for myself, you are a clueless one trick pony who should consider just thanking the people who make it possible for you to be what you are.

                            PS; sorry if I got to this late tonight, you see, I was at a dinner in memory of my dead FDNY cousin who died a slow, painful death compliments of WTC. Just another mark on a list unimportant to you but who mattered to many others.
                            Tom, this is beautifully expressed.

                            Paul and Lee demonstrated their fidelity to their conservative principles by holding up the bill pending consideration of their amendments. They made their point and pandered to a tiny political constituency, and then their amendments were voted down. At that point they could have demonstrated their humanity and their fidelity to the principle of supporting those who put themselves in harms way and put their lives and the welfare of their families in jeopardy for the sake of others (something neither has, to my knowledge, ever done) and voted for the bill, but they chose not to do so. Instead, they doubled down on a lost cause like a pair of petulant children. Perhaps they simply lack the courage to put basic humanity and the needs of those who risked their lives and the welfare of their families ahead of their own political agendas, or perhaps they lack an understanding of what true courage is.

                            Comment


                              #89
                              Originally posted by Huntington Guy View Post

                              There is nothing emotional (well, there is) about slowly suffocating to death. Cancer eating people alive. Skin and sinus, and blood and lung and eye and on and on infections that are painful, debilitating, expensive to treat and otherwise impairing.
                              It is not an emotional argument to restate the fact that these injuries and diseases are the result of an act of war.
                              It IS an emotional argument to state that 95% of the men and women at WTC were there willingly and even if options to leave were offered (they were) very, very few of us ever considered leaving until the work of saving those who could be saved (there were only a tiny number but we didn’t know that) and then recovering the bodies or hat or nameplate or whatever might have been left....you see, once our friends had cooked over a high heat and dried out in the smoke filled air it was necessary to sift through every mound of dirt or runnable to look for the dried out pieces of meat that was left.
                              I am fairly certain the sons and daughters, the wives and mothers, the fathers and brothers and other loved ones were grateful for a piece of bunker gear or an ID card to bury instead of an empty casket.

                              So, maybe you are right. Maybe the argument is partly emotional. It is also devoid of any understanding of what the best America had to offer on her worst day were willing to do...that’s not right, not willing, driven...required...compelled to do. Not for the OT or the cool scars or the memories of seeing, doing and touching things no one should ever have to...but do and will again when necessary.

                              You are that over confident, book smart guy who was never issued his ration of common sense. Your answers may make sense to you but to, I’ll only speak for myself, you are a clueless one trick pony who should consider just thanking the people who make it possible for you to be what you are.

                              PS; sorry if I got to this late tonight, you see, I was at a dinner in memory of my dead FDNY cousin who died a slow, painful death compliments of WTC. Just another mark on a list unimportant to you but who mattered to many others.
                              I never said the people who sacrificed their lives were unimportant to me. Quite the contrary. My company lost many employees on that day. In addition one of the families who lost their son made sure my kids had Christmas gifts many years ago when I was out of work and faced financial ruins with money that was donated to that family.

                              I’m not heartless to anyone who suffers hardship in life. At the end of the day I put politics aside and live my life as a Christian first and foremost.

                              Yes I think these people should be helped through voluntary measures. America stepped up in those times and gave big and they would continue to do so. After all the Bible finds nothing virtuous of helping others out of obligation. God wants a “cheerful giver” from the heart

                              to steal unlimited funds from American taxpayers for generations to come is not virtuous. All the men you shit on in this thread deserve as much respect as the men and women who served on 9/11. These men go against the swamp in D.C. . They consistently fight for our freedom year after year with a proven track record to back it. They didn’t even want to block this bill and where willing to pass it with correct measures. but they saw the potential for “backdoor spending” to lead to more corruption in D.C...after all over 20,000 people received an average of almost $250,000 in past programs for 9/11 responders with little accountability of where the money went.

                              im sure when your friends and family are in need you do not hand them your checking account and tell them to take whatever they need for the rest of their lives. This is no different

                              with the government increasing the money supply to deal with the debt. This insures that Americans savings become diminished as prices go up. What’s the virtue in stealing everyone’s hard earned saving in runaway government spending. There is none
                              The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule ...Samuel Adams, "The Rights of the Colonists" page 419

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X