End of discussion, ergo, failure.
End of discussion, ergo, failure.
[h1]Senate Republicans block 9/11 health bill[/h1]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked a bill that would provide medical care for firefighters and other responders to the September 11, 2001, attacks who developed illnesses from breathing toxic, dust-filled air.
The 57-42 procedural vote fell short of the 60 needed to advance major legislation in the 100-member chamber. The House of Representatives passed the bill in September and Senate action is needed to send it to President Barack Obama for his signature.
The $7.4 billion measure was one of a number of bills Senate Republicans have blocked as lawmakers push to complete their work for the year.
Republicans have vowed to block any legislation, other than bills to fund the U.S. government, until an impasse is resolved over extending expiring tax cuts for virtually all taxpayers, including the wealthiest Americans.
Republicans argue that allowing the tax cuts for the wealthiest to expire at the end of December as scheduled would hurt small businesses and undermine the sluggish U.S. economy.
They also have balked at the cost of the health measure.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid ripped into what he described as Republican obstructionism.
"Republicans denied adequate health care to the heroes who developed illnesses from rushing into burning buildings on 9/11," Reid said. "Yet they will stop at nothing to give tax breaks to millionaires and CEOs, even though they will explode our deficit and fail to create jobs.
"That tells you everything you need to know about their priorities," he said.
The measure could be brought back to the Senate floor before the current Congress adjourns in the next several days.
When it became clear the bill would not muster 60 votes, Reid ended up voting "no" so he could call for another vote on the bill under Senate rules.
It's not my intention to thread jack. I just thought it'd be important to post this kind of information because it really shows the true colors of the Republican political machine.
Marginalize gays and spit on those who sacrificed their health to protect us on 9/11.
...
[h1]Senate Republicans block 9/11 health bill[/h1]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked a bill that would provide medical care for firefighters and other responders to the September 11, 2001, attacks who developed illnesses from breathing toxic, dust-filled air.
The 57-42 procedural vote fell short of the 60 needed to advance major legislation in the 100-member chamber. The House of Representatives passed the bill in September and Senate action is needed to send it to President Barack Obama for his signature.
The $7.4 billion measure was one of a number of bills Senate Republicans have blocked as lawmakers push to complete their work for the year.
Republicans have vowed to block any legislation, other than bills to fund the U.S. government, until an impasse is resolved over extending expiring tax cuts for virtually all taxpayers, including the wealthiest Americans.
Republicans argue that allowing the tax cuts for the wealthiest to expire at the end of December as scheduled would hurt small businesses and undermine the sluggish U.S. economy.
They also have balked at the cost of the health measure.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid ripped into what he described as Republican obstructionism.
"Republicans denied adequate health care to the heroes who developed illnesses from rushing into burning buildings on 9/11," Reid said. "Yet they will stop at nothing to give tax breaks to millionaires and CEOs, even though they will explode our deficit and fail to create jobs.
"That tells you everything you need to know about their priorities," he said.
The measure could be brought back to the Senate floor before the current Congress adjourns in the next several days.
When it became clear the bill would not muster 60 votes, Reid ended up voting "no" so he could call for another vote on the bill under Senate rules.
It's not my intention to thread jack. I just thought it'd be important to post this kind of information because it really shows the true colors of the Republican political machine.
Marginalize gays and spit on those who sacrificed their health to protect us on 9/11.
...
rashi wrote:
Upon the Senate's block of "DADT", it makes me wonder the real rationale of not letting soldiers who are openly gay serve. Ignorance and homophobia I find it very hard to believe to be the only reason because this government is the only one on the planet that proudly institutionalizes discrimination against homosexuals openly serving in the military. My wife's brother serves and he says "I don't want other dude 'meat gazing'!". All I could think to myself is "Dude, you are in Afghanistan. People are shooting at you and you are worried about other dudes looking at your 'meat'? Really?"
You are a student of Austrian Economics, where is your deference to local knowledge? If actual front line soldiers and marines (as opposed to the generals, Joint Chiefs and Sec. of Defense, who all currently do not have to live in the dirt and engage in firefights on a daily basis) feel that it would affect their morale and cohesion, why foist civilian norms and values on them when it could make their lives even more perilous and miserable.
Tolerance, nay, full acceptance of homosexuality should be the norm in society at large, even among most parts of the armed forces, but it is not wrong to allow an antipathy for open homosexuality to exist among the ethos of that small sliver of our population, men who face gun shots, IED's and the other caprices of the front line, those who people of all political stripes call heroes. No matter your position of a particular war, the American consensus is to "support The Troops," and that should mean granting a degree of autonomy to combat troops when it comes to the selecting those and tragically, those with whom they die.
rashi wrote:
Upon the Senate's block of "DADT", it makes me wonder the real rationale of not letting soldiers who are openly gay serve. Ignorance and homophobia I find it very hard to believe to be the only reason because this government is the only one on the planet that proudly institutionalizes discrimination against homosexuals openly serving in the military. My wife's brother serves and he says "I don't want other dude 'meat gazing'!". All I could think to myself is "Dude, you are in Afghanistan. People are shooting at you and you are worried about other dudes looking at your 'meat'? Really?"
You are a student of Austrian Economics, where is your deference to local knowledge? If actual front line soldiers and marines (as opposed to the generals, Joint Chiefs and Sec. of Defense, who all currently do not have to live in the dirt and engage in firefights on a daily basis) feel that it would affect their morale and cohesion, why foist civilian norms and values on them when it could make their lives even more perilous and miserable.
Tolerance, nay, full acceptance of homosexuality should be the norm in society at large, even among most parts of the armed forces, but it is not wrong to allow an antipathy for open homosexuality to exist among the ethos of that small sliver of our population, men who face gun shots, IED's and the other caprices of the front line, those who people of all political stripes call heroes. No matter your position of a particular war, the American consensus is to "support The Troops," and that should mean granting a degree of autonomy to combat troops when it comes to the selecting those and tragically, those with whom they die.
Originally Posted by bangtcg
Could be a gay soldier somewhere in this picture.
Originally Posted by bangtcg
Could be a gay soldier somewhere in this picture.
Originally Posted by Rexanglorum
rashi wrote:
Upon the Senate's block of "DADT", it makes me wonder the real rationale of not letting soldiers who are openly gay serve. Ignorance and homophobia I find it very hard to believe to be the only reason because this government is the only one on the planet that proudly institutionalizes discrimination against homosexuals openly serving in the military. My wife's brother serves and he says "I don't want other dude 'meat gazing'!". All I could think to myself is "Dude, you are in Afghanistan. People are shooting at you and you are worried about other dudes looking at your 'meat'? Really?"
Originally Posted by Rexanglorum
rashi wrote:
Upon the Senate's block of "DADT", it makes me wonder the real rationale of not letting soldiers who are openly gay serve. Ignorance and homophobia I find it very hard to believe to be the only reason because this government is the only one on the planet that proudly institutionalizes discrimination against homosexuals openly serving in the military. My wife's brother serves and he says "I don't want other dude 'meat gazing'!". All I could think to myself is "Dude, you are in Afghanistan. People are shooting at you and you are worried about other dudes looking at your 'meat'? Really?"
