Politicians who vote AGAINST hurricane relief

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Teta040

Refugee
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
1,435
Yes, they exist. Someone today in my favorite site for international news posted this list of Republicans who actually voted AGAINST it yesterday. He didn't provide a list of Dems, (though there must have been some. If anybody can find this out, please post the list of blaspheming Dems too, in the interests of being non-partisan. But if there are no Dems, don't invent any, please.)

I am doing this so we can, in the public interest, stake out the offices of these traitors to American civilization and destroy them politcally, because unfortunately we can't do it for real. Preferably, I wish we could have shut them up inside the Convention Center from last Teus to Fri. Or give them a taste of what the poorest evacuees will be going through in coming weeks.

Here is the beginning of the List of Shame:

Link:

http://comebackalive.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12609
 
Last edited:
:eyebrow:

Any of them give reasons for voting against this? (not that I can really think of any good ones, but I'd like to know their reasoning...)
 
Are you kidding me? How many of them also voted against the Patriot Act? That was a seriously messed up bill and I think only Feingold voted against it. I can hardly find hurricane relief more controversial than taking away civil liberties. Maybe that's just my liberal side talking.

EDIT: I just had a scare. One of the guys that voted against it is from the congressional district right next to mine. I was getting very worried for a second -- dodged a bullet there.
 
Last edited:
OMG!!:shocked: That is a DAMN shame:tsk: I bet they would change there tune if it happend to them.:eyebrow: There is no excuse for that kind of stupidity:(
 
Sharky, I think it;s your duty right now as an American citizen to alert as many people in your area to this disgrace to America (pref CHURCH GROUPS) and have a march on the his office. You should do a Cindy Sheehan on this guy. I am a Christian and hate speaking for God, but personally, I hope he rots in hell.
 
Not to defend any of them in particular, but there are 1,001 reasons why a politican votes up or down an a bill, didn't we learn this when Kerry was running for President and had voted down defense contracts full of pork? Or when the right wing slime machine railed against him for voting against the 80 billion for Iraq, when it had many problems as well.

It's easy to lambaste them, and I am not neccessarily sticking up for anyone, but I think it's more complicated in a general sense.
I happen to like Ron Paul quite a bit and so would many of you Dems if you read some of what he has said the last 5 or 7 years.
He's defintely not your typical conservative 'Pub. I believe he is still registered a Rep. even if he is basically a libertarian.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. Amd in this time of crisis any reason tp vote against is only self-centered. Reasons such as loss of funding for your state or budget issues do not apply in this time of unprecidented national emergency. Everyone has amoral duty to support this, even though it might be damaging to your state later. The symbolism is very important. Not to metnion stuoid as to vote against will only be used against you later.

If there were any Dems, I'd say the same things.
 
What a disagrace. I think it's terrible to vote against hurricane relief when people are dying of cholera because of dirty water in New Orleans.
 
U2DMfan said:
Not to defend any of them in particular, but there are 1,001 reasons why a politican votes up or down an a bill, didn't we learn this when Kerry was running for President and had voted down defense contracts full of pork? Or when the right wing slime machine railed against him for voting against the 80 billion for Iraq, when it had many problems as well.


Normally, I would agree. A lot of things get added to other bills that have nothing to do with the original bill. I just don't think they had time to try to do that this time. But I might be wrong, I haven't looked at the bill closely.
 
I'm just bringing up a perspective, again I don't apologize for any of their reasons, honestly I don't know their reasons.

And yes, as Teta said, it will be used against them at some point and time and probably work as good "red meat".
 
U2DMfan said:
Not to defend any of them in particular, but there are 1,001 reasons why a politican votes up or down an a bill, didn't we learn this when Kerry was running for President and had voted down defense contracts full of pork? Or when the right wing slime machine railed against him for voting against the 80 billion for Iraq, when it had many problems as well.

It's easy to lambaste them, and I am not neccessarily sticking up for anyone, but I think it's more complicated in a general sense.

Very true, and a good point to bring up. There's a lot of stuff attached to these bills that these people don't support, and naturally they don't want to piss off a particular base in their area or whatever, so they vote against it, and unfortunately, that means voting against this as well.

That said, however, I must agree with Teta...

Teta040 said:
Yeah. Amd in this time of crisis any reason tp vote against is only self-centered. Reasons such as loss of funding for your state or budget issues do not apply in this time of unprecidented national emergency. Everyone has amoral duty to support this, even though it might be damaging to your state later. The symbolism is very important. Not to metnion stuoid as to vote against will only be used against you later.

If there were any Dems, I'd say the same things.

:up:. Come on, there are people down there who are desperate for food and water and shelter and a good evacuation system and protection against future disasters and disease prevention and all that other stuff. I'd personally still vote for the aid anyway just because of the situation at hand. Those people need help desperately. The other issues attached are most likely ones I'd imagine could wait.

And in regards to the political aspect of it all, geez, talk about pissing people off...there's lots of people from all walks of life in that area who were affected, and there's people in the states these politicians are from who know people who were affected, and so on. And I would be willing to imagine that anyone affected who votes will not likely let these politicians forget this come the next election. These people won't care what the reasons were for why those people didn't vote for it, they're just going to notice that those people voted against aid for them and that's gonna make them see red.

Shame to see someone from Iowa on that list :(.

Angela
 
On my local talk radio station they mentioned that a handful of politicians voted against the aid because of concern that nothing was in the bill to ensure that the aid was distributed equitably for those in need of aid (i.e., is Trent Lott going to receive more aid than a homeless individual since TL's mansion was destroyed, etc...).

Not defending anyones actions here, just telling you what I heard.

Sorry to see a fellow Idahoan on the list. Also, a shame that Flake from AZ voted no too. Yikes, I used to live in his District in AZ....
 
Last edited:
Teta040 said:
I am a Christian and hate speaking for God, but personally, I hope he rots in hell.

While I can understand your anger against the actions of these people, I think it's a little uncalled for to make that kind of a statement. Can we tone it down a notch? Thanks. :)
 
sulawesigirl4 said:
tone it down a notch?

FYM only has one tone...doesn't it?

--

there are many reasons why a person could legitimately vote against a bill of this ilk (the money appropriated is insufficient, the money is allocated in an unfair/inefficient manner, the implementation scheme for application of the money is inappropriate and will not help those who most need it, etc.). without having read the legislation, its not completely fair to chastise these individuals.

but its likely that they're just jerkstores.
 
kobayashi said:
there are many reasons why a person could legitimately vote against a bill of this ilk (the money appropriated is insufficient, the money is allocated in an unfair/inefficient manner, the implementation scheme for application of the money is inappropriate and will not help those who most need it, etc.). without having read the legislation, its not completely fair to chastise these individuals.

Exactly. But politics isn't about deep thinking, its about sound bite actions. Many who blast the nay votes would decry the same behavior for other legistlation. Its time to step back and see the bigger picture.
 
Bean_Counter said:
On my local talk radio station they mentioned that a handful of politicians voted against the aid because of concern that nothing was in the bill to ensure that the aid was distributed equitably for those in need of aid (i.e., is Trent Lott going to receive more aid than a homeless individual since TL's mansion was destroyed, etc...).

Better to just vote for the bill and look good for the cameras than vote against a bill you're concerned may not equally help all the victims.
 
Last edited:
I can see the legitimate voting against a bill that might have given the rich more than the poor or whatever. But it doesn't seem like that was the case with this bill, so it pisses me off that some people voted against it. My conservative Republican congressman, Spencer Bachus, voted for it. He also supports debt relief.
 
I don't know why they voted against the bill. I'd like to hear their reasons before passing judgment - perhaps there are some specifics within the bill that we don't know about.

On the surface, however, it doesn't look good to vote against relief of any kind for this disaster. At least it's something...
 
nbcrusader said:


Exactly. But politics isn't about deep thinking, its about sound bite actions. Many who blast the nay votes would decry the same behavior for other legistlation. Its time to step back and see the bigger picture.

I'd qualify that statement by saying consumerism politics is about sound bites, but otherwise I'd agree, and we definitely need to step back and see the bigger picture.
 
phanan said:
I don't know why they voted against the bill. I'd like to hear their reasons before passing judgment - perhaps there are some specifics within the bill that we don't know about.

On the surface, however, it doesn't look good to vote against relief of any kind for this disaster. At least it's something...

OK, it might not be such a great bill. But if it were shot through with defects there would have been more votes against it, and statements issued to explain their votes.
 
Teta040 posted:


Yes, they exist. Someone today in my favorite site for international news posted this list of Republicans who actually voted AGAINST it yesterday. He didn't provide a list of Dems, (though there must have been some. If anybody can find this out, please post the list of blaspheming Dems too, in the interests of being non-partisan. But if there are no Dems, don't invent any, please.)

I am doing this so we can, in the public interest, stake out the offices of these traitors to American civilization and destroy them politcally, because unfortunately we can't do it for real. Preferably, I wish we could have shut them up inside the Convention Center from last Teus to Fri. Or give them a taste of what the poorest evacuees will be going through in coming weeks.

Here is the beginning of the List of Shame:

Link:

http://comebackalive.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12609

______________

I'm glad a few did vote AGAINST it yesterday.

I vote Libertarian in the U.S. national/local elections.

It is getting scary how more and more Americans believe
that is is the duty of the Federal government to take care of our every need.

In my view this should be left to local/national charities, churches, synagouges, other religious organizations,schools, individuals, and local and state agencies.



Why are we so willing to give everything up to Big Brother?



Add me to the List of Shame.
 
Last edited:
the iron horse said:
It is getting scary how more and more Americans believe
that is is the duty of the Federal government to take care of our every need.

In my view this should be left to local/national charities, churches, synagouges, other religious organizations,schools, individuals, and local and state agencies.



because NONE of these things are capable of the mass organization and funding needed to protect people from natural disasters, build highways, educate masses of children, patrol the streets, dam rivers, etc.
 
I think we can find a balance between the two. Government is best suited to build and maintain infrastructure (the build highways, patrol streets, dam rivers, etc. you cite). But I think the other groups cited by iron horse would be better at listening and responding to those in need.
 
Back
Top Bottom