Fox News Won't Admit that Republicans Voted Against 9/11 Rescue Workers

[Bfgrn]

December 13, 2010

On Fox & Friends this morning, Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. launched into a passionate attack on “Congress” and “the U.S. Senate” for killing health benefits for 9/11 rescue workers. “Last week, Congress told them they could drop dead,” Johnson said, to the mournful chords of September Song. “Shame, embarrassment, outrage, anger—all the proper reactions to the conduct of our senators who…have turned their back on American heroes.” Worse, they’ve been betrayed by the same “politicians who couldn’t take enough pictures with them.” Right on, Peter.

But in his three-and-a-half-minute rant, Johnson didn’t once mention who in Congress could be such heartless hypocrites. The 57-to-42 vote was three short needed to break a filibuster, as every Republican voted against even bringing the bill to a vote, and every Democrat but one voted in favor (Harry Reid had to switch his vote for arcane procedural reasons).

Republicans Voted Against 9/11 Rescue Workers

 

[evince]

Their listeners dont care, they love that fox news only reports what they want to hear.

People on the right dont want facts, they want to feel good about the republican party at the expense of EVERYTHING else including the truth and the country.

 

[Crashk]

hannity and 'fox news contributers' have been doing this for years. The use of half-truths is a big part of their propaganda campaigns. I wonder how many viewers thought the Dems voted against healthcare for 911 workers after they saw this propaganda piece?

If the party I voted for refused medical care for sick 911 workers I wouldn't vote for them again, but the wing-nut radicals around here will come up with some bullshit excuses for their party's greed and inhumanity.

I doubt they will even acknowledge this post.

 

[DamnYankee]

December 13, 2010

On Fox & Friends this morning, Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. launched into a passionate attack on “Congress” and “the U.S. Senate” for killing health benefits for 9/11 rescue workers. “Last week, Congress told them they could drop dead,” Johnson said, to the mournful chords of September Song. “Shame, embarrassment, outrage, anger—all the proper reactions to the conduct of our senators who…have turned their back on American heroes.” Worse, they’ve been betrayed by the same “politicians who couldn’t take enough pictures with them.” Right on, Peter.

But in his three-and-a-half-minute rant, Johnson didn’t once mention who in Congress could be such heartless hypocrites. The 57-to-42 vote was three short needed to break a filibuster, as every Republican voted against even bringing the bill to a vote, and every Democrat but one voted in favor (Harry Reid had to switch his vote for arcane procedural reasons).

Republicans Voted Against 9/11 Rescue Workers

How is the bill Constitutional?

 

[Bfgrn]

How is the bill Constitutional?

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

 

[DamnYankee]

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

Great but answer the question.

 

[Crashk]

How is the bill Constitutional?

You miss the point. The point is not if the bill is constitutional, the point is your 'news' organization knowingly told a half-truth to insinuate the Democrats voted against this. They are trying to cast blame on the left for their actions.

Do you agree that faux news can knowingly lie in order to cover up something and to cast blame on their enemies?

 

[DamnYankee]

You miss the point. The point is not if the bill is constitutional, the point is your 'news' organization knowingly told a half-truth to insinuate the Democrats voted against this. They are trying to cast blame on the left for their actions.

Do you agree that faux news can knowingly lie in order to cover up something and to cast blame on their enemies?

No, my question was: How is the bill Constitutional? That means that the point that I am making is that the bill is not Constitutional.

Your insistence that FNC is the center of all things evil is beginning to indicate a defect in your personality.

 

[Canceled1]

No, my question was: How is the bill Constitutional? That means that the point that I am making is that the bill is not Constitutional.

Your insistence that FNC is the center of all things evil is beginning to indicate a defect in your personality.

The thinly veiled failed insult of "your" news organization aside...

 

[Bfgrn]

Great but answer the question.

Show me where the Constitution gives government the right to kill people?

EPA Lied About WTC Air

A scientist for the Environmental Protection Agency is charging that the agency lied when it claimed the air at ground zero was safe to breathe in the weeks after the 9/11 attacks.

In an exclusive interview, Cate Jenkins. Ph.D., tells The Early Show national correspondent Tracy Smith that wasn't so, and EPA officials knew it, but covered up the truth.

Many workers who sifted through the wreckage have since come down with serious respiratory illnesses.

On Sept. 13, 2001, then-EPA head Christine Todd Whitman told reporters at ground zero, "We have not seen any reason — any readings that have indicated any health hazard."

Asked by Smith if EPA officials lied, Dr. Jenkins responded, "Yes, they did."

Though Dr. Jenkins didn't personally conduct the research at ground zero, it's her opinion that the EPA knew the dust there had asbestos and PH levels that were dangerously high.

"This dust was highly caustic," Dr. Jenkins told Smith, "in some cases, as caustic and alkaline as Drano."

Dr. Jenkins added that the agency said "nothing whatsoever" about the alkalinity of the dust.

She wrote memos accusing the EPA of lying.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/08/earlyshow/main1985804.shtml

 

[evince]

They like fox news lies

 

[Mott the Hoople]

December 13, 2010

On Fox & Friends this morning, Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. launched into a passionate attack on “Congress” and “the U.S. Senate” for killing health benefits for 9/11 rescue workers. “Last week, Congress told them they could drop dead,” Johnson said, to the mournful chords of September Song. “Shame, embarrassment, outrage, anger—all the proper reactions to the conduct of our senators who…have turned their back on American heroes.” Worse, they’ve been betrayed by the same “politicians who couldn’t take enough pictures with them.” Right on, Peter.

But in his three-and-a-half-minute rant, Johnson didn’t once mention who in Congress could be such heartless hypocrites. The 57-to-42 vote was three short needed to break a filibuster, as every Republican voted against even bringing the bill to a vote, and every Democrat but one voted in favor (Harry Reid had to switch his vote for arcane procedural reasons).

Republicans Voted Against 9/11 Rescue Workers

Ehhh, it probably didn't include a tax cut.

 

[Crashk]

How is the bill Constitutional?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I've noticed lately that when those on the right can't defend the actions of their party they ask stupid questions.

 

[Crashk]

Ehhh, it probably didn't include a tax cut.

There's no way their backers can make money off of the sick.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

How is the bill Constitutional?

How is it unconstitutional?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You miss the point. The point is not if the bill is constitutional, the point is your 'news' organization knowingly told a half-truth to insinuate the Democrats voted against this. They are trying to cast blame on the left for their actions.

Do you agree that faux news can knowingly lie in order to cover up something and to cast blame on their enemies?

Well duh! Isn't that what propagandist do?

 

[DamnYankee]

How is it unconstitutional?

By not being enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[DamnYankee]

Show me where the Constitution gives government the right to kill people?

EPA Lied About WTC Air

A scientist for the Environmental Protection Agency is charging that the agency lied when it claimed the air at ground zero was safe to breathe in the weeks after the 9/11 attacks.

In an exclusive interview, Cate Jenkins. Ph.D., tells The Early Show national correspondent Tracy Smith that wasn't so, and EPA officials knew it, but covered up the truth.

Many workers who sifted through the wreckage have since come down with serious respiratory illnesses.

On Sept. 13, 2001, then-EPA head Christine Todd Whitman told reporters at ground zero, "We have not seen any reason — any readings that have indicated any health hazard."

Asked by Smith if EPA officials lied, Dr. Jenkins responded, "Yes, they did."

Though Dr. Jenkins didn't personally conduct the research at ground zero, it's her opinion that the EPA knew the dust there had asbestos and PH levels that were dangerously high.

"This dust was highly caustic," Dr. Jenkins told Smith, "in some cases, as caustic and alkaline as Drano."

Dr. Jenkins added that the agency said "nothing whatsoever" about the alkalinity of the dust.

She wrote memos accusing the EPA of lying.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/08/earlyshow/main1985804.shtml

Oh lookie, another deflection. You still haven't answered the question. This will be your third try.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

By not being enumerated in the Constitution.

OIC, so 99.999% of the laws ever passed by congress would then be unconstitutional because they weren't specifically enumarated. By golly Mr. Constitutional Scholar I guess that means we have to go out and get rid of the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations cause, since they weren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution they would all have to be unconstitutional. Thank you Mr. Constitutional Scholar[/sarcasm]

You're comment is completely irrelevent. Congress legislates laws. Our courts determine their constitutionality. Didn't you take civics in high school?

 

[DamnYankee]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I've noticed lately that when those on the right can't defend the actions of their party they ask stupid questions.

James Madison predicted your argument and calls it an "absurdity" in Federalist 41:

It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are ``their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: ``All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

Epic FAIL on your part.