Port Security
 

So........Are Republicans TRULY Concerned about Port Security? They sure wanted you to think so when it was a veiled excuse for racism. But when it comes down to actual security, the answer's a resounding no.Go ahead. Someone explain this one to me. I'd love to hear it. So which party are we supposed to trust to our security again? The one that votes down funding for port security and body armor for our troops or the one that proposes such ideas?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...109query.html|

That's the only amendment Representative Sabo proposed to HR 4939, and it doesn't seem have contain funding to be voted down at all.

I don't see "trusting" either party for our security. The dems have had their fair share of party line votes that seemingly weakened U.S. security. I'm sure that somewhere down the line a Republican will propose an amendment with provisions similar to Sabo's and it will pass. They're all just a bunch of hacks anyway, more concerned with politics that with the true welfare of the country.

Regarding our "security"..the ports are the new big thing and everyone is paying attention to them while the porous southern border continues pour all sorts of undesirables into this country. Where are the "concerned" Democrats on this??????

A link to the Sabo's comments.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...el=TOC_163816&

And, as best as I can tell, the LoC only includes those Amendments which were accepted or are pending a vote. Ones voted down are not included.

Quote for truth... Neither democrats nor republican have my vote till someone does something about that southern border. I'm all for immigration, but i want it stay legal. If i hear "we're going to increase funding for new technologies" one more time... We don't need new technologies (although it helps slightly), we just need some people to get down there and doing something. A wall would be nice too :)

Why would it be set up that way? Amendments voted down are as much a part of the public record as those voted in or are pending. In this case, the amendment was defeated via a Point of Order.

Either way, a record of it should exist.

Also, Representative Sabo's comments don't mesh with what you originally posted. The vote totals he mentions defeated his amendments, 35-30 and 27-34, sound like committee votes, while the image you posted, and the numbers it contains, displays the results of a floor vote.

Also, there's this:

These two do not quite match up.

And finally, Sabo's press release spoke of $1.225 billion for designated purposes including the ones listed above. Sabo himself, talked about an amendment that contained $3.4 billion. Either he's talking about two different amendments containing funding, or there are still $2.2 billion there that haven't been accounted for, plus whatever else was in the amendment that we don't know about (and we apparently can't seem to find).

Okay, I'm game.

Where do you propose we get $92 billion dollars? Especially, in light of the fact that in order to maintain the national debt ceiling, the federal pensions program had to be dipped into? Do you know how serious that is?

The BILL was $92 billion. And it passed, by the way. The Amendment was $3 billion.

I'm talking about the bill.

Then complain to your representative. None of them know what fiscal responsibility is. I fail to see how it has any relevance whatsoever to this thread.

Cute. You also fail to see how serious things are that the government is forced to siphon off funds from federal pensions to pay for the bare minimum. The relevancy to this thread is; where can the government cough up an extra three billion when security's been fine, except in the election year pandering department? Maybe we should dip into social security to pay for that amendment?

How does it feel to be a tool of the liberal agenda?

Was this attack really necessary?

It was not intended to be an attack. More of a clarification on my "election year pandering" statement.

Apologies if you took it otherwise Arainach.