Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85202 35210

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


Port Security
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Arainach
Sensors indicate an Ancient Civilization


Member 1200

Level 26.93

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2006, 11:26 PM #1 of 13
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.
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/...urity-funding/



Moments ago, the House of Representatives narrowly defeated an amendment proposed by Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN) that would have provided $1.25 billion in desperately needed funding for port security and disaster preparedness. The Sabo amendment included:

$300 million to enable U.S. customs agents to inspect high-risk containers at all 140 overseas ports that ship directly to the United States. Current funding only allows U.S. customs agents to operate at 43 of these ports.

$400 million to place radiation monitors at all U.S. ports of entry. Currently, less than half of U.S. ports have radiation monitors.

$300 million to provide backup emergency communications equipment for the Gulf Coast.

Meanwhile, the Bush budget – which most of the members who voted against this bill will likely support – contains an increase of $1.7 billion for missile defense, a program that doesn’t even work.
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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Lord Styphon
Malevolently Mercurial


Member 3

Level 50.36

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2006, 11:45 PM Local time: Mar 16, 2006, 10:45 PM #2 of 13
Quote:
H.AMDT.702 (A002)
Amends: H.R.4939
Sponsor: Rep Sabo, Martin Olav [MN-5] (offered 3/15/2006)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment to insert a new section on page 83, after line 16, that states upon receiving written notification, as prescribed by regulations under the section, of any merger, acquisition, or takeover proposed or pending on or after the date of the enactment of this section by or with any foreign control of any person engaed in interstate commerce in the United States, the President, acting through the President's designee and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States shall conduct an investigation to determine the effects, if any, of the proposed or pending merger, acqusition or takeover on the national security of the United States.

STATUS:

3/15/2006 5:22pm:
Amendment (A002) offered by Mr. Sabo. (consideration: CR H1005-1008; text: CR H987-989)
3/15/2006 5:30pm:
Mr. Lewis (CA) raised a point of order against the Sabo amendment (A002). Mr. Lewis (CA) raised a point of order against the amendment stating that it constituted legislation in an appropriations bill and was in violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI. The Chair sustained the point of order.
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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Wesker
Darn you to heck!


Member 1325

Level 11.78

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 16, 2006, 11:48 PM #3 of 13
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??????

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Arainach
Sensors indicate an Ancient Civilization


Member 1200

Level 26.93

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2006, 12:24 AM #4 of 13
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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
xen0phobia
Chocobo


Member 503

Level 10.31

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2006, 12:38 AM #5 of 13
Quote:
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??????
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

How ya doing, buddy?
Lord Styphon
Malevolently Mercurial


Member 3

Level 50.36

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2006, 12:45 AM Local time: Mar 16, 2006, 11:45 PM #6 of 13
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:

Originally Posted by Original Article
– $400 million to place radiation monitors at all U.S. ports of entry. Currently, less than half of U.S. ports have radiation monitors.
Originally Posted by Rep. Sabo
By installing radiation detectors at the top 42 overseas ports, compared to the 13 planned for by the Department of Energy, and at all of our land borders.
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).

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2006, 12:53 AM Local time: Mar 16, 2006, 10:53 PM #7 of 13
Originally Posted by Arainach
Someone explain this one to me. I'd love to hear it.
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?

FELIPE NO
Arainach
Sensors indicate an Ancient Civilization


Member 1200

Level 26.93

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2006, 01:04 AM #8 of 13
The BILL was $92 billion. And it passed, by the way. The Amendment was $3 billion.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2006, 01:06 AM Local time: Mar 16, 2006, 11:06 PM #9 of 13
Originally Posted by Arainach
The BILL was $92 billion. And it passed, by the way. The Amendment was $3 billion.
I'm talking about the bill.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
Arainach
Sensors indicate an Ancient Civilization


Member 1200

Level 26.93

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2006, 01:11 AM #10 of 13
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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2006, 01:15 AM Local time: Mar 16, 2006, 11:15 PM #11 of 13
Originally Posted by Arainach
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?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Lord Styphon
Malevolently Mercurial


Member 3

Level 50.36

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2006, 01:18 AM Local time: Mar 17, 2006, 12:18 AM #12 of 13
Originally Posted by Watts
How does it feel to be a tool of the liberal agenda?
Was this attack really necessary?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 17, 2006, 01:24 AM Local time: Mar 16, 2006, 11:24 PM #13 of 13
Originally Posted by Lord Styphon
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.

I was speaking idiomatically.
Reply

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > Port Security

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Illegal aliens from Mexico to receive Social Security benefits after only 18 months? speculative Political Palace 10 Jan 7, 2007 08:02 AM
Some sorta virus attack...... "Xmas port scan attack" Greykin Help Desk 4 Nov 12, 2006 02:42 PM
Possible HDMI Port On The 360? ShinBojack Video Gaming 5 Jul 11, 2006 07:53 AM
New spoiler method. Bigblah Board Support 76 Mar 15, 2006 11:41 AM
Port Deal Crisis Averted? Arainach Political Palace 19 Mar 10, 2006 05:20 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.