They Were For It, Before They Were…

6:03 pm EST March 16th, 2006 | Republicans | 12 Comments

You know the rest. Republican House votes en masse against funding for port security.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

12 Responses to “They Were For It, Before They Were…”

  1. Semanticleo says:
    March 16, 2006 at 8:03 pm

    Can’t we make them happy by giving Diebold ann Halliburton
    another Gazillion for the monopoly on the damn machines?

    Then can we start some Homeland Security that actually
    protects the homeland?

  2. factcheck says:
    March 16, 2006 at 8:03 pm

    They have to have the machines rigged. They really want to be on record against port security, after the Dubai controversy?

  3. Semanticleo says:
    March 16, 2006 at 8:03 pm

    Why do they hate America?

  4. buma says:
    March 16, 2006 at 8:03 pm

    From the link–
    “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.”

    Bush is just sacrificing sanity for consistency. Wasn’t that somebody’s definition of ‘moonbat’?

  5. factcheck says:
    March 16, 2006 at 9:03 pm

    Semant- they haven’t been happy with the Gazillions they’ve stolen from the gub’ment so far, what makes you so sure that another gazillion will make them go away?

    Fatherland- I mean Homeland Security isn’t about security. It’s a way to funnel more money into defense contractors.

  6. Common Sense Political Thought says:
    March 17, 2006 at 9:03 am

    Why?

    Why would the Republicans who were so opposed to the sale of the port management company to Dubai Ports World, claiming that it was an unacceptable security risk, vote against the Sabo Amendment, to provide increased funding for port security?
    The Sa…

  7. Oliver Willis » Someone Explain This To Me says:
    March 17, 2006 at 11:03 am

    [...] #8217;re dealing with jackals without any sort of decorum here. In the House, we now have almost the entire House Republican caucus on record as voting against p [...]

  8. duros62 says:
    March 17, 2006 at 11:03 am

    Unless there was a rider in the bill authorizing the President power to kill kittens with a hammer, I don’t understand why they would vote against it.
    Maybe simply because a Democrat (shudder, wretch) introduced it?
    I seriously think they are trying to kill us all.

  9. duros62 says:
    March 17, 2006 at 11:03 am

    http://www.xoverboard.com/deadkittensurvey/

  10. frameone says:
    March 17, 2006 at 12:03 pm

    Where’s DuggerPedro and HedleyFrank? Or FarrisStick? Come on guys, what’s the explanation?

  11. factcheck says:
    March 17, 2006 at 12:03 pm

    It won’t be long now, Frame, Rush’s show just started. Or Rush will ignore it, like Hannity does when it is something that can’t be spun.

    Maybe it was the Republican Congress’ evil twin that voted against port security and for Al Queda?

  12. factcheck says:
    March 17, 2006 at 4:03 pm

    Wow, I guess Rush and Sean didn’t discuss the bill. I wonder why? Maybe they were just so excited about St. Patricks Day that they forgot.