Replies

Example #1:
Amendment 3820 to S1664 allows for the continuation of benefits to illegals.. On several candidate’s votes, they have labeled voting against this bill as supporting illegal benefits because the title says it ‘restricts benefits’ even though the meat of the bill actually grants continuation of the benefits:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r104:1:./temp/~r104FLSz4Z::
(b) Exceptions: Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to the following benefits:
(1) Emergency medical services under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
(2) Short-term emergency disaster relief.
(3) Assistance or benefits under the National School Lunch Act.
(4) Assistance or benefits under the Child Nutrition Act of 1966.
(5) Public health assistance for immunizations and, if the Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that it is necessary to prevent the spread of a serious communicable disease, for testing and treatment of such disease.

Basically, it prohibits benefits to illegals except, it also grants benefits to illegals like lunch programs, medical, generic ‘disaster relief’, etc.. are you for granting these things to illegals?

You can say by voting Nay that he voted to give benefits, but by voting Yea for this bill, if you look at the exceptions, you are also voting to give benefits to illegals.. This amendment is a lose-lose and no matter how someone voted, the same thing could be said..

Example #2
S1156- This is one of the worst examples of misrepresentation of votes on their site (specifically Fred Thompson in this case) Fred Thompson actually voted Nay on S1156 ( http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00265 ) But NumbersUSA lists him as voting for it.. instead of looking at this vote on the actual bill, they ignored that and took one procedural vote to move it from one committee to another and labeled it as supporting the bill..

Example #3
Several Senators are listed as voting for S1664, however, S1664 never made it to a vote, it was killed in committee: ( http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V907&can_id=53292 )- again, they take a procedural vote to move a bill from one committee to another committee and label that as supporting the bill.

How about Mr. Beck.. in my mind he is a lot like Lou Dobbs.. he says a few things that are right, and people follow everything he says without examination of motive or accuracy. Mr. Beck himself associates himself with liberal causes:
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1528
http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/environment.html

Just because the guy in the van offers you your favorite candy, doesn’t mean he has your best interests at heart.. Investigate everything.. especially those who tell you what you want to hear..

I encourage everyone to investigate for themselves..I can keep going adding bills and showing how they are twisting things for their own agenda, but people won't believe unless they find it themselves..

Question all; blindly follow nothing- even if it sounds good.

Liberals and open border RINOs detest Lou Dobbs, yet nobody has shown his reports to be anything but accurate. He even did a special on the leprosy report that the liberals had twisted to their own end. Also, a lot of people don't know that his wife is Hispanic and they continue to malign him.

From one of the links you posted:

The underlying message is that the United States could address such related problems as traffic congestion, high energy prices, pollution, and oil-related wars if it only shut off the main source of population growth.

I'm not sure what the problem is with that. Before President Reagan and the 1980s, the environment was not a partisan issue. Nixon passed more environmental legislation than any other president, and Teddy Roosevelt was a great conservationist.

I encourage everyone to investigate for themselves..I can keep going adding bills and showing how they are twisting things for their own agenda...

I'm truly curious if you follow your own advice when it comes to a very liberal, globalist, and anti-U.S. sovereignty president and his friends in the Senate. Do you advise others to examine Bush's motives? Or is it because they have Rs behind their names, is it all right to blindly follow?

Example #1 -- You admit this bill is a confusing mishmash of restrictions and benefits, to the degree that it is nearly impossible to classify the votes as "Yea" or "Nay". As you say "This amendment is a lose-lose and no matter how someone voted,...". No doubt the vote counters at NUSA found it equally confusing, but attempted to classify the votes as best they could. This does not prove your assertion that NUSA improperly classifies votes.

When you can produce the necessary facts coupled with specific cites to prove your charges against NUSA, I will look it over. Until then, don't waste my time with immaterial complaints and thinly supported assertions.

Example #2 -- You say this is "...one of the worst examples of misrepresentation of votes on their site (specifically Fred Thompson in this case)...", with a NO vote by Thompson categorized as a "Yes" vote. Yet, an earlier "procedural vote" of "Yes" was counted as if it were a final vote "For". Forgive me if I say I do not find this as egregious as you seem to. Again, procedural votes count and should not be ignored (see, e.g., the cloture votes on the most recent Senate bill -- of course they were counted because a procedural "Yes" vote for cloture was a clear signal that the voter was also a "Yes" on the bill itself). I find it hard to believe that NUSA properly counted the procedural "Yes" vote but failed to count the final "No" vote. It's possible, mistakes can be made, but it certainly wouldn't be deliberate. I just don't believe it. Again, you seem to be straining to build a case against NUSA. Example #2 won't fly.

Example #3 -- Again, you find a conspiracy at NUSA to count procedural votes. I see no reason why such votes shouldn't be counted since, in the majority of cases, they either favor or disfavor the actual bill. Although you cite no specific cases, I would agree that a mere move from one committee to another would not appear to be a good "counting" case for NUSA, unless there are known issues with particular moves. I find this example unpersuasive.

"Mr. Beck himself associates himself with liberal causes:"

Here is what your link reveals Mr. Beck said on that issue" "Even though most reviews of my book have described me and my work as liberal, I have sought to create an organization that is not just liberal or environmentalist but crosses all parts of the political spectrum.” Thus, contrary to your assertion, the statements you attribute to Mr. Beck were in fact the statements of the book reviewers to which Mr. Beck merely refers. Your attempt to convey the impression that Mr. Beck is a self-confesssed liberal smacks of dishonesty on your part.

"I can keep going adding bills and showing how they are twisting things for their own agenda, but people won't believe unless they find it themselves."

You haven't shown us much yet, despite a few hotlinks and a lot of your own "filler" prose which fails to support your "twisting" and "dishonesty" charges against NUSA.

"Question all; blindly follow nothing- even if it sounds good."

Good advice to follow, especially for those reviewing your post. It all sounds good but, on closer inspection, what you have served up is a lot of meaningless fluff with a few loosely related but mostly insignificant "facts" sprinkled around here and there.

If you want to make your case against NUSA, you will have to come up with a far more persuasive set of facts and specifics than what you have managed to so tortuously assemble here.

Really, mnehrling, thin soup--very thin soup indeed.