The exploitation of 9/11

Zach point out the other day that, scott walker was was not scared to exploit 911 for his own political purposes.

Then on 911 there was a “tea party” in Racine. I am not going to focus on the ridiculousness of having Jonah Goldberg there, or many of the people who attend these “rallies” usually classified as \"low info voters\".

I am going to focus on the fact that Paul Ryan(R-Wall St.) was the feature speaker. Its been written many times that the “we spend too much” crowd loses credibility when they invite one of the main supporters of TARP, Medicare Part D, etc… to be their main speaker. What is really disgusting is how Ryan would exploit the day for his own political gain. Ryan recently voted against giving health care to the true American Heroes, the 911 responders, putting his party and politics first. No wonder walker and ryan get along so well.

full story here.

Share:

Related Articles

16 thoughts on “The exploitation of 9/11

  1. This is hysterical, when this first happened a number of weeks ago, weiners little hissy fit, the Obama media tired and tried to give this story legs to bash conservatives and not so surprisingly the story went know where. Now this quaint little state progressive blog is trying to do the same thing with this no news story in their desperate attempt to get unpopular candidates elected in Nov. Nice try, cute but really pretty sad attempt.

    1. Okay now back it up mister. I’m goddam serious. And I personally am done with your ass. That was short-lived romance, wasn’t it?

      “quaint little state progressive blog” seriously? you’re talking about Zach’s blog here?

      You check this blog 352 times every day. Zach treats you with respect from everything I have seen. You are a guest here. He has ZERO, count’em ZERO obligations to allow you to “have equal time”. This is a private blog, not taxpayer funded where you can whine about equal time.
      Zach owes you NOTHING.

      Quaint little progressive state blog? Then you are pretty addicted to a sad, quaint progressive little thing – what does that say about you?

      And if you think you are “fighting for your side”, trust me – no one gives a shit and you’re fooling yourself. You are mean-spirited and senseless. There was no call to attack Zach in that highly personal manner after all the “ink” you have wasted here.
      I don’t even care if Zack bans ME for not looking the other way and for making a “scene”. You owe Zach an apology and you have embarrassed yourself in front of the group that you imagine you are impressing with your arguments.

      1. Nice language Annie. Notalib’s post might be what I’d call “tit for tat” or argumentative, there was nothing mean-spirited or nasty about it & certainly nothing that would require an apology. Either your reading comprehension needs some work or you need to get on some meds because your response was way out of whack with the post you were responding to.

    2. Just to clarify, I posted about this over a month ago, and not to try and help any candidate, but because I think it says a lot about national Republicans.

      As to your comment about my “quaint little state progressive blog,” I’m not sure if that was supposed to be an insult, but it if was it didn’t have the desired effect. This blog was always meant to be an outlet for my thoughts on news and politics, and the fact that it’s actually fostered debate in the process makes me pretty happy.

      1. I felt the need to re-post it since Ryan was exploiting 911 when he recently voted to screw the actual 911 heroes. Just to be clear, I did not post this to help someone win, I posted it to show what a hypocrite and horrible person Paul ryan is.

  2. 1. quaint –adjective – skillfully or cleverly made.
    2. I am not fighting for “my side” I express opinions that matter to me, I don’t represent anyone else.
    3.An apology for what? For having an opinion on a post here?
    4. Guess what am not embarrassed at all, now you on the other hand looks a little childish with this temper tantrum.
    5. One question for you did you burn supper tonight while watching Oprha is that why we are a little testy tonight?

  3. Annie,

    Thanks for the good laugh.

    Zach, you should dig a little deeper before tagging republicans on their vote in regard to healthcare benefits for 911 workers. The democratic leadership as usual were playing political games and required a supermajority for it to pass. I suspect you just forgot to mention that?

  4. Seems to me if the democrats cared for the 911 workers like the pretend to then they would have passed the bill easily with a simple majority. What reason did they have for requiring a super majority?

    1. I love the logic here….when Republicans vote against a bill, blame Democrats. Kent, the issue isn’t by how large a margin the bill needed to pass; it’s Republican opposition to the bill.

      1. Um, so it is exploiting 9/11 to vote against legislation that has the word “9/11” in it? Wait, didn’t you guys harp on the Patriot Act for the very same reason?

  5. Stepping back for a minute…

    A friend recently posted a link to Leonard Pitts 9/11 response from immediately after it happened. It was a stark reminder of where I (we) were emotionally that day, and of how it brought so many of us together. And yet, I can’t be terribly sad at where we’ve ended up nearly a decade later. Hack politicians of all colors exploit the memories for their own petty personal or partisan gains. My memory is short – but seems like the last two Presidents in a row have been as divisive as any I’ve experienced. Our Congress over these years has been the least effective, most partisan and…well most full of crap. The names change. The parties change. But the horrific leadership continues. The king is dead. Long live the king. Or as that famous philosopher wrote, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

  6. To Proud Progressive: it is not “exploiting” 9/11 to use the word “hijack.” It’s used all the time. Why even leftist-hero Michael Moore used it in one of his cute little documentaries to say that capitalists hijacked Jesus.

    On to your second item, it is exploiting 9/11 to hold a tea party rally on that day? Weren’t you the one who was just SO happy to have a Fighting Bob rally? Oh wait, that was held Saturday too. Saturday was September 11th.

    1. As Zach so aptly pointed out, it isn’t exploitive to use the term HIJACK, it is however when you use it on 9/11. If it wasnt being exploitive, then he was showing how clueless he truly is.

      Having an event on September 11 is not being exploitive, but having as your main speaker someone who recently screwed over the true heroes of 911 is.

      1. If it is something truly wrong, then it would be wrong on Sept 10 or Sept 12 or any other day.

        By the way, how is screwing over someone exploiting the day?! You are wrong on point and definition of the word. If anything, YOU are the one exploiting 9/11 heroes by turning it into a political/campaign issue. That’s exploitation pal.

Comments are closed.