Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
We could very easily only have 8 justices or even 7 for the next four years.

Sure. Why not just refuse to give a vote for 4 years? We're already doing some outer-space level stuff now. Why stop at the rest of the Obama administration?

Can you honestly envision President Trump nominating anyone for SCotUS that doesn't get "Bork'd" by the Democrats?

After the amount of rhetoric spewed by the Republicans about how Clinton's SCotUS nominees would destroy America as we know it can you see any Republican voting for any of her nominees?

Both sides have painted themselves into a corner when it comes to SCotUS nominees from the other Party.

Well, Obama nominated someone who some Republicans had previously said would be a good choice and was the most experienced nominee in the history of the court. So it isn't like Obama had thrown out some ultra-partisan, unqualified nominee. Something which I doubt would be the case with Trumps picks.

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 jmurph wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Everyone that's not a neocon is a leftie, I guess.

This is a thing. Conservatives have moved so far right, anything approaching the middle is Socialism and maybe Communism. Probably Communism. Any criticism is a sure sign of liberal bias. Even if you try to point out that such demand for ideological "purity" is ultimately self-defeating and isolating conservatives as extremists. It is hugely frustrating.
Things that will get you labeled as a liberal:
-Advocating religious tolerance for anything other than Christianity
-Pointing out that Christianity is not a persecuted group in the US
-Advocating any kind of government benefits (including VA)
-Advocating any kind of progressive tax that might require the upper echelons to pay more
-Stating that labor unions are not inherently evil
-Stating that corporations are not inherently good
-Having reservations about military expansionism
-Any kind of support for LGBT equality
-Any kind of concern over racism other than "reverse racism"

That's baloney yo.

Yeah the Republicans would never do something like block funding for a mosquito born disease because they added riders that cut health programs, restricted funding for birth control services from Planned Parenthood, weakened clean water laws and blocked a ban on displaying the Confederate flag at U.S. military cemeteries. They would never go that far right

Right... because Republicans are the "other" and by default they're wrong in your eyes.

Furthermore, it was the DEMOCRATS who blocked the funding for Zika... not Republicans.

I wonder why it was blocked? It couldn't have anything to do with the riders thay I listed above, weird right?

I deplore the use of riders and would rather live in a world where Congress actually does some fething work and evaluate/vote for things line-by-line.

But, alas, that isn't the world we live in, and in order to pass things, a give-or-take must happen.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
We could very easily only have 8 justices or even 7 for the next four years.

Sure. Why not just refuse to give a vote for 4 years? We're already doing some outer-space level stuff now. Why stop at the rest of the Obama administration?

Can you honestly envision President Trump nominating anyone for SCotUS that doesn't get "Bork'd" by the Democrats?

After the amount of rhetoric spewed by the Republicans about how Clinton's SCotUS nominees would destroy America as we know it can you see any Republican voting for any of her nominees?

Both sides have painted themselves into a corner when it comes to SCotUS nominees from the other Party.

Well, Obama nominated someone who some Republicans had previously said would be a good choice and was the most experienced nominee in the history of the court. So it isn't like Obama had thrown out some ultra-partisan, unqualified nominee. Something which I doubt would be the case with Trumps picks.

Yeah and Merrick Garland isn't going to be confirmed. If the Republicans won't vote yes for Garland while Obama is in office why do you think they'd vote yes to confirm any nominee Clinton puts forth? They've already told their base that any nominee Clinton would submit would be terrible, disregard the constitution and destroy America so how do they reconcile that with confirming her nominee?

Whembly, the Republicans blocked funding by stuffing a load of things into the bill which did absolutely nothing to help the issue the bill was intended to tackle and in many cases would actually lead to a measurable drop in the health of the nation.

The democrats were right to not vote for that bill and they were right to bring in a new clean bill. The republicans were flat out wrong at every step.

Give or take does not mean what the republicans seem to think it means. They hold things to ransom, not engage in negotiation to reach a compromise.

I mean jesus, they tried to ban a healthcare provider from telling people about Zika and the problems it can cause just because they disagree with the services that provider offers! That is not right, ever!

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Furthermore, it was the DEMOCRATS who blocked the funding for Zika... not Republicans.

Well gee, that seems like sort of a lie of omission, doesn't it?

1.) Democrats asked for 1.1 billion to prevent the spread of Zika.
2.) Republicans larded the bill up with riders such as: stripping $540 million from ACA funding, $107 from Ebola, a provision preventing the confederate flag from flying over federal cemeteries, restrictions on Planned Parenthood birth control and discussing Zika (which can be spread sexually!), exempts pesticide from clean-water rules for open water
3.) Democrats wound up spiking the bill
4.) Republicans asked why Democrats don't care about Zika
5.) Democrats introduced a clean Zika funding bill
6.) Republicans blocked it

But yeah, you only remember 3, because "they're both bad"

No.

The Democrat prioritized Planned Parenthood fundings over anti-Zika measures.

Simple as that.

“The first TV picture of an American woman bearing a child with a birth defect caused by this virus will be on [Democrats],” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). “I wouldn’t want to be in their position.”

they're both bad

yes, they're both bad.

Democrats bad for blocking funding...

Republicans bad for telegraphing to hang the "child w/ a birth defect" around Democrat's neck.

You could also say Republicans prioritized defunding Planned Parenthood and the ACA, putting the Confederate flag over military cemeteries, and not enforcing clean water over anti-Zika measures.

Or you could say they slapped the bill with a bunch of unrelated stuff they knew wouldn't fly so they could make the Democrats look bad.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Furthermore, it was the DEMOCRATS who blocked the funding for Zika... not Republicans.

Well gee, that seems like sort of a lie of omission, doesn't it?

1.) Democrats asked for 1.1 billion to prevent the spread of Zika.
2.) Republicans larded the bill up with riders such as: stripping $540 million from ACA funding, $107 from Ebola, a provision preventing the confederate flag from flying over federal cemeteries, restrictions on Planned Parenthood birth control and discussing Zika (which can be spread sexually!), exempts pesticide from clean-water rules for open water
3.) Democrats wound up spiking the bill
4.) Republicans asked why Democrats don't care about Zika
5.) Democrats introduced a clean Zika funding bill
6.) Republicans blocked it

But yeah, you only remember 3, because "they're both bad"

No.

The Democrat prioritized Planned Parenthood fundings over anti-Zika measures.

Simple as that.

“The first TV picture of an American woman bearing a child with a birth defect caused by this virus will be on [Democrats],” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). “I wouldn’t want to be in their position.”

they're both bad

yes, they're both bad.

Democrats bad for blocking funding...

Republicans bad for telegraphing to hang the "child w/ a birth defect" around Democrat's neck.

Or maybe the Republicans could of dug deep to their Christian morals and tried to help people instead of ya know putting in riders that they knew would get blocked

 whembly wrote:
yes, they're both bad.

Democrats bad for blocking funding....

You say you're thirsty
I get a glass of water out, and take a gak in it, and hand it to you
you say you don't want to drink it
I say I guess you weren't really thirsty

we're both bad

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You're overlooking the fact that a majority of states have state constitutions that have stronger more clearly worded protections for the right of residents to privately own firearms. The federal supreme court can't change that.

Ferderal law trumps state law. Come on, this is basic stuff. Now I doubt that will happen, but state constitutions don't overule federal law. If they did slavery would still exist.

Tell that to the sanctuary cities....

Or Colorado pot laws...

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
It's probably already been covered, but I awake to headlines of Trump calling for Clinton to be assassinated...

The truth is, when he said "he meant for them to mobilize and vote", I believe him. I think he meant the people to whom the second amendment is important are generally republican, consistently get out and vote, and can mobilize strongly around a cause. I don't think it was the dog whistle it's getting described as. Just my 2 cents.

While I don't think he's outright calling for assassinations (he isn't that dumb), I disagree that it isn't dog whistling. For one, he's speaking about Clinton's presidency in the past tense, meaning it's already happened and there's nothing to anyone can do to stop her, unless you're one of those "Second Amndment people." Of course, his defense is that he was only joking, but he has a long history of saying something inflammatory and then claiming he was only joking (which is entirely possible, he seems like an odd bird).

The other interesting about his use of the awkward phrase "Second Amendment people" is that it seems let slip the disdain he has for part of his base. He's used similar phrasing to delineate groups of people to ridicule made even more apparent when after suggesting that there is an unspecified "something" the could do, he followed it up with, "I don't know." Meaning, I don't know what these loons could do.

I know that seems like digging a little deep into what he says, but there's actually a lot of depth in the things he says and how he says them.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Bloody hell! I really am confused...

I need to read up on how American political structures work...

For years, I believed the following:

Because of checks and balances, I thought that there was 9 SCOTUS judges.

and that the President got to pick 3, Congress chose 3, and the Senate chose 3

but that's all wrong.... It made sense to me at the time...

I'm familiar with FDR and his SCOTUS problems, but I thought that was becuase of a congress backlash, rather than a constitutional problem...

Back to the books I think and this is why I'm moving to Chinese history - they don't bother with checks and balances, and it's less confusing

Basically, it's:
President nominates a judge.
Senate then hold hearings, and proceed with an update/down vote to confirm.

The latest Obama pick, Garland is in limbo as the Senate refuses to hold the hearings and the up/down vote.

Nothing that Obama can do at this point, until the Senate holds that up/down vote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spinner wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Furthermore, it was the DEMOCRATS who blocked the funding for Zika... not Republicans.

Well gee, that seems like sort of a lie of omission, doesn't it?

1.) Democrats asked for 1.1 billion to prevent the spread of Zika.
2.) Republicans larded the bill up with riders such as: stripping $540 million from ACA funding, $107 from Ebola, a provision preventing the confederate flag from flying over federal cemeteries, restrictions on Planned Parenthood birth control and discussing Zika (which can be spread sexually!), exempts pesticide from clean-water rules for open water
3.) Democrats wound up spiking the bill
4.) Republicans asked why Democrats don't care about Zika
5.) Democrats introduced a clean Zika funding bill
6.) Republicans blocked it

But yeah, you only remember 3, because "they're both bad"

No.

The Democrat prioritized Planned Parenthood fundings over anti-Zika measures.

Simple as that.

“The first TV picture of an American woman bearing a child with a birth defect caused by this virus will be on [Democrats],” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). “I wouldn’t want to be in their position.”

they're both bad

yes, they're both bad.

Democrats bad for blocking funding...

Republicans bad for telegraphing to hang the "child w/ a birth defect" around Democrat's neck.

You could also say Republicans prioritized defunding Planned Parenthood and the ACA, putting the Confederate flag over military cemeteries, and not enforcing clean water over anti-Zika measures.

Or you could say they slapped the bill with a bunch of unrelated stuff they knew wouldn't fly so they could make the Democrats look bad.

True. That works as well...

Fact of the matter, that's just about how EVERY BILL IN EXISTANCE get passed.

It's the "clean bill" almost never get passed.

Ie, the "no fly, no gun" bill that the Democrat blocked as well.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

I mean jesus, they tried to ban a healthcare provider from telling people about Zika and the problems it can cause just because they disagree with the services that provider offers! That is not right, ever!

Wait... wut?

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You're overlooking the fact that a majority of states have state constitutions that have stronger more clearly worded protections for the right of residents to privately own firearms. The federal supreme court can't change that.

Ferderal law trumps state law. Come on, this is basic stuff. Now I doubt that will happen, but state constitutions don't overule federal law. If they did slavery would still exist.

Tell that to the sanctuary cities....

Or Colorado pot laws...

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever from preventing the federal government from enforcing laws against illegal immigration or marijuana usage in any of those places.

Sanctuary cities simply do not ask about legal status, and do not hold and transfer people to ICE or whatever the INS is called now.
The only reason the DEA does not raid legal marijuana distribution is President Obama's prosecutorial authority, so to speak. He would be well within the law to have them raiding every marijuana dispensary in Colorado tomorrow morning. In fact, it could be argued he is abdicating his responsibility to uphold the law by having the DEA not do so.

In neither situation is the federal government precluded from action, legally.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You're overlooking the fact that a majority of states have state constitutions that have stronger more clearly worded protections for the right of residents to privately own firearms. The federal supreme court can't change that.

Ferderal law trumps state law. Come on, this is basic stuff. Now I doubt that will happen, but state constitutions don't overule federal law. If they did slavery would still exist.

You seem to be very confused. The Federal Supreme Court doesn't make laws and only hears cases that fall under Federal jurisdiction. The Federal Supreme Court would only hear cases that involve State constitutions' protection of the right of residents to keep and bear arms if those State constitutions conflicted with Federal laws or the Federal constitution. Even if Congress repealed the 2nd Amendment the Federal government cannot repeal clauses in State constitutions. The only way Federal courts could infringe on firearm ownership clauses in State constitutions would be if the Federal govt passed new laws or a new constitutional amendment that was in direct conflict with the clauses in the State constitutions. That's how the system works.

The reason we don't have slavery today is because we fought the Civil War over it because the Confederate states seceded when they saw that there were enough votes in Congress to outlaw slavery at the Federal level and the Supreme Court was going to uphold that law when it opposed the states' laws that allowed slavery. To create an analogous situation with firearm ownership you would need Congress to pass a Federal law that outlaws private ownership of firearms which is never going to happen.

 whembly wrote:
Fact of the matter, that's just about how EVERY BILL IN EXISTANCE get passed

Don't be intentionally obtuse, that's the worst part of the OT. You know perfectly well that while there is some normal give and take on bills, what the GOP did here was ask for things they knew the Democrats could never vote for to force them to kill it, and that's not how "it always works".

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You're overlooking the fact that a majority of states have state constitutions that have stronger more clearly worded protections for the right of residents to privately own firearms. The federal supreme court can't change that.

Ferderal law trumps state law. Come on, this is basic stuff. Now I doubt that will happen, but state constitutions don't overule federal law. If they did slavery would still exist.

Tell that to the sanctuary cities....

Or Colorado pot laws...

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever from preventing the federal government from enforcing laws against illegal immigration or marijuana usage in any of those places.

Sanctuary cities simply do not ask about legal status, and do not hold and transfer people to ICE or whatever the INS is called now.
The only reason the DEA does not raid legal marijuana distribution is President Obama's prosecutorial authority, so to speak. He would be well within the law to have them raiding every marijuana dispensary in Colorado tomorrow morning. In fact, it could be argued he is abdicating his responsibility to uphold the law by having the DEA not do so.

In neither situation is the federal government precluded from action, legally.

Did I imply otherwise?

Colorado updating the laws contrary to DEA regulations (which, if you understood how powerful DEA dept is... that took some Colorado cajones!).

The Federal Government actually relies on states resources to assist federal manners.

Should the federal government pass more restrictive 2nd amendment laws... the state could "not offer this same assistance" in this manner, much in the same way with Colorado pot laws, and the Sanctuary cities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Fact of the matter, that's just about how EVERY BILL IN EXISTANCE get passed

Don't be intentionally obtuse, that's the worst part of the OT. You know perfectly well that while there is some normal give and take on bills, what the GOP did here was ask for things they knew the Democrats could never vote for to force them to kill it, and that's not how "it always works".

So fething what?

Are you claiming some illegitimacy of Congress because it's held by "the other guys"?

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You're overlooking the fact that a majority of states have state constitutions that have stronger more clearly worded protections for the right of residents to privately own firearms. The federal supreme court can't change that.

Ferderal law trumps state law. Come on, this is basic stuff. Now I doubt that will happen, but state constitutions don't overule federal law. If they did slavery would still exist.

Tell that to the sanctuary cities....

Or Colorado pot laws...

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever from preventing the federal government from enforcing laws against illegal immigration or marijuana usage in any of those places.

Sanctuary cities simply do not ask about legal status, and do not hold and transfer people to ICE or whatever the INS is called now.
The only reason the DEA does not raid legal marijuana distribution is President Obama's prosecutorial authority, so to speak. He would be well within the law to have them raiding every marijuana dispensary in Colorado tomorrow morning. In fact, it could be argued he is abdicating his responsibility to uphold the law by having the DEA not do so.

In neither situation is the federal government precluded from action, legally.

That's one of the things that's holding back investment in marijuana in Colorado, the Feds could change their minds tomorrow and send in the DEA and ruin everything. There's a lot of potential to make money but nobody wants to be holding the bag if policies change and Federal prosecutors come knocking.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Fact of the matter, that's just about how EVERY BILL IN EXISTANCE get passed

Don't be intentionally obtuse, that's the worst part of the OT. You know perfectly well that while there is some normal give and take on bills, what the GOP did here was ask for things they knew the Democrats could never vote for to force them to kill it, and that's not how "it always works".

So fething what?

Are you claiming some illegitimacy of Congress because it's held by "the other guys"?

"Illegitimacy"? No, they were rightfully elected. I'm telling you, an ardent supporter of the idea that "both sides are bad", that one side is notably worse, and you're trying to gloss over that by omitting details. You said "the democrats blocked zika funding" without any of the context that made it clear that the GOP actually inserted poison pills into the bill. Looking at the Zika funding situation, I think a nonbiased person can pretty easily pick who is being a bigger donkey-cave.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You're overlooking the fact that a majority of states have state constitutions that have stronger more clearly worded protections for the right of residents to privately own firearms. The federal supreme court can't change that.

Ferderal law trumps state law. Come on, this is basic stuff. Now I doubt that will happen, but state constitutions don't overule federal law. If they did slavery would still exist.

Tell that to the sanctuary cities....

Or Colorado pot laws...

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever from preventing the federal government from enforcing laws against illegal immigration or marijuana usage in any of those places.

Sanctuary cities simply do not ask about legal status, and do not hold and transfer people to ICE or whatever the INS is called now.
The only reason the DEA does not raid legal marijuana distribution is President Obama's prosecutorial authority, so to speak. He would be well within the law to have them raiding every marijuana dispensary in Colorado tomorrow morning. In fact, it could be argued he is abdicating his responsibility to uphold the law by having the DEA not do so.

In neither situation is the federal government precluded from action, legally.

Did I imply otherwise?

Colorado updating the laws contrary to DEA regulations (which, if you understood how powerful DEA dept is... that took some Colorado cajones!).

The Federal Government actually relies on states resources to assist federal manners.

Should the federal government pass more restrictive 2nd amendment laws... the state could "not offer this same assistance" in this manner, much in the same way with Colorado pot laws, and the Sanctuary cities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Fact of the matter, that's just about how EVERY BILL IN EXISTANCE get passed

Don't be intentionally obtuse, that's the worst part of the OT. You know perfectly well that while there is some normal give and take on bills, what the GOP did here was ask for things they knew the Democrats could never vote for to force them to kill it, and that's not how "it always works".

So fething what?

Are you claiming some illegitimacy of Congress because it's held by "the other guys"?

I am claiming that they are donkey-caves because they don't want to actually help people, because 1 billion dollars is chump change and most people agree that a bug borne illness that causes birth defects is generally a bad thing

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You're overlooking the fact that a majority of states have state constitutions that have stronger more clearly worded protections for the right of residents to privately own firearms. The federal supreme court can't change that.

Ferderal law trumps state law. Come on, this is basic stuff. Now I doubt that will happen, but state constitutions don't overule federal law. If they did slavery would still exist.

Tell that to the sanctuary cities....

Or Colorado pot laws...

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever from preventing the federal government from enforcing laws against illegal immigration or marijuana usage in any of those places.

Sanctuary cities simply do not ask about legal status, and do not hold and transfer people to ICE or whatever the INS is called now.
The only reason the DEA does not raid legal marijuana distribution is President Obama's prosecutorial authority, so to speak. He would be well within the law to have them raiding every marijuana dispensary in Colorado tomorrow morning. In fact, it could be argued he is abdicating his responsibility to uphold the law by having the DEA not do so.

In neither situation is the federal government precluded from action, legally.

That's one of the things that's holding back investment in marijuana in Colorado, the Feds could change their minds tomorrow and send in the DEA and ruin everything. There's a lot of potential to make money but nobody wants to be holding the bag if policies change and Federal prosecutors come knocking.

It's ridiculously dangerous in the business now.

It's a cash only business transactions... AND the banks won't accept the profits from this businesses.

The ironic thing about this whole thing, is that the IRS specifically designed tax documents so that these businesses can file their taxes appropriately (thus, the taxman get's his money!).

Prestor Jon wrote:
That's one of the things that's holding back investment in marijuana in Colorado, the Feds could change their minds tomorrow and send in the DEA and ruin everything. There's a lot of potential to make money but nobody wants to be holding the bag if policies change and Federal prosecutors come knocking.

Absolutely. I think the banks are right to block funding for weed related businesses - if I was a bank shareholder, I'd be concerned with the business being investigated for participating in what is functionally an organized federal crime racket as of January 21st, 2017.

Congress needs to act, I think.

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I could be horribly wrong on this, but SCOTUS can't repeal the 2nd or any other amendment, can it?

Only a 2/3rds majority in Congress and the senate can do this?

So why all the fuss over Clinton's SCOTUS picks if she is President?

Only a constitutional amendment can alter or repeal an amendment, yes.

The thought is that Hillary Clinton is likely to appoint up to 3 supreme court justices, and a liberal court will be more likely to take a stricter view of the second amendment. This discussion rapidly goes nowhere good so I will leave it there.

One new Justice can make the Second Amendment moot. Thats the real fear.

 whembly wrote:
[

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

I mean jesus, they tried to ban a healthcare provider from telling people about Zika and the problems it can cause just because they disagree with the services that provider offers! That is not right, ever!

Wait... wut?

As Ouze put in his post which you responded to on the last page.

restrictions on Planned Parenthood birth control and discussing Zika (which can be spread sexually!)

The Republicans were going to put people at risk and gag a source of information on the risks of the Zika virus just because they disagreed with the services offered by Planned Parenthood. If someone goes to PP to get advice on whether they should carry their baby to term or not, or even just whether it would be safe to try and conceive or what precautions they should take to prevent passing it to their partner, and PP isn't allowed to tell them that as they are infected with Zika there is a high likelihood of their child having very serious birth defects and that they could pass it to their partner then they are being denied vital information regarding their health.

Inversely the Democrats are going to put people at risk and gag a source of information just because they want to fund Planned Parenthood. See how that works?

We'd live in a better country if partisans did not corrupt bills related to the public safety with political riders. We should stop making excuses for this gak, on both sides...it's a very unsavory practice that we all sort of accept, but we don't have to just accept it IMO.

Call your Senators and Congressmen and tell them you want a clean, non-politicized Zika bill. They won't do gak in Congress if they think that their constituents don't care about the issue.

 Frazzled wrote:
Inversely the Democrats are going to put people at risk and gag a source of information just because they want to fund Planned Parenthood. See how that works?

Not really, because they put forth a new bill to fund anti-zika measures.

Which the republicans refused to pass. So once again it is the republicans putting people at risk due to their idiotic partisan politics which requires them to oppose absolutely everything, even it if puts the health of the people at risk.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Fact of the matter, that's just about how EVERY BILL IN EXISTANCE get passed

Don't be intentionally obtuse, that's the worst part of the OT. You know perfectly well that while there is some normal give and take on bills, what the GOP did here was ask for things they knew the Democrats could never vote for to force them to kill it, and that's not how "it always works".

So fething what?

Are you claiming some illegitimacy of Congress because it's held by "the other guys"?

"Illegitimacy"? No, they were rightfully elected. I'm telling you, an ardent supporter of the idea that "both sides are bad", that one side is notably worse, and you're trying to gloss over that by omitting details. You said "the democrats blocked zika funding" without any of the context that made it clear that the GOP actually inserted poison pills into the bill. Looking at the Zika funding situation, I think a nonbiased person can pretty easily pick who is being a bigger donkey-cave.

Seems to me, that the biggest issue is forbidding this money to go to Planned Parenthood.

Guys... newsflash... Planned Parenthood isn't the only "provider" in the game.


So let's deconstruct this http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/06.22.16_Zika_Conference_Report_-_Summary.pdf]bill...

Riders against sending this money to Planned Parenthood:
Why the feth do we HAVE to send TAXPAYOR's money to these groups? If they're so important to you, become a donor. If there's a large enough constituents (being GOP) who doesn't want tax money sent to PP... then... what? You think the GOP should tell their constituents feth you? Beside, the money is funneled to other providers who can offer those services. The Democrat's reaction isn't about "protecting women's rights".... it's about protecting their constituents (PP) funding.

Some of the money isn't "stealing from Obamacare or Ebola" bank accounts... these are unused money previously allocated to those programs. It's called "offsets".

As for the Confederate flags on military burial grounds... who gives a gak.

As to the EPA changes:

Upon enactment, the EPA and states shall not require a separate Clean Water Act permit for pesticide application for a period of 180 days. The bill requires that the pesticide be approved and applied in compliance with all requirements under the “Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act”, it must control mosquitos, and it must be for the prevention or control of the Zika virus.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Fact of the matter, that's just about how EVERY BILL IN EXISTANCE get passed

Don't be intentionally obtuse, that's the worst part of the OT. You know perfectly well that while there is some normal give and take on bills, what the GOP did here was ask for things they knew the Democrats could never vote for to force them to kill it, and that's not how "it always works".

So fething what?

Are you claiming some illegitimacy of Congress because it's held by "the other guys"?

"Illegitimacy"? No, they were rightfully elected. I'm telling you, an ardent supporter of the idea that "both sides are bad", that one side is notably worse, and you're trying to gloss over that by omitting details. You said "the democrats blocked zika funding" without any of the context that made it clear that the GOP actually inserted poison pills into the bill. Looking at the Zika funding situation, I think a nonbiased person can pretty easily pick who is being a bigger donkey-cave.

Seems to me, that the biggest issue is forbidding this money to go to Planned Parenthood.

Guys... newsflash... Planned Parenthood isn't the only "provider" in the game.


So let's deconstruct this http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/06.22.16_Zika_Conference_Report_-_Summary.pdf]bill...

Riders against sending this money to Planned Parenthood:
Why the feth do we HAVE to send TAXPAYOR's money to these groups? If they're so important to you, become a donor. If there's a large enough constituents (being GOP) who doesn't want tax money sent to PP... then... what? You think the GOP should tell their constituents feth you? Beside, the money is funneled to other providers who can offer those services. The Democrat's reaction isn't about "protecting women's rights".... it's about protecting their constituents (PP) funding.

Some of the money isn't "stealing from Obamacare or Ebola" bank accounts... these are unused money previously allocated to those programs. It's called "offsets".

As for the Confederate flags on military burial grounds... who gives a gak.

As to the EPA changes:

Upon enactment, the EPA and states shall not require a separate Clean Water Act permit for pesticide application for a period of 180 days. The bill requires that the pesticide be approved and applied in compliance with all requirements under the “Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act”, it must control mosquitos, and it must be for the prevention or control of the Zika virus.

Whembley, what does PP funding have to do with the Zika virus?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
[

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

I mean jesus, they tried to ban a healthcare provider from telling people about Zika and the problems it can cause just because they disagree with the services that provider offers! That is not right, ever!

Wait... wut?

As Ouze put in his post which you responded to on the last page.

restrictions on Planned Parenthood birth control and discussing Zika (which can be spread sexually!)

The Republicans were going to put people at risk and gag a source of information on the risks of the Zika virus just because they disagreed with the services offered by Planned Parenthood. If someone goes to PP to get advice on whether they should carry their baby to term or not, or even just whether it would be safe to try and conceive or what precautions they should take to prevent passing it to their partner, and PP isn't allowed to tell them that as they are infected with Zika there is a high likelihood of their child having very serious birth defects and that they could pass it to their partner then they are being denied vital information regarding their health.

I have no idea how a prohibition of discussing Zika is a thing... and even if it were, it's unenforcable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Fact of the matter, that's just about how EVERY BILL IN EXISTANCE get passed

Don't be intentionally obtuse, that's the worst part of the OT. You know perfectly well that while there is some normal give and take on bills, what the GOP did here was ask for things they knew the Democrats could never vote for to force them to kill it, and that's not how "it always works".

So fething what?

Are you claiming some illegitimacy of Congress because it's held by "the other guys"?

"Illegitimacy"? No, they were rightfully elected. I'm telling you, an ardent supporter of the idea that "both sides are bad", that one side is notably worse, and you're trying to gloss over that by omitting details. You said "the democrats blocked zika funding" without any of the context that made it clear that the GOP actually inserted poison pills into the bill. Looking at the Zika funding situation, I think a nonbiased person can pretty easily pick who is being a bigger donkey-cave.

Seems to me, that the biggest issue is forbidding this money to go to Planned Parenthood.

Guys... newsflash... Planned Parenthood isn't the only "provider" in the game.


So let's deconstruct this http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/06.22.16_Zika_Conference_Report_-_Summary.pdf]bill...

Riders against sending this money to Planned Parenthood:
Why the feth do we HAVE to send TAXPAYOR's money to these groups? If they're so important to you, become a donor. If there's a large enough constituents (being GOP) who doesn't want tax money sent to PP... then... what? You think the GOP should tell their constituents feth you? Beside, the money is funneled to other providers who can offer those services. The Democrat's reaction isn't about "protecting women's rights".... it's about protecting their constituents (PP) funding.

Some of the money isn't "stealing from Obamacare or Ebola" bank accounts... these are unused money previously allocated to those programs. It's called "offsets".

As for the Confederate flags on military burial grounds... who gives a gak.

As to the EPA changes:

Upon enactment, the EPA and states shall not require a separate Clean Water Act permit for pesticide application for a period of 180 days. The bill requires that the pesticide be approved and applied in compliance with all requirements under the “Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act”, it must control mosquitos, and it must be for the prevention or control of the Zika virus.

Whembley, what does PP funding have to do with the Zika virus?

Aside the EPA one... nothing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Inversely the Democrats are going to put people at risk and gag a source of information just because they want to fund Planned Parenthood. See how that works?

Not really, because they put forth a new bill to fund anti-zika measures.

Which the republicans refused to pass. So once again it is the republicans putting people at risk due to their idiotic partisan politics which requires them to oppose absolutely everything, even it if puts the health of the people at risk.

Citation need.

Sure, the called for one, but I didn't see any actual "clean bill".

Besides, if they did and it got out of the committee... there's nothing to prevent those riders to be slapped on it again.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Fact of the matter, that's just about how EVERY BILL IN EXISTANCE get passed

Don't be intentionally obtuse, that's the worst part of the OT. You know perfectly well that while there is some normal give and take on bills, what the GOP did here was ask for things they knew the Democrats could never vote for to force them to kill it, and that's not how "it always works".

So fething what?

Are you claiming some illegitimacy of Congress because it's held by "the other guys"?

"Illegitimacy"? No, they were rightfully elected. I'm telling you, an ardent supporter of the idea that "both sides are bad", that one side is notably worse, and you're trying to gloss over that by omitting details. You said "the democrats blocked zika funding" without any of the context that made it clear that the GOP actually inserted poison pills into the bill. Looking at the Zika funding situation, I think a nonbiased person can pretty easily pick who is being a bigger donkey-cave.

Seems to me, that the biggest issue is forbidding this money to go to Planned Parenthood.

Guys... newsflash... Planned Parenthood isn't the only "provider" in the game.


So let's deconstruct this http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/06.22.16_Zika_Conference_Report_-_Summary.pdf]bill...

Riders against sending this money to Planned Parenthood:
Why the feth do we HAVE to send TAXPAYOR's money to these groups? If they're so important to you, become a donor. If there's a large enough constituents (being GOP) who doesn't want tax money sent to PP... then... what? You think the GOP should tell their constituents feth you? Beside, the money is funneled to other providers who can offer those services. The Democrat's reaction isn't about "protecting women's rights".... it's about protecting their constituents (PP) funding.

Some of the money isn't "stealing from Obamacare or Ebola" bank accounts... these are unused money previously allocated to those programs. It's called "offsets".

As for the Confederate flags on military burial grounds... who gives a gak.

As to the EPA changes:

Upon enactment, the EPA and states shall not require a separate Clean Water Act permit for pesticide application for a period of 180 days. The bill requires that the pesticide be approved and applied in compliance with all requirements under the “Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act”, it must control mosquitos, and it must be for the prevention or control of the Zika virus.

Can't forget about those fake clinics that ambush and browbeat scared women into making choices, thanks for reminding us whembly

 Ustrello wrote:


Can't forget about those fake clinics that ambush and browbeat scared women into making choices, thanks for reminding us whembly

Huh?

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:


Can't forget about those fake clinics that ambush and browbeat scared women into making choices, thanks for reminding us whembly

Huh?

You said there are other providers and I stated there are. Fake PP clinics run by right wingers who browbeat women, quit being obtuse because we have had this conversation on the politics thread before.