Featured Typical democrat position on the slaughter of the innocents

I'm pointing out the problem with your logic, CTB. BOTH parties are responsible for this bill being killed.

The GOP put in language that they knew would cause concern; but it was up to the Democrats to decide if human trafficking was important enough that they would accept that language.

Since neither side wanted to give up their position, the victims of human trafficking suffer for it.

 

I'm still left asking that if this was a bipartisan bill intended to stop human trafficking, why stick something in the bill that you know is going to cause issues with the bill passing unless you didn't really want it to pass?

 

That is where you are very wrong.

It is like saying that you would support a bill that abolished abortion that contained a rider saying that all Baptist preachers would be sentenced to jail for ten years.

Riders do not make a bill, but they can kill a bill.

And please answer the question, why would the GOP include a clause they surely knew would kill the entire bill?

 

CTB, I think you and I are asking the same question. :laugh: I am very much in agreement with what you have said.

I don't think the GOP ever intended for the bill to pass and that's why they stuck the rider in there.

People who do that aren't concerned about the primary issue. They are concerned about being political and you giving them something in order to get what you want.

 

From 2001-2003 Republicans controlled Congress and Bush had the Presidency. They had two years to stop abortion. Nothing happened. No one party is ever going to get a 60 vote margin. Like I said, my days of giving RINO liberal Republicans a pass is over.

 

Unbelievable.

1. this bill is NOT dead

2. the attached rider is very commonplace

3. the Democrats voted on the bill but didn't read it first . . . again

4. the Chinless One is voting for cloture right now

5. with or without the rider, this bill WILL pass

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/human-trafficking-bill-2015-115942.html?hp=l3_4

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/235545-mcconnell-files-cloture-on-anti-trafficking-bill

 

OR,
It may appear Crabby and I are on the same side, but we are not. He defends Democrats because they are liberal. I criticize Republicans because they are liberal.

 

Just as is anyone on the BB who says they are concerned about 55 million dead unborn children but has no compassion or like or love for 1 billion plus already birthed Muslims.

Must be a lot of liars running around.

 

You're silly. It condemns your GOP party of death just as much as it condemns the Dems because it's obvious, as with yourself, that they don't give a flying hoot about abortion.

It's just a political chess piece.

 

And by you supporting the inclusion, note I said inclusion, of the abortion clause shows that you have no regard for the living. No regard for the women and children who will be forced into prostitution and men into slavery through human trafficking. That is the only logical conclusion that is possible. So you continue to support the party of death and misery for the living. So you continue to be pro-birth but pro-death for the living.

I say the anti-trafficking bill should have been kept clean and it would have past and become law giving help to those who will now be forced into lives of misery.

 

There's an error in your classification. By supporting the inclusion, it's supporting the life of the unborn child AND the lives of the victims.

In other words, your argument can be turned around to say that you're supporting the death of the unborn.

 

Because they represent their constituents who elected them to that position, who believe that victims of human trafficking need to be protected, but so do the unborn victims of that horrific situation, rather than use taxpayer money to fund murdering unborn children.

 

Guess the NEW GOP Congress is really off to a wonderful start this year. They have now marked themselves as liars and possibly treasonous.