-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
GOP Congress Hypocrisy :Zika Bill Fail
- Thread starter Zaac
- Start date
The GOP knew when they put in the rider that they were killing the bill. That is where the dishonesty lies. It only shows they do not care if we the living get the Zika disease, they do not care if pregnant women get the Zika disease and they do not care if their unborn child is several damaged because of Zika.
If the GOP was honest they would pass the Zika funding bill and enter their own bill limiting PP. Why will they not do so? Why do they continually kill good, helpful bills by placing killer riders? Please answer that.
Split the two subjects and work on them on their own merits.
777, I hope and pray that you nor any of your family contact Zika and have no real help because the GOP kills the bills that should become law to help people.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Exactly CTB. I always figured that abortion was just a voting bloc card to be played by the GOP while they didn't really care about the unborn. This stunt confirms it.
By way of analogy, what do you think would happen if a Democratic majority placed a rider on a similar bill that required Medicaid to cover gender-reassignment surgery at 100%? Would the Republicans balk?
Of course they would, because that kind of a rider is pointless.
When you KNOW it won't pass, the only reason to place it on a bill is to score political points. I am sick and tired of both parties doing this kind of thing.
Of course they would, because that kind of a rider is pointless.
When you KNOW it won't pass, the only reason to place it on a bill is to score political points. I am sick and tired of both parties doing this kind of thing.
Well, I understand that sentiment, Stephan. Both parties will attach these riders because a stand-alone bill would never make it. In this case, it could get through the House easily and maybe even the Senate but there is a Democratic president. He would veto it because PP is sacred to his party and there would never be the votes for an override.
What people like Crab need to do is to win the Senate and elect Hillary to carry Maggie Sanger's eugenics banner once again.
What people like Crab need to do is to win the Senate and elect Hillary to carry Maggie Sanger's eugenics banner once again.
This is my point. Everyone knows Obama isn't going to sign a bill that defunds PP, so the rider isn't going to help anyone.
Knowing that, I'd like the GOP to show the leadership needed to just pass a clean bill for Zika. That's the kind of leadership that Americans can support. If the GOP wants to be better than the Democrats, let them show it.
Now, when we get a GOP POTUS, Senate, and House, then we can see about defunding PP.
Oops, I meant Stefan, sorry for that - actually, I think there would have been a much greater chance of Obama signing this bill than if it was a stand-alone bill to defund PP.
Still wonder why you insist on a "clean bill" here - that's what Nancy Pelosi calls it that, too, and she was the queen of pork.
If the GOP did that, they'd be accused of "flip-flopping" on defunding PP. You can't win.
Still wonder why you insist on a "clean bill" here - that's what Nancy Pelosi calls it that, too, and she was the queen of pork.
If the GOP did that, they'd be accused of "flip-flopping" on defunding PP. You can't win.
The ear mark is not needed. It is a death knell to such a bill. If the GOP is so concerned about the unborn and the living why not removed the ear mark and enter it as a new bill and let the Zika funding pass and become law. That would protect both the living and the unborn. Currently the GOP is ensuring that neither the unborn nor the living are protected. That is not pro-life.
You just defeated your own argument. PP is not needed to fight Zika and thus the GOP should not have brought PP into the bill.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Exactly. It's as though they said NO! and then Hades NO! by adding in the flying of the Confederate Flag to boot with the defunding of PP.
Comes across as being spiteful and not really caring what's going on with Zika. The folks in South Florida should take note.
When these mosquitoes start to hitch some rides and they will, and this disease starts to spread, things are gonna get intense, and folks are gonna look back at this and realize just how disgusting this really was.
I use the term clean bill because it's an appropriate term, regardless of the person using it.
And yes, you're right about Obama having a relatively higher chance of signing this bill vs. a stand-alone PP bill. It's about 0.000001% chance to 0% chance.
Pork will always be around, and I know that. But I also know that some issues are just too important to try to score political points. If you know it won't pass if you slap a rider on it, don't slap the rider on it.
The GOP isn't obligated to try to defund PP on every bill, either. They can say they tried and can now remove the rider. Maybe they can negotiate some small concession. That would also be ok.
Think: PP is not needed to fight Zika so why would members of your party insist on PP sticking their nose in this affair? This bill simply doesn't give any MORE money to PP but that's not what you want:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s2518
THREE times they've done the same thing. PP is not needed to fight Zika and thus the Democratic Party should not have insisted PP receives money in this bill. That's my argument.
Really, the argument is just about whether PP is needed or not, and that goes far beyond this bill alone.
The Democrats will not budge on this issue, and we all know that. The only way to get around it is to win elections.
My preference would be for PP to separate into two completely distinct entities (whose assets and resources are unable to mix). The abortion side can stand alone, and the women's health side can receive the funding. But that solution wouldn't be acceptable because we know how money is a fungible asset. That works quite well for PP as a single entity.
Well, yeah, Stefan, PP is okay except for its focus on abortion. The stat that only 3% of the services it provides are abortion-related and the stat that 86% of their profits come from abortion services are both misleading, "massaged" numbers.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/14...-has-billed-taxpayers-for-elective-abortions/
and this state is one of them. They are bad about negative campaigning :
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...d-parenthood-spends-millions-elect-democrats/
they have bought their voice when it comes to the Democrats in the Senate.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/14...-has-billed-taxpayers-for-elective-abortions/
and this state is one of them. They are bad about negative campaigning :
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...d-parenthood-spends-millions-elect-democrats/
they have bought their voice when it comes to the Democrats in the Senate.
Why don't they have the backbone to vote for funding Zika research and entering a bill to de-fund PP as a stand alone bill?