Typical democrat position on the slaughter of the innocents

[Don]

And that being the case, why would the GOP effectively kill an anti-trafficking bill they claim they support?

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.

 

[Zaac]

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?

 

[Crabtownboy]

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?

 

[Zaac]

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.

 

[The American Dream]

You are wrong about the Republicans in Congress. From 1973 until 1995 the democrats controlled the House. During that time there were Republican presidents and Republicans controlled the Senate but never with a filibuster proof majority but nothing could have passed the House anyhow.

When the Republicans took over the House in 1995 as well as the Senate they passed a bill eliminating Partial Birth Abortion. This procedure was so gruesome that it got enough democrat support to pass Congress. The bill was actually passed twice and vetoed by that misogynist Bill Clinton twice! When Bush was elected president the Republican Congress again passed the bill and it was signed into law by President Bush.

The Republicans have not had a filibuster proof Senate along with a Republican president and House since Roe v Wade was handed down by the 7 black robed baby killers in the Supreme Court. It will take at least 60 pro-life Senators, a pro life House, and a pro-life President to get any meaningful legislation restricting abortion on the Federal level. As far as I know there is only one pro-life democrat in the Senate.

I believe that the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to overturn Roe v Wade I believe but they only have four votes; that is not enough.

So you are wrong when you say the "Republicans exchange the blood of the innocent as they pander for votes". Don't be like Crabtownboy. I am not going to hang any wreaths around the neck of Republican politicians but it takes 60 pro-life votes in the Senate plus a pro-life House and a pro-life president to pass any meaningful restrictions on abortion; or at least 5 votes in the Supreme Court. More than that it takes the so-called Christians in this country to quit acting like Crabbie and make enough noise to stop this slaughter.

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.

 

[777]

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

 

[OldRegular]

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

O' Most Strong One WHPPOSES ABORTION why won't the democrats support a bill that limits Federal money paying for abortion. Are you conceding O" Most Strong One WHPPOSES ABORTION that you support the party of death, the party that celebrates the slaughter of the innocents in their mothers womb. Are you finally admitting O' Most Strong One WHPPOSES ABORTION that you have been dissembling for years and are finally confessing to, dare I ask it, supporting the slaughter of the innocents?

 

[The American Dream]

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.

 

[OldRegular]

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.

Actually they controlled the House and Senate from January, 2001 until January, 2007 but they did not have 60 votes in the Senate. There is no way the democrats in the Senate are going to vote for a bill that stops abortion. They are squealing like insane hogs because of the rider in a bill they voted out of committee.

Published March 12, 2015 FoxNews.com

A bipartisan bill aimed at combating human sex trafficking has hit a major snag after Senate Democrats -- who unanimously voted to move the bill out of committee -- hit the brakes upon discovering a Republican-backed abortion provision.

Though the relatively modest 68-page bill has been available for nearly two months, it wasn't until this week that Senate Democrats said they noticed the language, and subsequently threatened to block the bill.

As drafted, the legislation would crack down on what lawmakers in both parties agree is a seamy underworld of drugs and human sex trafficking akin to modern-day slavery. Fines paid by those convicted of the sex-trafficking crimes would go into a fund to help victims.

But Democrats now are balking because the legislation also contains a Republican-inserted provision that bars the use of fines to pay for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the pregnant woman is in jeopardy.

"Democrats believe that divisive issues like this should be kept off what is otherwise a broadly bipartisan bill," a spokesman for Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said, adding that they're trying to find a "path forward."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...hreatens-to-stall-anti-sex/?intcmp=latestnews

When they won't vote for something as innocuous as the above do you think the "scum bag democrats" will ever vote to stop the slaughter of the unborn? And good ole kind, pious, help the poor and downtrodden, Crabby calls the above a "Poison Pill"!

Therefore until the people elect a Senate with 60 pro-life Republicans along with the House and president there will be no legislation to stop abortion. This will never happen if people desert to a third party. This is particularly true as long as there are professing Christians like Crabbier who support the "party of death" democrats.

Look TAD, I remember the "Me Too" Republicans; talking about RINO Republicans accomplishes nothing. I suspect most of the so-called RINO Republicans are pro-life.

 

[OldRegular]

Don't play coy. You're much brighter than that. You know full well that the GOP knew that as soon as the Dems actually read anything about abortion in that bill, they would say no.

And that just says they weren't really trying to do anything about human trafficking...at least not with this bill.

And that demonstrates just what scum bags the democrats who support and celebrate the slaughter of unborn babies are. God will judge them and those who support them.

 

[OldRegular]

And that being the case, why would the GOP effectively kill an anti-trafficking bill they claim they support?

Perhaps they really believed that there were some democrats who cared about unborn children; Senator Manchin of W.VA or Senator Bob Casey of Pa for example. I know better but then I am not in the Senate. Any Christian on this BB who says they are against slaughtering unborn children and supports the democrats is a liar and a blasphemer.

 

[Zaac]

Perhaps they really believed that there were some democrats who cared about unborn children. I know better but then I am not in the Senate. Any Christian on this BB who says they are against slaughtering unborn children and supports the democrats is a liar and a blasphemer.

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.

 

[Zaac]

And that demonstrates just what scum bags the democrats who support and celebrate the slaughter of unborn babies are. God will judge them and those who support them.

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.

 

[Crabtownboy]

O' Most Strong One WHPPOSES ABORTION why won't the democrats support a bill that limits Federal money paying for abortion. Are you conceding O" Most Strong One WHPPOSES ABORTION that you support the party of death, the party that celebrates the slaughter of the innocents in their mothers womb. Are you finally admitting O' Most Strong One WHPPOSES ABORTION that you have been dissembling for years and are finally confessing to, dare I ask it, supporting the slaughter of the innocents?

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.

 

[Don]

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.

 

[Don]

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

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.

 

[OldRegular]

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.

Sure, sure, I know Crabbie. You are totally logical. There was a guy on Star Trec who was totally logical, a Vulcan I believe. the only problem was that he had no heart {metaphorically speaking}.

But I know you for what you are, Crabbie, you love Marxism more than you love children. Was it Marx who said you have to break a few eggs before you can make an omelet. But we don't make omelets out of broken and butchered unborn children Crabby.

Just for you CTB: http://clinicquotes.com/pictures-of-aborted-babies-at-different-stages/

Do you have any children Crabby, any Grandchildren? Oh how I love mine, and my 3 Great Grandchildren. I didn't have to know them to love them. I set my love on them as God did on me!

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.

Two of a kind. Two of a kind. The only difference is Crabby writes in a odd script and Zaacie claims to be concerned about the salvation of 1 billion Muslims. I don't know why he leaves out one third of them? But Zaacie still loves 1 billion Muslims who chop off the heads of Christians but he can't bring himself to condemn the slaughter of the unborn child. That is party loyalty among other more important traits.

 

[Zaac]

...The argument that Republicans intentionally tried to deceive Democrats is actually quite sound. A similar proposal, without an abortion provision, was introduced in the last Congress, and as this year’s process got underway, GOP senators provided Dems with a list of minor alterations to the bill’s language. The anti-abortion measure wasn’t on the list, and Democrats moved forward, taking Republicans at their word.

Cornyn denies his office did anything untoward and insisted yesterday it was up to Democrats to read the entire text of the bill.
...
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/abortion-provision-imperils-human-trafficking-bill

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

 

[OldRegular]

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.

You are attempting to use logic on an illogical person.

I believe it is illogical for any professing Christian to support the slaughter of the unborn child. I believe it is unChristian to support the slaughter of the unborn child. But Crabby sees things differently. The Vulcan in him I guess!

 

[OldRegular]

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

I still believe the following post:

Perhaps they really believed that there were some democrats who cared about unborn children; Senator Manchin of W.VA or Senator Bob Casey of Pa for example. I know better but then I am not in the Senate. Any Christian on this BB who says they are against slaughtering unborn children and supports the democrats is a liar and a blasphemer.