Typical democrat position on the slaughter of the innocents

[Zaac]

Like I said, you can stop with the 55 million. The cats out of the bag that like a lot of the GOP, you don't give a flying hoot about the lives of the unborn.

Abortion for you is just another political tool for you just as it is for a lot of the GOP.

You are now officially a GOP Abortion Toolist...GOPAT!

 

[Zaac]

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.

Right. And Hillary didn't know what she was doing with that email account.

 

[OldRegular]

Like I said, you can stop with the 55 million. The cats out of the bag that like a lot of the GOP, you don't give a flying hoot about the lives of the unborn.

Abortion for you is just another political tool for you just as it is for a lot of the GOP.

You are now officially a GOP Abortion Toolist...GOPAT!

And you are a liar and a blasphemer!

 

[OldRegular]

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.

Heh Brother! I would never insult you that way. You and Crabby are as different as Crabby and me. I put Crabby and Zaac in a class by themselves. I could possibly add a couple more but don't want to insult them!

 

[Crabtownboy]

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.

But by including the clause it killed the anti-trafficking bill. This indicates that the folk who secretly put the clause in really do not care about either issue else they would not have included it and killed the anti-trafficking bill.

 

[Crabtownboy]

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.

That is illogical as they knew if an abortion clause were put in the bill the bill would be rendered dead. It shows they are playing politics and really do not care about either issue.

 

[Don]

That is illogical as they knew if an abortion clause were put in the bill the bill would be rendered dead. It shows they are playing politics and really do not care about either issue.

Same can be said for the Dems. If they really cared about the human trafficking issue, they'd have passed it.

 

[PreachTony]

And thus the reasoning, which I agree with by the way.

I'm just a firm believer that bills should only be allowed to include one line item.

That way you don't get to proverbially throw the baby out with the bath water.

I love that idea, but I don't think we'll ever see it. Washington moves by one politician scratching another politician's back. Sneaking line items into bills, regardless how related those items might be, is SOP for Congress.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Same can be said for the Dems. If they really cared about the human trafficking issue, they'd have passed it.

No, they would not have, not including what to them is a poison pill.

It only shows the GOP really does not care, else they would not have poisoned the anti-trafficking bill.

 

[targus]

No, they would not have, not including what to them is a poison pill.

It only shows the GOP really does not care, else they would not have poisoned the anti-trafficking bill.

I am missing something here.

How is it harmful to a bill that provides funding for stopping human trafficking to include a clause that the funds may not be used for things other than stopping human trafficking?

Is it really the Dems intention to use the money not for stopping human trafficking but for abortions instead?

How does including a condition that money provided for "A" many not be used for "X" change anything?

 

[Don]

No, they would not have, not including what to them is a poison pill.

It only shows the GOP really does not care, else they would not have poisoned the anti-trafficking bill.

Wow. You're really, really missing the point.

I don't believe either side acted correctly in this situation. YOU just want to blame the GOP, no matter what.

By your very first statement (the part I bolded), the Dems are as guilty of playing politics as the GOP. I'm willing to blame both sides; are you?

And so the victims of human trafficking will continue to suffer.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Wow. You're really, really missing the point.

I don't believe either side acted correctly in this situation. YOU just want to blame the GOP, no matter what.

By your very first statement (the part I bolded), the Dems are as guilty of playing politics as the GOP. I'm willing to blame both sides; are you?

And so the victims of human trafficking will continue to suffer.

Don, let's put it this way. You have two jobs to do. One is an easy job and can be done easily and quickly if you concentrate on that job.

The second job is very difficult, perhaps impossible. It will be even more difficult or impossible if you try to do job 1 and job 2 simultaneously.

Any rational person would complete job 1, the easy one. Then they would move to working on job 2.

The GOP took an easy job and turned it into a very difficult or more likely an impossible job by combining it with job 2. This shows either they are not very smart or they really do not care about accomplishing either job.

 

[Don]

Don, let's put it this way. You have two jobs to do. One is an easy job and can be done easily and quickly if you concentrate on that job.

The second job is very difficult, perhaps impossible. It will be even more difficult or impossible if you try to do job 1 and job 2 simultaneously.

Any rational person would complete job 1, the easy one. Then they would move to working on job 2.

The GOP took an easy job and turned it into a very difficult or more likely an impossible job by combining it with job 2. This shows either they are not very smart or they really do not care about accomplishing either job.

Let's put it this way: Re-read what Targus wrote. All they did was add language that would ensure the funds would be used to stop human trafficking. Any rational person would say "okay." Instead, the Democrats said "oh, they put something in against abortion. We can't do that." This shows they would rather make sure the funds CAN be used for abortion, instead of focusing on stopping human trafficking.

Again, I've admitted that BOTH sides made mistakes. You just can't bring yourself to say the same, can you?

 

[Revmitchell]

Don, let's put it this way. You have two jobs to do. One is an easy job and can be done easily and quickly if you concentrate on that job.

The second job is very difficult, perhaps impossible. It will be even more difficult or impossible if you try to do job 1 and job 2 simultaneously.

Any rational person would complete job 1, the easy one. Then they would move to working on job 2.

The GOP took an easy job and turned it into a very difficult or more likely an impossible job by combining it with job 2. This shows either they are not very smart or they really do not care about accomplishing either job.

There is nothing in this post that is remotely true.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Let's put it this way: Re-read what Targus wrote. All they did was add language that would ensure the funds would be used to stop human trafficking. Any rational person would say "okay." Instead, the Democrats said "oh, they put something in against abortion. We can't do that." This shows they would rather make sure the funds CAN be used for abortion, instead of focusing on stopping human trafficking.

Again, I've admitted that BOTH sides made mistakes. You just can't bring yourself to say the same, can you?

Yes, I can. The GOP politicians knew that the clause about abortion would kill the anti-trafficking bill. As I said, they only shows they do not really care about those poor women, children and men being trafficked. They knew they were killing the bill but went ahead anyway ... much the shame on them.

 

[targus]

The bill is only 68 pages and was written last year.

Do the dems ever read anything that they vote on?

They had months to object.. but they wait for the last minute to object?

Couldn't be they are the ones playing politics?

 

[PreachTony]

Yes, I can. The GOP politicians knew that the clause about abortion would kill the anti-trafficking bill. As I said, they only shows they do not really care about those poor women, children and men being trafficked. They knew they were killing the bill but went ahead anyway ... much the shame on them.

Ahh...the standard "Conservatives don't like ________ people" routine. I haven't heard that one since...well, yesterday, I guess.
:BangHead:

 

[targus]

Yes, I can. The GOP politicians knew that the clause about abortion would kill the anti-trafficking bill.

The bill was co-sponsored by eight democrats!!!

Don't democrats even read bills that they sponsor???

 

[Don]

Yes, I can. The GOP politicians knew that the clause about abortion would kill the anti-trafficking bill. As I said, they only shows they do not really care about those poor women, children and men being trafficked. They knew they were killing the bill but went ahead anyway ... much the shame on them.

That's just sad. You say "Yes, I can"; and then you don't.

 

[Crabtownboy]

That's just sad. You say "Yes, I can"; and then you don't.

If I were a politician and really wanted a law passed and knew if it were a clean bill it would pass unanimously I certainly would not add a clause that I knew would kill that bill ... not would I appreciate others doing so.

The result is the trafficking victims are left out in the cold with no help coming their way. Any politician who really cares about them would not poison the bill.