out of touch republicans

Jason P

cincybearcat wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I believe my brother was born almost 3 months premature. He could fit in the palm of your hand.

I enjoyed cracking a few beers and watching b-ball with him this past weekend. Life is good.

How did you open your beer with him in your hand? :shock:

wiseguy, eh?

know1

mickeyrat wrote:

in answer I would have to say when there was the possibility to breathe on its own or with expert medical care. Until then it really is not life.

So please , do me the courtesy of answering my above question?

There are plenty of humans who can't live without medical assistance (drugs, machines, whatever). Should it be OK to murder them too?

mickeyrat

Jason P wrote:

I believe my brother was born almost 3 months premature. He could fit in the palm of your hand.

I enjoyed cracking a few beers and watching b-ball with him this past weekend. Life is good.

glad he made it out of NICU and he is a part of your life today.

No disrespect, but I'm guessing his lungs had developed to the point where intensive medical care could help him along?

mickeyrat

[

Jason P

mickeyrat wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I believe my brother was born almost 3 months premature. He could fit in the palm of your hand.

I enjoyed cracking a few beers and watching b-ball with him this past weekend. Life is good.

glad he made it out of NICU and he is a part of your life today.

No disrespect, but I'm guessing his lungs had developed to the point where intensive medical care could help him along?

I don't know for sure. I was only 4 and really didn't understand there were any problems at the time. I'll have to ask my mom the details sometime.

I do remember locking my sister and I in the waiting room and it took them an hour to get us out. :fp:

gimmesometruth27

lindsey graham is holding up any vote on chuck hagel and john brennan's nominations. he does not have the votes on his side to prevent their approval, so he is going to prevent the vote until he gets more answers from obama on benghazi :fp: they are gonna kick that dead horse for the next 4 years, and they are gonna lose another election because of it...

what graham is not telling you is he is only doing this so he does not get his ass primaried...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... uck-hagel/

mickeyrat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

lindsey graham is holding up any vote on chuck hagel and john brennan's nominations. he does not have the votes on his side to prevent their approval, so he is going to prevent the vote until he gets more answers from obama on benghazi :fp: they are gonna kick that dead horse for the next 4 years, and they are gonna lose another election because of it...

what graham is not telling you is he is only doing this so he does not get his ass primaried...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... uck-hagel/

this fucking theater bullshit has to stop.It just has to. How can they honestly justify receiving a paycheck with benefits if they do fucking nothing FOR the country?

gimmesometruth27

mickeyrat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

lindsey graham is holding up any vote on chuck hagel and john brennan's nominations. he does not have the votes on his side to prevent their approval, so he is going to prevent the vote until he gets more answers from obama on benghazi :fp: they are gonna kick that dead horse for the next 4 years, and they are gonna lose another election because of it...

what graham is not telling you is he is only doing this so he does not get his ass primaried...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... uck-hagel/

this fucking theater bullshit has to stop.It just has to. How can they honestly justify receiving a paycheck with benefits if they do fucking nothing FOR the country?

in their twisted minds they think they are doing something for the country. they are hamstringing a popular president that they could not unseat via election. they are pissed off and are going to do whatever they can to keep him from doing anything. he can not even get a vote on his fucking cabinet nominations.

it is obvious that the republicans do not give a shit. the only thing they stand FOR is being AGAINST obama.

mccain even disagrees with graham on this, and he was the one who grilled hagel the hardest in the hearing.

know1

mickeyrat wrote:

My point was how can fetuses be considered human if they would be unable to breathe even with help? How would such an entity be kept alive without some lung function? Seriously. How?

They can be kept alive by leaving them in the womb.

I believe it's murder. I understand there is some gray area and that's why the debate gets so heated, but in the case of killing someone or not, I'd rather land on the side of caution and not kill them if there is a grey area.

MG79478

mickeyrat wrote:

in answer I would have to say when there was the possibility to breathe on its own or with expert medical care. Until then it really is not life.

So why is it based only on breathing? Why can't you address my point about a baby needed constant care? I perfectly healthy baby, that can breathe just fine on it's own, would quickly perish without a parent. Thus by your logic it is not really a life.

Are 20 year old siamese twins that share lungs not alive? These are just simple challenges that should be easily adressed.

JonnyPistachio

I think the argument of the fetus not being able to breath on its own, at for instance 4 weeks, is just that its still a part of the woman's body. its an extention of her, and completely dependent on her.

mickeyrat

[

gimmesometruth27

i can't wait to hear rubio's rebuttal tonight. i already know what he is going to say...

how can he write a rebuttal to a speech he hasn't even heard yet? :fp:

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i can't wait to hear rubio's rebuttal tonight. i already know what he is going to say...

how can he write a rebuttal to a speech he hasn't even heard yet? :fp:

Yep, he (and all the republicans) are the only ones that have ever done this!!! Crazy bastards. They probably have no idea what Obama is going to say.

hedonist

cincybearcat wrote:

Yep, he (and all the republicans) are the only ones that have ever done this!!! Crazy bastards. They probably have no idea what Obama is going to say.

I was gonna say the same thing

Rubio strikes me as a good guy - levelheaded, common-sensical.

(I know, I know! But the party DOES have some decent folks.)

Jeanwah

TRENDING: Boehner: the president lacks 'guts' and 'courage'

Posted by
CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash
Washington (CNN) – In personal and biting terms, House Speaker John Boehner argued that President Obama's failure to find agreement with Republicans is a result of his lack of
"courage" and "guts" to do what it takes.

"To do the kind of heavy lifting that needs to be done, I don't think he's got the guts to go do it," Boehner told a group of television reporters and anchors in a breakfast ahead of the president's State of the Union address.


So, it is not beneath republicans to call names and act like children when they don't get their way...

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i can't wait to hear rubio's rebuttal tonight. i already know what he is going to say...

how can he write a rebuttal to a speech he hasn't even heard yet? :fp:

Yep, he (and all the republicans) are the only ones that have ever done this!!! Crazy bastards. They probably have no idea what Obama is going to say.

this is why jindal's speech was a failure last time. he did not rebut anything at all. he just made proposals that the gop would support. you can not call it a rebuttal if it is just another campaign stump speech.

gimmesometruth27

hedonist wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Yep, he (and all the republicans) are the only ones that have ever done this!!! Crazy bastards. They probably have no idea what Obama is going to say.

I was gonna say the same thing

Rubio strikes me as a good guy - levelheaded, common-sensical.

(I know, I know! But the party DOES have some decent folks.)

he is not a good guy. he voted against the violence against women act today. just hours before his beloved rebuttal speech. :fp:


VAWA Vote: Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Violence Against Women Act

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/1 ... 69720.html

WASHINGTON -- The Senate easily passed its Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill on Tuesday, officially punting the issue to the House, where Republican leaders still haven't signaled how they plan to proceed.

The bill passed 78 to 22. It already had 62 cosponsors, which ensured its passage, but it picked up additional support from a handful of Republicans who weren't already sponsoring it.

Senators who voted against the bill included Republicans John Barrasso (Wyo.), Roy Blunt (Mo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), John Cornyn (Texas), Ted Cruz (Texas), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah), James Inhofe (Okla.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Ron Johnson (Wisc.), Mike Lee (Utah), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Jim Risch (Idaho), Pat Roberts (Kansas), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), John Thune (S.D.) and Tim Scott (S.C.).

Rubio, who put out a statement on his VAWA stance Tuesday, will give the Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union address later Tuesday evening.

Interestingly, a number of Republicans who voted against the VAWA bill last year ended up voting for it this year. They are GOP Sens. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Jerry Moran (Kansas), Richard Shelby (Ala.), Pat Toomey (Pa.), Roger Wicker (Miss.) and Thad Cochran (Miss.).

The bill authorizes $659 million over five years for VAWA programs. It also expands VAWA to include new protections for LGBT and Native American victims of domestic violence, to give more attention to sexual assault prevention and to help reduce a backlog in processing rape kits. Created in 1994, VAWA has helped to strengthen programs and services for victims of domestic violence, dating violence and stalking.

Ahead of the vote, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the bill's sponsor, questioned why anybody would vote against his legislation since it just expands protections to vulnerable groups.

"It is difficult to understand why people would come in here and try to limit which victims could be helped by this legislation," Leahy said. "If you're the victim, you don't want to think that a lot of us who have never faced this kind of problem, sat here in this body and said, 'Well, we have to differentiate which victims America will protect.'"

Senators voted on a few amendments to the bill. They voted 93 to 5 to include a provision targeting human trafficking, and 100 to 0 on a provision to ensure child victims of sex trafficking are eligible for grant assistance. They rejected amendments by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to consolidate certain Department of Justice programs and to allow grants for sexually transmitted disease tests on sexual assault perpetrators.

VAWA typically gets reauthorized with little fanfare. But Congress failed to do so last year amid House Republican objections to provisions in the Senate bill that expanded protections for LGBT, Native American and undocumented immigrant victims of violence. This year's Senate VAWA bill includes the LGBT and Native American provisions, but leaves out the piece for undocumented immigrants. Leahy has pledged to attach that piece to immigration reform legislation.

The onus is now on House Republican leaders to advance VAWA. They haven't given any indication as to what their bill will look like or who will sponsor it, and even some in their own party are pressuring them to get moving. Seventeen House Republicans wrote to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Monday night urging them to "immediately" pass a bipartisan VAWA bill. They didn't specifically endorse the Senate bill, however.

"Now is the time to seek bipartisan compromise on the reauthorization of these programs," the letter reads. "VAWA programs save lives, and we must allow states and communities the opportunity to build upon the success of current VAWA programs so that we can help even more people."

President Barack Obama later hailed the vote as a key step toward reducing homicides that stem from domestic violence and improving the criminal justice response to rape and sexual assault. He said House Republican leaders should pass the Senate bill and send it to him.

"This important step shows what we can do when we come together across party lines to take up a just cause," Obama said in a statement. "It's now time for the House to follow suit and send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law."

Vice President Joe Biden, an original sponsor of the 1994 law, similarly praised the broad Senate vote and said the House needs to get moving.

"Delay isn’t an option when three women are still killed by their husbands or boyfriends every day. Delay isn’t an option when countless women still live in fear of abuse, and when one in five have been victims of rape," Biden said in a statement. "This issue should be beyond debate -- the House should follow the Senate’s lead and pass the Violence Against Women Act right away."

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i can't wait to hear rubio's rebuttal tonight. i already know what he is going to say...

how can he write a rebuttal to a speech he hasn't even heard yet? :fp:

Yep, he (and all the republicans) are the only ones that have ever done this!!! Crazy bastards. They probably have no idea what Obama is going to say.

this is why jindal's speech was a failure last time. he did not rebut anything at all. he just made proposals that the gop would support. you can not call it a rebuttal if it is just another campaign stump speech.

No it failed because my kid could have given that speech with better presence.

hedonist

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

he is not a good guy. he voted against the violence against women act today. just hours before his beloved rebuttal speech. :fp:

I just don't see him sitting there and thinking - "I don't wanna protect them gays and Injuns!" (said in Yosemite Sam's voice). It makes more sense to me that there were likely other provisions tacked on to the act.

Granted I'm not up on its history and the recent changes made to the version voted on today, but yeah...I doubt he hates women or wants continued violence visited upon them.