Of Things to Come - GOP House.

Taichiliberal said:
Here are some of the proposed bills the GOP majority in the House of Representatives have done in their first weeks in office:

- Gut the House Ethics & Accountability Committee: https://www.citizen.org/news/first-...n-majority-scuttle-ethics-and-accountability/

- Gut the IRS: https://apnews.com/article/politics...resentatives-64692090ef20e35a59ba1ea7d21a9eea

A prelude to the agenda.....oh, brother! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Why gut the IRS, so they can't go after their #MalignantMessiah? To keep the 1% safe from audits and paying what they owe?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Here are some of the proposed bills the GOP majority in the House of Representatives have done in their first weeks in office:

- Gut the House Ethics & Accountability Committee: https://www.citizen.org/news/first-...n-majority-scuttle-ethics-and-accountability/

- Gut the IRS: https://apnews.com/article/politics...resentatives-64692090ef20e35a59ba1ea7d21a9eea

A prelude to the agenda.....oh, brother! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

If it pisses you off they are doing what they were elected to do. Excellent. Please stop pretending you're horrified.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
And how does one "prove" something that does not exist?

translation: No, the Post Modern Profit could not document that any failed abortion where a child is born results in purposeful negligence on any level of that child's care by a medical staff.
Click to expand...


poor TouchyLib'rul......unable to come up with a single reason why demmycrats shun a law that simply provides children born alive should be given medical attention...it must be sad to feel compelled to support evil at any cost.....
Click to expand...

:palm: Will someone nearby PMP of normal intelligence who is sober PLEASE explain to him what Post #12 means? That way, maybe (just maybe) he'll stop wasting time and space repeating something that has been disproven and is now essentially a parroted ignorance. Thank you.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
the last sentence in the OP was, " A prelude to the agenda
Click to expand...

and the title was Things-to-Come
I read it comprehensively......
Click to expand...

:palm: Not really, because you have demonstrated that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND what you are reading.


This might help explain your dilemma; per Merriam-Webster:

Comprehensive: covering completely or broadly : INCLUSIVE --- having or exhibiting wide mental grasp.

Prelude: an introductory performance, action, or event preceding and preparing for the principal or a more important matter.

Per Collins dictionary:

If you say that something is the shape of things to come, you mean that it is the start of a new trend or development, and in future things will be like this.
The new railway station is said to be the shape of things to come.
 
Yakuda said:
If it pisses you off they are doing what they were elected to do. Excellent. Please stop pretending you're horrified.
Click to expand...

So, you voted to give rich tax cheats a free ride (something you would go to jail for)? Or for your Congressman to vote in accordance with whatever his largest donors (i.e., corporate) tell them to (which can effect how you are treated as an employee of a private business)? Or to use their position for insider trading (something you would go to jail for)?

In all 3 situations, YOU are getting the shaft. What's "horrifying" is how it's more important to you never to publicly admit you're getting screwed by the very people who lied to you by saying anything you wanted to hear to get elected. If it just affected you and the like minded, I'd have no problem. Unfortunately, it affects EVERY American.

Now say something stupid and insipidly stubborn so we can all move on from you.
 
Note, dear readers, that our resident MAGA minion(s) had no leg to stand on in debating the two examples in the OP. Instead, they detour to other topics that they feel that can win...or at least muddle the waters enough to caste doubt on those who take the contrary view.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Originally Posted by Flash View Post
It is usually state law.
Click to expand...
now it can be a federal law......
Click to expand...

Ahh, but by your ass backwards "thinking" you acknowledge that there is no rampant cases of failed aborted children being purposely murdered (left to die). Also, given how you MAGA minions wail like banshees about "nanny state' and such, you suddenly WANT government interference. Funny that, as you also want direct gov't interference to make a rape victim bring a pregnancy to term.

You MAGA folk are major hypocrites.
 
Flash said:
Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
now it can be a federal law......
Click to expand...


This should be a state matter (like abortion). We shouldn't always be seeking to centralize power at the federal level.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but we see time and again that there are states who mandate NOT act in the best interest of it's citizen's. Without federal mandates in many cases, you'd have a collection of various state laws that would contradict the very name "United States of America".
 
Taichiliberal said:
Ahh, but by your ass backwards "thinking" you acknowledge that there is no rampant cases of failed aborted children being purposely murdered (left to die).
Click to expand...

according to the statistics from the fact checking link you just gave us, 1.97% of abortions.......given the fact there have been 63 million abortions since 1972 that means a total of 1,241,100 born children......that is the population of Dallas, TX......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
fair......if we eliminate all other laws that should be state matters........can we make a deal?.....
Click to expand...

Sure, although there are many areas with a legitimate debate about whether it should be federal or state (and some that are concurrent), criminal law is one area that has been increasingly federalized. I think Congress wants to show it is doing something about crime. If it is a federal crime it sounds more serious to many.
 
Flash said:
Sure, although there are many areas with a legitimate debate about whether it should be federal or state (and some that are concurrent), criminal law is one area that has been increasingly federalized. I think Congress wants to show it is doing something about crime. If it is a federal crime it sounds more serious to many.
Click to expand...

well if you're in favor of strengthening protections in abortion clinics I shouldn't have to offer that much to seal the deal......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Reality check - please don't waste everyone's time with out of context quotes accompanying your MAGA machinations.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/th...-alive-debate/
Click to expand...


so please explain how keeping a child born, alive is "aimed at restricting access to legal abortion".........
Click to expand...

:palm: From the article: What is an “abortion” under the bill? Would the recent legislation pertain to cases of preterm births? What about induced labor for reasons of fetal abnormalities?

This is one of the matters of dispute. Sasse’s office says the bill is aimed at “botched abortions,” but a doctor speaking on behalf of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which opposed the bill, told us it would pertain to difficult situations in which parents make the decision with clinicians to induce labor for medical reasons such as fetal abnormalities.


PLEASE LEARN TO READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY! I've been telling you and your brethren this for YEARS! If you STILL don't understand, get someone nearby to explain it to you.
 
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: From the article: What is an “abortion” under the bill? Would the recent legislation pertain to cases of preterm births? What about induced labor for reasons of fetal abnormalities?

This is one of the matters of dispute. Sasse’s office says the bill is aimed at “botched abortions,” but a doctor speaking on behalf of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which opposed the bill, told us it would pertain to difficult situations in which parents make the decision with clinicians to induce labor for medical reasons such as fetal abnormalities.


PLEASE LEARN TO READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY! I've been telling you and your brethren this for YEARS! If you STILL don't understand, get someone nearby to explain it to you.
Click to expand...

how does requiring a doctor to give a born child medical care interfere with his ability to give decisions regarding abortions?.......killing a child after it is born is clearly NOT an abortion......or is it your belief that its okay to induce labor of a child with defined abnormalities solely for the purpose of killing it after it is born.......and if it is your belief, are you man enough to admit it......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top