Boehner to step down in October!

Why do some people continue to refute the facts? Being pro life is one thing, promoting lies is another. How much of the moral outrage is connected to a misogynistic fear of women having any control over their reproductive processes? Goodness, we can't have them engaging in unsanctified sexual practices, can we? Boys will be boys, but women must be.....Controlled!

This probably sounds like something Alan Alda would say but, I have never understood the idea of guys being "studs" and the girls being relegated to "sluts". The easiest that the girl might get off in some circles would be she is described as "easy". It has never been fair and it never will be fair. Another absolutely insane comment is "bros before hoes" how freaking one way can we be?
 

Mr. Jim as I stated in my previous post, Anyone who doubts the validity of that statement should do some research on Youtube. If you watch the videos and still feel nothing, than I understand where you are coming from.
We can quibble in numbers all night. Or argue this group said and that group did and your, his, mine and their religious views.
But again. It's a question of Morality, Period.
Do we still know right from wrong?

By the way... the videos you speak of have been proven to have been edited.. and some didn't even take place at Planned Parenthood but were phony stock footage from some radical anti-abortion group. Planned Parenthood has filed suit against the producers of the bogus videos and guess what... they have opted to take the fifth amendment. SOOOO what does that tell you? It tells you that they doctored and edited them and they are guilty of another smear campaign the radical Right loves so much. Nice try... but foiled again.. Hope those video makers spend a long long time in jail. YOU have been had..
 
Why do some people continue to refute the facts? Being pro life is one thing, promoting lies is another. How much of the moral outrage is connected to a misogynistic fear of women having any control over their reproductive processes? Goodness, we can't have them engaging in unsanctified sexual practices, can we? Boys will be boys, but women must be.....Controlled!

Agreed... and if the rabid anti-abortion group cared as much about the children already born... and their mothers who are struggling to care for them, instead of voting to cut federal assistance... food stamps... healthcare....education.. and against the minimum wage, then and only then can they pat themselves on the back and call themselves PRO-LIFE.... until that time they are only pro-fetus... caring very little about what happens to it when it's born.

zqnonay4bq3mlhaybipw.jpg
 
Hmmm. Perhaps pro birth might be accurate also. I do wonder what, if anything, will change when the majority of the older fanatics who espouse this tirade inevitably pass on to their Great Reward? In Canada, most of the extremist rightwingers are older, young people by and large hold much more liberal views. Is this generational divide prevalent in America as well? We go to the polls soon for a Federal election. Hopefully our Conservatives will be toast. Hallelujah to that! Our PM is extremely evangelistic right out of the book of Revelations. Eek!
 
I listened to Hannity for two hours driving in this afternoon. (Yes, entertainment to keep one awake.) Of course, he was gloating over Boehner's resignation. Hannity had a number of guests from the far right caucus. They are already plotting and planning as to ways of getting on of their own in the Speaker's position. Seems like the names the right wingnuts were tossing out are Daniel Webster from Florida and Tim Huelskamp from Kansas. Both are right wing, shut down the government, defund anything and everything, wackos. Kevin McCarthy was a name they said would be floated by the GOP. The hard right wants McCarthy defeated so they can get one of their own in as Speaker. The preliminary "plot" is to have the conservative caucus act as if they are behind McCarthy so he is on the first ballot. Then if they vote him down, he can't run for Speaker again. At that time, they would put one of their own up for election.

Boehner is, I believe, staying until just after the government has to be funded. He will move things through so nothing is shut down and PP is not defunded. Then, he will turn things over to the House to fight it out.

Who is elected as Speaker could well determine who will be our next President. If it is a moderate and things stay as stagnant as they are today... or if it is a hard right wing wacko and we see shut downs and nothing but food fights... we could see that play right into the hands of the Democratic candidate. OTOH, if the new Speaker is a moderate who can motivate the Republicans and the Dems to work together for the good of the Country, we will probably see a Republican POTUS in 2017.
 
If the right... WRONG nutcase gets in as Speaker, in the next year we could see....
1.) The Iran Agreement nullified, making us look even worse in the eyes of our allies and our enemies.
2.) The Affordable Care Act repealed leaving millions with no health insurance.
3.) Legislation to deport all who cannot prove on the spot they are citizens. Those who "look Mexican" would be jailed and loaded into busses/vans and dumped off at the Mexico/U.S. border.
4.) Roe vs. Wade legislatively overturned.
5.) The recent same-sex marriage decision legislatively overturned.
6.) Impeachment proceedings initiated against the President of the United States.

Most all these would have to also move through the Senate and then override a veto by the POTUS. Yet, if the far right feels empowered by the "rise" of their caucus, we might see significantly more political 'garbage' over the next year than just campaign coverage.
 
What we will see is a total waste of time and taxpayer money pursuing the issues you have outlined. For one thing... all would need a super majority in the Senate to over come a fillibuster.. There are not 60 Republican senators.. If by chance some of this garbage ends up on the Presidents desk he will veto it.. Then there would have to be a 2/3 majority vote in both the house and the Senate to override it. So it's all pointless.. BUT it's the stuff teaparty wet dreams are made of... and the euphoria of simply passing it in the House will be enough for these nut jobs.
 
Look! Abortion is legal. It will most likely always be legal. I used to happen in private home, with coat hangers. Would it be better that all those unwanted babies were brought into a world that has little to offer ultimately? What of the rape babies, the incest babies? The babies that would be carried by little girls who have been victimized? You people are totally heartless and inhumane in your thinking. When you want to present some credible facts about PP, post 'em but keep this other stuff in your closet.

Legal-Yes
Moral- Let us have your answer.???
 
T do you think about them?Here
By the way... the videos you speak of have been proven to have been edited.. and some didn't even take place at Planned Parenthood but were phony stock footage from some radical anti-abortion group. Planned Parenthood has filed suit against the producers of the bogus videos and guess what... they have opted to take the fifth amendment. SOOOO what does that tell you? It tells you that they doctored and edited them and they are guilty of another smear campaign the radical Right loves so much. Nice try... but foiled again.. Hope those video makers spend a long long time in jail. YOU have been had..

Me, had? Don't think so? 55 million human being that are not here, I think they are the ones had. What do you think about them?
 
Who decides what is moral, and what is not? Men who can never bear children? In my youth I saw the results of back street abortions performed on the innocent --child victims of rape/incest. All because some pervert could not control his obsession. Thank goodness for birth control.
 
With respect Dude, I am not speaking of numbers but of people. You and I simply have a different perspective. I have witnessed the results of crimes against those already born, it is very personal, and exceedingly uncomfortable to see pregnant twelve year old girls bleeding on the floor. It hurts big time. You bet it is moral to afford that little girl an abortion, rather than force her to endure any further pain/risk. What if that was your granddaughter lying there?
 
Who decides what is moral, and what is not? Men who can never bear children? In my youth I saw the results of back street abortions performed on the innocent --child victims of rape/incest. All because some pervert could not control his obsession. Thank goodness for birth control.

That's another argument, I know who will tell you what is right what is wrong morality. Do you?
 
With respect Dude, I am not speaking of numbers but of people. You and I simply have a different perspective. I have witnessed the results of crimes against those already born, it is very personal, and exceedingly uncomfortable to see pregnant twelve year old girls bleeding on the floor. It hurts big time. You bet it is moral to afford that little girl an abortion, rather than force her to endure any further pain/risk. What if that was your granddaughter lying there?

Seems to me that scenario you're speaking of them exactly start in the timeframe that you're referring to. There may have been a breakdown and some guidance in the past 12 years is my thinking. I won't even start the boy in the 12-year-old girl for that.
To answer your question, I hope to God that my granddaughter will never be put into the scenario but if she were we will be talking about adoption. The misguided actions and suffering of a 12-year-old girl does not give anybody the reason to take a life. Hey very close personal friend of mine has been trying to adopt a girl for the past 10 years without luck because she's a single woman.Are we at the belief that the past 12 years have been tragic so let's kill the next one.
 
Yes I do. Like all sentient beings of free will, I answer to my conscience. Just as I am certain you answer to yours. We simply have differing views on what constitutes morality regarding this highly charged issue. I am Canadian with a very different cultural background in some areas. I believe you are sincere in your views, as am I in mine. Such is democracy, pax.
 
What we will see is a total waste of time and taxpayer money pursuing the issues you have outlined. For one thing... all would need a super majority in the Senate to over come a fillibuster.. There are not 60 Republican senators.. If by chance some of this garbage ends up on the Presidents desk he will veto it.. Then there would have to be a 2/3 majority vote in both the house and the Senate to override it. So it's all pointless.. BUT it's the stuff teaparty wet dreams are made of... and the euphoria of simply passing it in the House will be enough for these nut jobs.

I like to see you quoting the Constitution with your 2/3 speak. It brings home as to just why the Speaker of the House had to go. I read here on this forum that John Boehner is believed to have fought President Obama at every turn when it comes to the Presidents agenda. Laughable. The Republican held house has been a no show. If anything Boehner has been a will co-conspirator.

You speak of a 2/3 vote need. Refresh my memory; Is that how the Affordable Care Act was passed? I seem to recall only a majority plus one being in effect. So if you are correct, and we both know you are, isn’t the ACA Un-Constitution? Or is something else in play here. How did ACA pass without 2/3 majority you ask? What changed? I was baffled too.

Enter my pal Harry Reid. Good old Harry pulled a fast one on the American people. While no one was watching Re*id and at the time, House Speak*er Nancy Pelosi, de*vised a plan to fin*ish the job: The com*plic*ated pro*cess known as budget re*con*cili*ation, which re*quires only 50 votes to pass in the Sen*ate but lim*its how the le*gis*la*tion be amended.

So you see the Democrats win, YEA. America’s loss. Not for the ACA per say but how the Constitution gets used as toilet paper.
Now back to Boehner and let’s add in his buddy Mitch Mcconnell. Remember when Americans went nuts over ACA and threw out all those Democrats and replaced them with Republicans. A great day for the country, giving all that power and might to the Bobbsey Twins, John and Mitch, all the fire power to do what all those New Republicans swore they would do. Repeal the ACA. What did Boehner do?

Well, two before the new congress took office he did what every good Conservative would do. Wait for the new Congress. Hell NO! He pushedPresident Obama bloated spending bill in to law. That’s right, welcome newbees don’t be thinking you’ll be having a seat this table. You can have your say in two years from now. Yea, another win for the American people. Also, that budget re*con*cili*ation, which re*quires only 50 votes, well Boehner announced that the Republicans won’t be needing that either that only for Dems to use. See Republicans need 2/3s vote. Democrats they get simple majorities. That way it’s fair.

Knowing the Constitution, I’m sure you would agree that the House of Representatives is known “Peoples House”. They ARE the nations check book. The closest branch to the people. They have the DUTY to say what does and doesn’t get paid. Shutting the government down when another branch of Government is stepping over the line is not only a tool but a Constitution Right they have.

I like to call it checks and balances. Image my surprise hearing Mr. Boehner announced going into talks with Obama about Iran that the Peoples House won’t be using the “power of the purse” by announcing “We will not be shutting down the Government” before talks started. Talk about falling down with your legs in the air! OK Obama, Let Us Have It!!

Now to Iran. Let’s talk about the 2/3 situation with that vote. It passed with a 2/3 vote. Yea!... Wait, I’m calling foul her also. See the vote wasn’t 2/3’s FOR the Iran deal; it was 2/3s NOT AGAINST the deal. Easier to get 2/3s vote that way. It saves face with the fokes. When your home you can tell the American people you didn’t vote to pass it and still not be lying to them but you really are because you voted not against the deal.

Just some thoughts from one of the nut jobs...

PS. Mcconnell is next.
 
Who decides what is moral, and what is not? Men who can never bear children? In my youth I saw the results of back street abortions performed on the innocent --child victims of rape/incest. All because some pervert could not control his obsession. Thank goodness for birth control.

Men can't bear children, they have no say. Hey let's just kill all the men in the womb so we don't have to hear from them.
Another idea, Let’s toss aside morality; genic testing has come a long way. Why don’t we just state testing for defects in the womb? This way we can build the “perfect race” just like Hitler was going to have. We have a 55 million head start.
 
Legal-Yes
Moral- Let us have your answer.???
Moral decisions are for each of us as individuals to decide.
Government has no business mandating morality in such a personal area.

Abortion must never be mandatory.
No woman should be compelled to terminate a pregnancy
because that would take away her right to exercise her own conscience.

Be the same token, we should not judge a woman who decides the best course of action is an abortion.
We cannot actually walk a mile in her moccasins to understand why she came to this decision.
 
I like to see you quoting the Constitution with your 2/3 speak.

Your hysterical ramblings have nothing to do with what I posted.. I was discussing the filibuster and the overriding of a presidential veto..

Your wish is my command..

The Filibuster:

The validity of the filibuster is said to rest on the authority of the Senate to make its own rules. (Article I Section 5)
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
The Presidential Veto:

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law."
---U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, clause 2
 

Back
Top