Check out some similar questions!

excon · Jan 24, 2011, 07:51 PM

Hello:

Yup, the new Republican leadership thinks jobs are their priority. They LISTENED to the public. They're going to make jobs number one...

But FIRST, they needed to repeal health care... Ok, they did that. Now, you'd think they'd work on jobs, wouldn't you? But, no. They had something else they had to do. So, for their SECOND official act, they passed a bill to limit abortion.

Surly, the THIRD attempt will be about jobs, no? Let's see. Somehow I doubt it.

excon

paraclete · Jan 24, 2011, 08:13 PM

Do you think it's possible they don't know how to do it? In politics it is easier to dismantle than to build. Tell you what Ex, we have a large number of reconstruction jobs over here, and you know what? It won't cost your government anything

speechlesstx · Jan 25, 2011, 09:41 AM

What bill would that be?

excon · Jan 25, 2011, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What bill would that be?

Hello Steve:

Uhhhh, THIS one. I could have linked you to a left wing site, but I brought you Michelle Malkin instead.

excon

spitvenom · Jan 25, 2011, 10:00 AM

So when Obama took office the right gave him about a month before they called him a failure for not creating jobs. On February 1st are we allowed to call the right a failure for not creating millions of jobs?

speechlesstx · Jan 25, 2011, 10:05 AM

Oh that one, To prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections...

It was introduced, I didn't see where it was passed. Just holding Obama to his word that Obamacare wouldn't make taxpayers pay for abortions. That was in the works for some time and not very labor intensive I'm sure. It'll take a lot more effort to undo the damage Obama has done, he didn't get us in this mess overnight and they can't get us out overnight... unless we drill, drill, drill.

tomder55 · Jan 25, 2011, 11:01 AM

Just holding Obama to his word that Obamacare wouldn't make taxpayers pay for abortions.

The President suckered the Stupak group to sign onto Obamacare .He used an executive order to prevent the use of taxpayer funding for abortions.

This bill would just assure that what the President decree becomes part of the law ;not subject to his whims .

Since the President signed the executive order he should have no issue signing the law when passed .

excon · Jan 25, 2011, 11:15 AM

Hello again, Steve and Tom:

I see that you AGREE about the importance of passing abortion legislation BEFORE you tackle jobs. I just wonder if the voters will.

What's next? Repeal of DADT??

excon

tomder55 · Jan 25, 2011, 11:25 AM

I do believe they can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. I certainly think it imperitive to prevent our tax payer money from being used in assisting in the slaughter of our children.

On the other hand.. I have doubts that the government can do anything to create jobs beyond repealing some of the sillier regulations and edicts that created road blocks to the creation of jobs in the 1st place .

If the President says tonight he's lifting the ban on drilling, I'll be the first to stand up and cheer. But he won't do that .

excon · Jan 25, 2011, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

I certainly think it imperitive to prevent our tax payer money from being used in assisting in the slaughter of our children.

Hello again, tom:

Like the Dems before you, they too had imperatives BEFORE they tackled the hard stuff. You're starting just like them... I suspect it'll continue, and for the same reasons. Nobody wants to make the HARD choices...

They're holding Paul Ryan up as a target tonight. Everybody else refused to do it. You can't blame 'em. If he survives, the onslaught... But, he won't, and it'll be Republicans who do him in. Why? Because talk is cheap and NOBODY wants to make the hard choices.

excon

Wondergirl · Jan 25, 2011, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

I certainly think it imperitive to prevent our tax payer money from being used in assisting in the slaughter of our children.

And no taxpayer money will be used to assist in their upbringing?

tomder55 · Jan 25, 2011, 11:54 AM

There is plenty of taxpayer money supporting the upraising of children as you know.

Wondergirl · Jan 25, 2011, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

there is plenty of taxpayer money supporting the upraising of children as you know.

But social services assistance is being cut left and right. Apparently, too much money is being used.

tomder55 · Jan 25, 2011, 12:06 PM

Show me the Federal cuts .Even if there were ,is it your opinion that it is OK to use taxpayer money to kill children ?

excon · Jan 25, 2011, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

I certainly think it imperitive to prevent our tax payer money from being used in assisting in the slaughter of our children.

Hello again, tom:

For being free market right wingers, you certainly don't understand the markets too much... Restricting taxpayer funded abortion, only restricts POOR people from getting abortions. But, POOR women want to have abortions just like rich women do, and try as you might to LIMIT their choices, they'll find somebody to do it anyway.. And, he just might be a butcher like the one on the other thread.

When abortions are universally available, there won't be any butchers... That's just so.

That's not to say I think abortion is good. I don't. But there are a LOT of things that are available in the free marketplace that I don't think are good. That doesn't mean I want to outlaw them. That's how a FREE society works..

excon

NeedKarma · Jan 25, 2011, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by excon

When abortions are universally available, there won't be any butchers... That's just so.

That's not to say I think abortion is good. I don't. But there are a LOT of things that are available in the free marketplace that I don't think are good. That doesn't mean I want to outlaw them. That's how a FREE society works..

excon

Well said sir.

tomder55 · Jan 25, 2011, 12:54 PM

Ex, as I said on the other OP ,I don't make a distinction between the Philly doc and the doc at any clinic in this country killing kids the lawful way. Both are murder in my book.

paraclete · Jan 25, 2011, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Ex, as I said on the other OP ,I don't make a distinction between the Philly doc and the doc at any clinic in this country killing kids the lawful way. Both are murder in my book.

There is a lawfull way to kill kids in your country? I agree with you Tom abortion is murder, legalised murder, a complete disrespect of human rights

excon · Jan 25, 2011, 01:10 PM

Hello again:

This discussion only reaffirms the notion that the Republicans have a great many imperatives to deal with before they tackle jobs.

Who wants to bet me that the THIRD bill entertained by the Republicans won't be about jobs either? They'll find something about guns, gays or god to occupy their time.

excon

speechlesstx · Jan 25, 2011, 03:52 PM

[QUOTE=excon;2682874]

For being free market right wingers, you certainly don't understand the markets too much... Restricting taxpayer funded abortion, only restricts POOR people from getting abortions. But, POOR women want to have abortions just like rich women do, and try as you might to LIMIT their choices, they'll find somebody to do it anyway.. And, he just might be a butcher like the one on the other thread.

Personally I think it's deplorable that there is a 'market' for abortions, but that's why I prefer to try and change hearts and minds more than the law. The mindset that not only rationalizes the killing of the most innocent among us for the sake of convenience, but fights tooth and nail to make it more available is a complete mystery to me. How can someone fight for an industry that has killed 52 million children? That my friend is sickening.