Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't have dog in the abortion fight, but you could not get this many pages as quick for the homeless, the poor, the environment, the economy, small business woes.
Listen close...
Too many people vote on a single issue, and the consequences for the rest of the spectrum are dire.
It is party neutral.
It is what got us in this mess and I see no solution.
I guess most folks are incapable of dealing with the big picture. You see the result.
I think he should veto, citing the way the bill wound up being snuck onto the agenda, while acknowledging that he realizes it has enough supporters to override his veto. Then, when they override? He acknowledges that there was time after his veto for opposing voices to be heard, which means he feels confident that the GA has given the bill due diligence.
It's the way to wash the most stink off himself.
That's the least worst of his bad options, but all it does is render him irrelevant like Bev rather than tacitly complicit. He still needs significant crossover support if he wants a second term, and letting the bill become law kills that.
This also hurts Tillis as well since he can't just completely alienate 56% of the electorate before running against a female candidate next year. It wouldn't surprise me if he and McCrory work out a deal to table it in committee next week for their mutual benefit. It'll get the rubes all butthurt, but it's not like they're going to vote for the other team.
Why do these clowns want poor and under-educated girls in no position to care for children having more babies? They'll just be looking for more public assistance, costing us more in tax dollars... raising more poor and under-educated children, who in turn will be looking for more public assistance - or worse, turn to crime - all costing us more tax dollars... this is smart, long term thinking?
... and keep your religion out of politics - constitution 101.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,816 posts, read 34,838,269 times
Reputation: 10257
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid
Why do these clowns want poor and under-educated girls in no position to care for children having more babies? They'll just be looking for more public assistance, costing us more in tax dollars... raising more poor and under-educated children, who in turn will be looking for more public assistance - or worse, turn to crime - all costing us more tax dollars... this is smart, long term thinking?
... and keep your religion out of politics - constitution 101.
I don't know any of these clowns personally, Mikey, but I do agree with the "War on Women" tag that's attached to them. They are counting on the public to be ignorant of the facts.
Planned Parenthood dates back to 1916. I was a senior in college when Roe was decided. Planned Parenthood had a network of clinics & therefore were in a position to provide abortions, but public money has never been used for that. The public money is used for exams & lab fees for the pap smears. Private donations fund the abortion services.
I heard about back-alley abortions from women who survived them. I also heard about their friends who did not survive them.
I was once in a traffic jam when a group of right-wing nincompoops decided to take their protest of Planned Parenthood out into a busy road. I was in one of the 1st row of cars. When they approached my car I rolled down the car window & asked Are you going to take all of the babies & raise them yourself? When I got the answer "no", I said get out of the road & out of my town. Mind your own business.
I knew that the answer would be no because a couple of years before, when I went to have a check up & get a pap smear, some of the group approached me, screeching & calling me a harlot & a baby killer & blocking the door. I told them that I was there to get a check up & a papsmear because I was just out of college & couldn't afford to go to a private doctor. If they wanted to give me the money to go to a private doctor I'd be glad to do that, but otherwise they could get out of my way & quit calling me names or I would be happy to go down the street to a pay phone & call the police & press charges.
Why do these clowns want poor and under-educated girls in no position to care for children having more babies? They'll just be looking for more public assistance, costing us more in tax dollars... raising more poor and under-educated children, who in turn will be looking for more public assistance - or worse, turn to crime - all costing us more tax dollars... this is smart, long term thinking?
... and keep your religion out of politics - constitution 101.
Mikey,
It does not strengthen a position to demonize those who hold differing opinions.
No one wants anyone "...to have more babies." I know it was rhetorical sarcasm, but it is not on point.
Also, there is absolutely no restriction on religion in politics.
Religion in government? Yes, although that is routinely ignored by those whose politics are based on worshipping government as a deity.
Who did I demonize? Are you a fundamentalist governmentalist?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
