freddie mertz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-10-09 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #49 |
| 50. Right! They have been caught with their pants down... |
|
....so used to moving ever further to the far right in presumed "support" of the president that they ended up like Wile E. Coyote, hanging over the gorge and looking down to the abyss they are about the fall into!
Hardly knew what hit 'em.
|
| -At this point the Stupak=Hyde people are just lying. |
Kurt_and_Hunter |
Nov-10-09 09:13 AM |
#0 |
 -
It's similar to Hyde, but in no way equals Hyde. I haven't seen a person say that though. |
vaberella |
Nov-10-09 09:17 AM |
#1 |
  -
I don't see Stupak adding any restrictions that are stupidly in place now. The sections of the laws |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 09:20 AM |
#4 |
| -
Will read into it more. |
vaberella |
Nov-10-09 11:18 AM |
#35 |
| -
Stupak sec 236 and Hyde 507 read damn near the same word for word |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 09:18 AM |
#2 |
| -
I will humor you once... WHY DOES OBAMA SUGGEST STUPAK IS NOT THE STATUS QUO??? |
Kurt_and_Hunter |
Nov-10-09 09:20 AM |
#3 |
| -
I did not hear or read of any suggestion, please link and quote where Obama said HYDE was not status |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 09:21 AM |
#5 |
| -
Edited to replace ambiguous "it" with "Stupak" |
Kurt_and_Hunter |
Nov-10-09 09:24 AM |
#7 |
| -
Sec, I'm reading Obama's statments on Stupak but I would thiink it 's because it's redundant |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 09:33 AM |
#14 |
| -
I read it, it's because it was injected despite Hyde being in force which prohibits federal funds... |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 10:01 AM |
#22 |
| -
Because it's permanent. That's it. NOW TELL US WHAT'S "THE BABY-KILLING INDUSTRY" IN YOUR OP. |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 10:05 AM |
#23 |
| -
RIGHT!! Hyde allows for yearly votes were Stupak doesn't |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 10:08 AM |
#24 |
| -
he didn't, he just said that whatever the language, the status quo should be maintained |
Dr Robert |
Nov-10-09 05:05 PM |
#80 |
| -
The wording is more strict in the Stupak admendment |
gravity |
Nov-10-09 09:44 AM |
#20 |
| -
You have to purchase a rider in which HCI's HAVE to offer in the pool if they're not ... |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 09:59 AM |
#21 |
| -
that is baldly inaccurate |
dsc |
Nov-10-09 03:11 PM |
#74 |
| -
poor little fella. obama being in office sure does give you the vapors. |
dionysus |
Nov-10-09 09:24 AM |
#6 |
| -
I don't understand their angst, sec 236 of Stupak=Sec 507 of Hyde almost word for word |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 09:25 AM |
#8 |
| -
hey, the ammendment sucks, but people are talking it up like it overturns roe v wade. |
dionysus |
Nov-10-09 09:32 AM |
#12 |
| -
YEAP!! If Hyde is in force than Stupak is redundant!! |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 09:33 AM |
#15 |
| -
Keep saying it. It is not only not true.. |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 11:08 AM |
#28 |
| -
The president has stated that it goes too far. |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 11:05 AM |
#27 |
| -
weak attempt to put words in my mouth. |
dionysus |
Nov-10-09 11:11 AM |
#30 |
| -
Did you or did you not argue that there was nothing new in the amendment? |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 11:13 AM |
#32 |
| -
you tried to argue that i support the ammendment. i don't. but nor do i think the sky is falling. |
dionysus |
Nov-10-09 11:24 AM |
#36 |
| -
So you didn't CARE about it one way or another? |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 11:30 AM |
#38 |
| -
The only people being disingenuous are the people supporting Stupak |
me b zola |
Nov-10-09 03:01 PM |
#73 |
| -
Now it's ANTI-OBAMA people pushing that lie. |
geek tragedy |
Nov-10-09 09:26 AM |
#9 |
| -
Could the whole mess |
nykym |
Nov-10-09 09:29 AM |
#10 |
| -
I think its good that it has because abortion was the reason why the regligious right wouldnt suppor |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 09:35 AM |
#16 |
| -
since abortion was never part of this "health care reform" that thinking is disingenuous, to say the |
niyad |
Nov-10-09 09:39 AM |
#18 |
| -
I agree, the religous RIGHT though was excusing themselves from the debate of taking care of the ... |
uponit7771 |
Nov-10-09 09:43 AM |
#19 |
| -
"the baby-killing industry"??? whatever point you were trying to make ended right there. |
niyad |
Nov-10-09 09:30 AM |
#11 |
| -
i just noticed that, wtf is up with THAT? |
dionysus |
Nov-10-09 09:32 AM |
#13 |
| -
That's where I stopped reading. nt |
Truth2Tell |
Nov-11-09 12:38 AM |
#93 |
| -
I must have misunderstood your previous OP on this subject. |
izzybeans |
Nov-10-09 09:39 AM |
#17 |
| -
yet you provide nothing from the amendment to support your claims |
Aramchek |
Nov-10-09 10:43 AM |
#25 |
| -
I'm not sure about lying but they are twisting themselves in knots to buy BS |
TheKentuckian |
Nov-10-09 11:02 AM |
#26 |
| -
New York Times editorial today: Stupak amendment "reached far beyond Hyde" |
SacramentoBlue |
Nov-10-09 11:08 AM |
#29 |
| -
Stop making sense!! |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 11:11 AM |
#31 |
| -
I support the passage of the health care bill but thought the amendment was crap |
Jennicut |
Nov-10-09 11:15 AM |
#33 |
| -
That is a defensible position as you describe it. |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 11:18 AM |
#34 |
| -
They're wrong. Women can buy supplemental insurance to cover abortion services. Link, quote --> |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 11:29 AM |
#37 |
| -
The NYT editorial in question called these riders "meaningless" for the following reason |
SacramentoBlue |
Nov-10-09 11:35 AM |
#39 |
| -
Bullshit. Women have to do the same damned thing now. Is flood/fire insurance "meaningless" too? |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 11:47 AM |
#41 |
| -
Equally, Salon.com and the Huffington Post call these riders "nonsense" and "useless" in that order |
SacramentoBlue |
Nov-10-09 11:51 AM |
#42 |
| -
They're wrong, too. Repeat 3x: Women have to buy supplemental abortion insurance now. |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 11:56 AM |
#44 |
| -
Keep trying. It just gets more and more ridiculous. nt. |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 12:04 PM |
#48 |
| -
It is ridiculous when people can't acknowledge/don't know the facts, isn't it? nt |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 12:42 PM |
#70 |
| -
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Nov-10-09 03:16 PM |
#75 |
| -
You're wrong. e.g. All the under-45 female members of my family have abortion insurance. nt |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 05:16 PM |
#81 |
| -
Do they have it in the form of a "rider"? |
SacramentoBlue |
Nov-10-09 05:34 PM |
#84 |
| -
They carry supplemental insurance. nt |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 07:24 PM |
#87 |
| -
This is all very chilling |
Prism |
Nov-10-09 11:45 AM |
#40 |
| -
Not really. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said that the language will be removed in conference. |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 11:53 AM |
#43 |
| -
And it was a mistake to defend it. |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 12:15 PM |
#53 |
| -
Says you. But it got the job done of moving the bill forward. Your stance would've killed the bill. |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-11-09 08:56 AM |
#96 |
| -
Yes. I too have noticed the one-man fanaticism. |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 11:57 AM |
#45 |
| -
Yeah, all the one-man Hater/Failer fanatics are so very bitter while ignoring the facts. nt |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 11:59 AM |
#46 |
| -
Actually, I am enjoying watching you guys try to rewrite history... |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 12:03 PM |
#47 |
| -
lol! Team Obama is writing history, Bitter One. But if your delusions keep you happy, go for it. |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 12:10 PM |
#51 |
| -
Blah blah. Everyone who is honest here knows what has happened. |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 12:15 PM |
#52 |
| -
That would leave out you. And they do know. And why do you keep bringing up Gen. Clark? |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 12:33 PM |
#63 |
| -
Why? |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 12:35 PM |
#65 |
| -
So what? nt |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 12:40 PM |
#67 |
| -
So you're a flaming noobstick and C2k4 isn't. |
sudopod |
Nov-10-09 04:43 PM |
#78 |
| -
That's what got me |
Prism |
Nov-10-09 12:05 PM |
#49 |
| -
Right! They have been caught with their pants down... |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 12:10 PM |
#50 |
| -
You nailed it |
Prism |
Nov-10-09 12:15 PM |
#54 |
| -
Wow, what bullshit. Guess you can't admit that Dems did what they could to move the bill forward. |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 12:19 PM |
#57 |
| -
You are just jealous...nt |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 12:25 PM |
#58 |
| -
Nah, I'm glad that I didn't join DU just to bash President Obama while posting the occasional CYA OP |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 12:26 PM |
#60 |
| -
You are obsessed. But you still got it wrong. nt. |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 12:41 PM |
#69 |
| -
No, I'm pleased that the HCR bill is moving forward by any means necessary despite the loud whiners |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 12:57 PM |
#71 |
| -
"By ANY means necessary"? Including gutting the bill and tossing |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 05:32 PM |
#83 |
| -
Yes, Failer/Bitter One. Your hyperbolic outrage nonsense babble is amusing. nt |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 07:40 PM |
#91 |
| -
What "assumption that the President would be ok with the anti-choice amendment"? |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 12:15 PM |
#55 |
| -
I don't see the point in arguing it |
Prism |
Nov-10-09 12:18 PM |
#56 |
| -
Yeah, because you're making up shit in order to pat yourself on the back. nt |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 12:25 PM |
#59 |
| -
Update: Clark still not winning 2004 primary. |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 12:27 PM |
#61 |
| -
I'm over it, Bitter One. |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 12:31 PM |
#62 |
| -
Unlike you, I agree with the president's characterization of the Stupak bill. |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 12:34 PM |
#64 |
| -
That'd be the only time you've ever expressed approval for the President since you arrived here. nt |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 12:37 PM |
#66 |
| -
Well there was that time in the PA primary.... |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 12:40 PM |
#68 |
| -
hmmmm.....does sound familiar.... |
blm |
Nov-10-09 03:44 PM |
#77 |
| -
Yep. I was proud to support and vote for the man. |
freddie mertz |
Nov-10-09 05:31 PM |
#82 |
| -
Sure...that's why you've been trashing the Prez since you got here minus the CYA OP today. nt |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-10-09 07:43 PM |
#92 |
| -
Sez freddie the clown who is always overplaying her hand. |
Cha |
Nov-10-09 07:25 PM |
#88 |
| -
We need to get the C Street cultists out of our government |
LatteLibertine |
Nov-10-09 01:03 PM |
#72 |
| -
Hilarious |
Teaser |
Nov-10-09 03:41 PM |
#76 |
| -
It effectively bans coverage of elective abortions. This is BS and unconstitutional. |
Odin2005 |
Nov-10-09 04:56 PM |
#79 |
| -
It doesn't ban coverage of abortions. |
boppers |
Nov-10-09 06:11 PM |
#86 |
| -
Willful ignorance. |
PeaceNikki |
Nov-10-09 05:35 PM |
#85 |
| -
Get off your fucking high horse..I've seen your blatantly |
Cha |
Nov-10-09 07:27 PM |
#89 |
| -
Are there any lawyers here that could offer their analysis? |
Hippo_Tron |
Nov-10-09 07:32 PM |
#90 |
| -
Let's break this down in lay terms |
demwing |
Nov-11-09 12:38 AM |
#94 |
| -
Sweet post |
Egnever |
Nov-11-09 12:57 AM |
#95 |
| -
That's right. Your excellent lawyerly analysis = NARAL, NOW, etc. are full of shit. nt |
ClarkUSA |
Nov-11-09 09:05 AM |
#97 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread