ClarkUSA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Nov-10-09 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #61 |
| 62. I'm over it, Bitter One. |
|
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 12:32 PM by ClarkUSA
I got the facts, motives and prognosis right on the Stupak Amendment, as a DU search will verify. You are put in the odd position of approving of Pres. Obama for the only time since you joined DU because of your need to CYA. I love it.  |
| -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