Heard this on the radio this a.m., but haven't verified it... (My thread title remains accurate, nonetheless...)
It seems that the Democrats voted down an amendment which would deny coverage for Viagra for rapists, pedophiles and other low-life sex offenders... Seems pretty clear, then, that the Democrats think it's perfectly OK to enable 80 year olds who want to rape 3 year olds.
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,185
I have read that too on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox. It is true.
Pretty sick thinking our tax dollars will go to sex offeneders so they can get cheap/free E.D. meds. What a wonderful Demo party we have.
Demos, through this bill, have made it possible to kill an unborn baby and provide a woody for sex offenders all on our dime. Yipppy. I am really glad I get to pay for all this.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
well, if it was so bloody important, why didn't the R who proferred the amendment offer it in the original round of negotiations?
moreover, if it was so bloody important, why not just offer it as a stand-alone bill, and not an amendment, which would require the whole bill to go back to the house? I suspect such a bill would have more than enough sponsors from both sides of the aisle.
recognize this for what it was-a political tactic to stall reconciliation, and get the health bill back to the house for a second vote.
there's plenty about the reform bill upon which reasonable minds may differ, and argue about, but this was just a political trap, nothing more or less.
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by boysda
well, if it was so bloody important, why didn't the R who proferred the amendment offer it in the original round of negotiations?
moreover, if it was so bloody important, why not just offer it as a stand-alone bill, and not an amendment, which would require the whole bill to go back to the house? I suspect such a bill would have more than enough sponsors from both sides of the aisle.
recognize this for what it was-a political tactic to stall reconciliation, and get the health bill back to the house for a second vote.
there's plenty about the reform bill upon which reasonable minds may differ, and argue about, but this was just a political trap, nothing more or less.
Good question. But to assume here; I would assume that it came about as a second though. Also, I feel that these amendments are to force the Houses hand. Personally I have no problem with taking this bill back to the House once agian. I am not for this bill, but if the Republicans want to score points, they might tread lightly and let some of the Dems hang themselves. The Rep. need to play their hand right, or they will paint themselves as cry babies. And the last thing I want is for the Dems to keep controle of government. Personally, I never like one party with a majority of power. It always leads to abuse.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
Lousy Democrats...
