|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency |
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 12:01 PM Original message |
The Nelson amendment is not in the President's bill |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Beetwasher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 12:03 PM Response to Original message |
1. Shhh! You're Raining On Perfectly Good Pissing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Clio the Leo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 12:25 PM Response to Reply #1 |
8. lol NT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jennicut (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 12:11 PM Response to Original message |
2. Thanks for the clarification. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saracat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 12:14 PM Response to Original message |
3. KOS states that the abortion language of Nelson is retained in the President's Proposal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
freddie mertz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 12:16 PM Response to Reply #3 |
4. I saw that too. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 12:18 PM Response to Reply #3 |
5. Who or what is "KOS"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saracat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 12:50 PM Response to Reply #5 |
13. Dan Pfieffer of the WH outlined the President's Proposal. David Dayden was on the conference call |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 12:53 PM Response to Reply #13 |
15. Who the hell is David Dayden? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saracat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 01:03 PM Response to Reply #15 |
18. I am saying you can't differentiate .You do know Dan Pfieffer? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 01:04 PM Response to Reply #18 |
19. "and I don't know Daydan either." What? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saracat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 01:09 PM Response to Reply #19 |
22. I NEVER said it did. The reality is that the Senate language on abortion is retained. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 01:14 PM Response to Reply #22 |
24. YES |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saracat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 01:25 PM Response to Reply #24 |
25. I didn't say it passed. I admit that was a poor choice of words. I meant to say the Nelson abortion |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 01:55 PM Response to Reply #25 |
26. "Poor choice of words"? Your claim is bogus. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saracat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 02:12 PM Response to Reply #26 |
31. The basis of nelson was not allowing women to purchase abortions with federal funds. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 03:13 PM Response to Reply #31 |
36. "It was a reinforcement of Hyde." Wrong |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karynnj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 03:31 PM Response to Reply #31 |
40. No it wasn't - it was an amendment to the language that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
vaberella (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-25-10 10:21 AM Response to Reply #40 |
65. Your statement is correct. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karynnj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 03:26 PM Response to Reply #25 |
39. The language did not survive - the amendment failed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Cha (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 03:35 PM Response to Reply #39 |
42. You can't get any more clear than that..and |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karynnj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 03:24 PM Response to Reply #13 |
38. It is the language of the bill that was voted on |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 12:19 PM Response to Reply #3 |
6. And that nobody KOS blogger you posted a link to is WRONG. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saracat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 12:34 PM Response to Reply #6 |
10. Maybe you are okay with th language of the Senate Bill. I am NOT. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 12:43 PM Response to Reply #10 |
12. If you have a problem with Hyde, thats fine, but stop distorting what the Pres's bill does. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saracat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 12:52 PM Response to Reply #12 |
14. That seems to be a matter of interpetation. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phleshdef (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 12:59 PM Response to Reply #14 |
17. No, its a matter of words and what the dictionary has to say about certain ones. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saracat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 01:04 PM Response to Reply #17 |
20. The dictionary knows whether Senate language is the same as |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karynnj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 03:44 PM Response to Reply #10 |
43. It is not the Nelson language, but Reid's |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karynnj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 03:22 PM Response to Reply #3 |
37. McJoan, an excellent poster is simply wrong there |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LiberalFighter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 12:21 PM Response to Original message |
7. How many women will buy abortion coverage? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
polichick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 12:33 PM Response to Original message |
9. Like Nelson will ever have an unwanted pregnancy - asshole... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
asdjrocky (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 12:40 PM Response to Original message |
11. I find it unreal that this is even talked about. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saracat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 12:56 PM Response to Reply #11 |
16. Apparently not so much. We have anti-choice dems running for office in my state |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
polichick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 01:09 PM Response to Reply #16 |
21. That's crazy! If they don't agree with such an important piece of the platform... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saracat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 01:12 PM Response to Reply #21 |
23. Arizona.And we have incredibly restrictive anti choice legislation that was passed as |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
polichick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 02:04 PM Response to Reply #23 |
27. This attitude will lead to the end of the party imo - who needs two Republican parties? nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karynnj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 04:04 PM Response to Reply #27 |
45. Casey is a Democrat, son of a Democratic politician |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
polichick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 05:03 PM Response to Reply #45 |
46. Sorry, I won't vote for an anti-choice Dem. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RainDog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 08:06 PM Response to Reply #45 |
49. Pro-Choice is about economics and equal rights and science over religion |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karynnj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 08:23 PM Response to Reply #49 |
50. Please defend how pro-choice has anything to do with science |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RainDog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 08:35 PM Response to Reply #50 |
52. I wasn't talking about Casey in particular |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karynnj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 09:08 PM Response to Reply #52 |
53. You are ignoring that men can not get pregnant and |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RainDog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 11:08 PM Response to Reply #53 |
54. "always potential life" is a non-scientific bullshit phrase |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karynnj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-24-10 08:58 AM Response to Reply #54 |
56. You are in denial - if there were no potential of life, there would be no abortion |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RainDog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-24-10 12:15 PM Response to Reply #56 |
58. yes, people ARE saying women should carry a dead fetus to term. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karynnj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-24-10 07:39 PM Response to Reply #58 |
61. Again, you are going to extremes that have nothing to do with what I said |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RainDog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-25-10 09:46 AM Response to Reply #61 |
62. one last... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karynnj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-25-10 10:17 AM Response to Reply #62 |
63. As I said I was a Jew, why are you asking me to defend indefensible actions and policies of the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RainDog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-25-10 10:28 AM Response to Reply #63 |
66. because my stance is not about you |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karynnj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-25-10 01:01 PM Response to Reply #66 |
67. I never said, in caps or not in caps, that it was |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RainDog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-25-10 06:55 PM Response to Reply #67 |
68. why your comments upset me? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karynnj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-25-10 10:40 PM Response to Reply #68 |
69. My arguments are not anti-choice arguments - and you are incoherent here |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RainDog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-25-10 11:00 PM Response to Reply #69 |
70. take care. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RainDog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 11:17 PM Response to Reply #53 |
55. oh, and just to note |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karynnj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-24-10 09:11 AM Response to Reply #55 |
57. You do realize that if you elect a Republican over a Democrat, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RainDog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-24-10 12:25 PM Response to Reply #57 |
59. that's why I'm talking about it now |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RainDog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 02:12 PM Response to Reply #16 |
30. When the democrats embrace pro-lifers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saracat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 02:18 PM Response to Reply #30 |
32. I refuse to vote for -choice Democrats. A prominent DUer asked me |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RainDog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 02:41 PM Response to Reply #32 |
34. I will NEVER vote for a anti-choice democrat either |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saracat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 03:04 PM Response to Reply #34 |
35. Wrong thread Delete |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
polichick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 05:03 PM Response to Reply #34 |
48. +1 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
polichick (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 05:03 PM Response to Reply #32 |
47. +1 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RainDog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 02:09 PM Response to Reply #11 |
29. no, I do not think they are democrats |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saracat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 02:20 PM Response to Reply #29 |
33. +1000 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jenmito (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 02:07 PM Response to Original message |
28. K&R. Thanks for setting the record straight. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 03:34 PM Response to Original message |
41. Deleted message |
CTyankee (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 03:49 PM Response to Original message |
44. Pro, do you know whether this language would deny an abortion to a woman |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
karynnj (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Feb-23-10 08:28 PM Response to Reply #44 |
51. Not Prosense, but NOTHING in this legislation denies access to abortion Period. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTyankee (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-24-10 06:27 PM Response to Reply #51 |
60. I ask this because my daughter had pre-eclampsia in her pregnancy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
vaberella (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-25-10 10:20 AM Response to Original message |
64. 95% of DU would disagree. Although I didn't read it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Thu May 02nd 2024, 06:02 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC