Skip to main content

View Diary: When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife, Mr. President? (53 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why do the Republicans keep banning federal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RhodaA

    funding of abortions over and over? They've got a base who can't get enough of it. Same here. If you can't convince a kid that the bogeyman isn't real, you pretend to shoo the bogeyman away.

    (Not weighing in on the substance here, for which I would refer people to Loge's analysis in one of yesterday's diaries. Just that I don't see anything unusual in the promulgation of superfluous legislation. Not an infrequent occurrence.)

    •  Let's see if I got this straight... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Johnny Q

      ...the only practical purpose of promulgating this particular piece of superfluous legislation -- superfluous because the current billed awaiting the president's signature guarantees that American citizens on American soil can NOT be apprehended, detained and tried by the military at the whim of the president -- is to shoo away the boogeyman invented by the kids who can't be convinced that it doesn't exist?

      Gotcha.

      I guess my next question would be, if this bill were ever to make it to the president's desk, do you think he would sign it?  I mean, it was he who asked that this language be taken out of the bill in the first place or he would veto it.

      Btw, Republicans didn't ban the federal funding of abortion in the health care bill -- Democrats did.  Nice strawman.

      •  Perhaps a better example would have been (0+ / 0-)

        the redundant moves to enshrine "In God We Trust," although you seem to have missed quite a few Republican moves on the abortion front.

        As to the rest of your crap, you don't "got" anything.

        Not weighing in on the substance here, for which I would refer people to Loge's analysis in one of yesterday's diaries.

        I meant it.  

        •  I read Loge's analysis... (0+ / 0-)

          ...yestereday, so I know where you stand on the 'substance'.  And your example of redundant moves to enshrine "In God We Trust" makes less sense to me than your first example.  Moreover insisting that you're not weighing in on the substance of the diary is pointless.  Simply referring people to Loge's analysis IS you weighing in on the substance.  

          You're tying yourself in knots trying to come up with some rationale for Sen. Feinstein proposing a piece of legislation which explicitly exempts American citizens on American soil from being apprehended, detained, and tried by the military on the order of the executive.  The Senator's reason for proposing the legislation is obvious, since she attempted to amend the bill which just passed both houses of congress -- she wants to deny the executive branch of government the power to have the military apprehend, detain, and try American citizens on American soil.

          And I missed nothing on the Republican Front wrt abortion -- it's called the Stupak Amendment for a reason.  Republicans do not have a cornor on the Pro-life movement in the Congress.  I didn't (and still don't) follow your logic wrt your example.  

           

      •  He DID sign it! (0+ / 0-)

        I'm a little lost as to why people keep saying, "Would he sign it?" He already did. Yesterday. Using the end of the war in Iraq as a nice cover.

        I will not touch Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid - Barack Obama

        by sloopydrew on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:14:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (136)
  • Community (65)
  • 2016 (46)
  • Elections (39)
  • Environment (36)
  • Media (36)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (34)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (29)
  • Barack Obama (28)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (25)
  • Jeb Bush (24)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Economy (21)
  • Labor (20)
  • Bernie Sanders (18)
  • Science (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site