Shocking, to say the least.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/us/boehner-will-resign-from-congress.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/us/boehner-will-resign-from-congress.html?_r=1
Wow. John Boehner is resigning from Congress
- Thread starter Noodle
- Start date
So apparently the nutters are taking over the party, he's saying that the pressure from Cruz and company on shutting down the government over women's health funding is the issue forcing him to make this decision.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Let's let this play out for a bit before figuring out root cause. The first report is always wrong.
My bad, I didn't look before posting.Hey, my thread was first!
Just use Noodle's thread.
I am giddy with the anticipation of the amount of fodder there will be for our comedians. We know they've been starving for material this election cycle with the humdrum right but this should really help that barren comedy landscape...
Heh. That's about like saying that 1861 secession was motivated by an interest in protecting "employers' rights."
That said, it's always seemed obvious to me that the answer to the Planned Parenthood conundrum is for PP to formally split into two distinct organizations: one dealing with abortion, one dealing with everything else.
I mean, they've always said that the public funding they get doesn't pay for abortions. That being the case, I don't see why they would have any issue with making it a more formal distinction.
They are the one's pointing to Planned Parenthood, take it up with them.
If it's about PP, it's a women's health issue regardless how how the right wants to frame the discussion. They are men, they should have zero input on the matter.
Most Americans, real Americans, want personal choices left with them.
You think men should have zero input into family health or decisions on whether or not to have a child? Planned Parenthood, if meeting the criteria of its name, is about family planning and health, not singularly focused on abortion.
It will be interesting to see who replaces him. Will the party go further right? That sure would make things interesting. I'm wondering if the election campaign had anything to do with this. There has been so much criticism of the current GOP leadership.------ (This is an edit.) I am sorry I posted this since it was already posted. I can't see how I missed the first posting. Is it possible it didn't show up on my computer when I posted? I thought I looked to see if it had been posted. Noodle and I almost used the exact same opening line.
Last edited:
SSSSTTTRRREEEETTTCCCHHHIIINNGGG a noodle since it was first.I am giddy with the anticipation of the amount of fodder there will be for our comedians. We know they've been starving for material this election cycle with the humdrum right but this should really help that barren comedy landscape...
Wait 10 minutes and Mudgeon will have the name and phone number of the next speaker and will tells us the caucus vote in advance. He has to be Rockfish in disguise. Geesh! This guy has answers to questions we haven't even thought to ask.
Yeah, I'm not the one engaging in verbal gymnastics here. The issue here is abortion, not pap smears. Pointing that out isn't euphemistic "framing" -- trying to conflate the two, however, is.
Well, last I checked, getting pregnant requires both a male and female. And, not only that, roughly half of the aborted babies are males, half are females. I guess that latter half might be accurately called "women's healthcare" -- assuming we'd use the word "healthcare" to describe willfully inflicting death upon what was once alive.
Well, of course. This is why I tend towards the libertarian view on, well, just about everything. I wish more pro-choice people applied this same principle to things other than abortion.
But the big question here is at what point in time the rights of the child -- whether unborn or born -- to live supersede the rights of the mother to, ahem, "choose". I would assume you would agree that a new mother shouldn't have the "personal choice" to kill a baby the day after it's born. If that's the case, then when exactly did we (legally) cross that line? When did the right to terminate the baby's life cease to be a "personal choice" for her and, instead, become a criminal act?
Is it at birth? Some point in time after birth? The start of the 3rd trimester? Viability? If it's viability, how do we establish with any degree of certainty when that is?
And, whatever it is, isn't this a decision we make -- in one fashion or another -- as a society? Or do we leave it up to individual people to determine when that is?
I would argue that the key moment is the onset of discernible vital signs. After all, we use the absence of vital signs at the other end of the life cycle to establish the moment of (legal) death. Why wouldn't we use their onset to denote the commencement of (legal) life? To the best of my knowledge, this usually occurs within several weeks after conception. There's nothing arbitrary about it: the vital signs are either there or they aren't.
It is a women's issue, outies need not apply, you can't get preggers so your opinion doesn't have any relevancy, zero experience from the only perspective that matters.
Women want it as an option, and this man believes it starts and ends with women on this matter, or should.
Besides, most so called "Pro-Life" people aren't, they are "Pro-Fetus".
Start legislating men in the same manner, then you will find out just how strongly they think this is a personal choice.
Women want it as an option, and this man believes it starts and ends with women on this matter, or should.
Besides, most so called "Pro-Life" people aren't, they are "Pro-Fetus".
Start legislating men in the same manner, then you will find out just how strongly they think this is a personal choice.
Last edited:
Surely the term "nutters" is a violation of the new rules. If not what good are the rules. I consider myself a Patriot of American values not a "nutter"! Boehner's ability to lead had long since past as there were too many fractions in the caucus.
It takes a man and a woman to create a baby and men should have input. The courts have certainly ruled a man is part of the parenting process even if all they do is cut a check.
Agreed on the mods being asleep on this. If the board is to change for the better we can't have an issue such as Boehner's resignation being boiled down to "nutters."
Boehner was never cut out for a leadership position in congress. If he had that ability the approval rating of his party and Congress would be higher.
While this is true, it's also in response to a classic red herring -- as I demonstrated above. We -- we being "American society", consisting of males and females -- would never say that a new mother could kill her newborn baby the day it was born.....with or without the consent of the child's father.
In other words, there is some point in time where a child ceases being the dominion of the mother and gains access to social protections independent of her.
The discussion we should be having isn't "Should men have any say in the matter?", but "When does this point occur?"
No, that is a strawman argument. Like I said, start legislating men's bodies in the same manner. See how fast their mind changes to it being their personal choice.
...and women don't need men for sperm anymore, they can make it in a test tube now.
Crazed Hoosier, you can't argue with someone that apparently has no conscience. If IU_Curmudgeon did, this wouldn't be so cut and dry with him basically alluding to "kill the baby no matter what, it's her choice".
I don't normally post because I feel most of the discussions are 'above me', just read, but with his callous responses to the life of a baby inside a mother is appalling to me.
Greg Garrison, the local conservative radio guru, was upset with Boehner resigning on his own. He was upset because the conservatives in the House didn't have the courage to fire him a long time ago.
To Garrison, Boehner is a deal maker (willing to compromise) and not someone who stands for conservative values.
Is the Boehner model the problem, or guys like Garrison?
To Garrison, Boehner is a deal maker (willing to compromise) and not someone who stands for conservative values.
Is the Boehner model the problem, or guys like Garrison?
Yeah, callous, what world is it you live in?
Outside of your opinion of "I think itis wrong." you have no justification for meddling in the lives of others and their belief/faith system that they use for them making a decision in their life.
What a radical idea eh... once upon a time the GOP was all about personal choice. Now they are lemmings willing to plunge off the nearest cliff with the other lemmings. Because that is what lemmings do, surrender themselves to the guidance of others.
I think it mostly comes down to the specifics of the compromises. The problem conservatives have with Boehner and McConnell is not so much that they've made compromises, but that they give up too much and get back too little.
And I'm pretty sympathetic to the argument. They've more or less gotten rolled.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I'm not saying that I disagree with you, but I'm curious to know on which compromises you thought they were "giving too much". Perhaps adding the dimension of "importance" of the bill/agreement.
What are the top 3 or so?
You really don't think the father should have any input on this? None? And that men, by virtue of the fact that they can't get pregnant, should have no say in the abortion debate at all?
No, they didn't jump on a bandwagon that the party idiots are putting together to run roughshod over half the voting public.
Since they didn't, they have been found wanting by the lemming leadership and marked for removal.
This, from a minority within their own party...
Not if that isn't what the woman wants.
She's never had to inform you of it, married or not, it is just typical/normal.
That being said, politics is still the art of the possible -- and I think there are some in this crowd who have expectations that are beyond the realm of the possible. I don't think they're ever likely to be satisfied.
I'm not one of those people, myself. But I don't think there's much of a defense to be made for Boehner beyond "He tried his best." Whoever replaces him (sounds like McCarthy, which I think is a good thing) needs to take a page out of Tip O'Neill's book. O'Neill was a master at compromise. He could be worked with. But he sure as hell made certain that he got plenty of what he wanted out of it as well.
It can't all be a one-way thing.
I presume, if the baby is carried to term, that you believe the biological father should not be obligated in any way financially to care for the child, correct? The child is a product of the woman, and she alone is responsible for its care, feeding, etc. If the mother elects to include the father in the child's life (financially or otherwise), that is her unilateral right, but certainly not her obligation, and the father may participate at the invitation of the mother but, in no case, based on any legal obligation?
Last edited:
The videos of aborted babies kicking their legs and obviously having a heartbeat is the most disgusting thing I have seen. The current record for a baby to survive premature birth is just shy of 22 weeks. One person lied to her doctor because she knew doctors rarely performed lifesaving measures to a baby born less than 24 weeks. Based on other surviving births shy of 22 weeks, I believe that should be the standard of lifesaving measures. Delivery after the 22 week point to me ceases to be an abortion.
I accept that less than the 22 week mark. babies have little chance for survival. Even at 22 weeks, survival is very difficult. Medical science can learn how to treat these premature babies. What if we develop procedures to save babies at 19 weeks? One result is it makes treating infants less premature more successful and perhap will raise the survival rate of all babies.
I am not a doctor. I know from biology classes and that the baby has everything it needs from it's first formed cell to develop into a human. It needs a willing and able host. Artificial wombs have been tested on animals and even human embryos with a legal limit of testing at 14 days. It would seem that some time in the future, these will become operational. Could that become an alternative to abortion? It would be very expensive, especially at first, but if the government supports organizations like Planned Parenthood that abort babies, why not support activities that save babies?
Well, it mostly comes down to funding things. Congress has the power of the purse -- which is the primary source of the legislative branch's power. They never should've funded DACA, for instance. To me, that's the biggest one.
I also think they screwed up with the Corker Amendment. Proposed treaties with foreign powers are supposed to be subject to the advice and consent of 2/3 of the Senate. Instead, Congress willfully flipped that process on its head -- essentially saying that 2/3 of both houses were required to *reject* the deal with Iran. That's a willful abdication of Congress' constitutional role in striking deals with foreign powers -- even if, for whatever reason, we don't formally call it a "treaty."
The deal over ending sequestration -- the "fiscal cliff" saga -- was yet another example.
Let me demonstrate my point using a different example, INRanger.
Back during the Bush years, Senate Democrats (who were in the minority) put the kibosh on a number of Bush judicial nominees using the filibuster. McConnell threatened to use the "nuclear option" -- to strip the rights of the minority from using the filibuster to bottle up some or all presidential nominations. And, if you recall, it was basically portrayed as a crisis....so much so that a "Gang of 14" Senators intervened to prevent the use of a political WMD. They struck a deal, some nominees advanced, others were withdrawn, and -- THANK GOD -- the nuclear crisis was averted.
Fast forward several years. New president, new Senate Majority and Minority. Harry Reid didn't merely threaten to use the nuclear option, he used it. No crisis. No bipartisan "Gang" to save the Senate.
In other words, McConnell brought a knife to a gunfight. And, when he did, he was castigated as a dire threat to world peace. When Reid actually pushed the nuclear button, meh. It came and went.
Back during the Bush years, Senate Democrats (who were in the minority) put the kibosh on a number of Bush judicial nominees using the filibuster. McConnell threatened to use the "nuclear option" -- to strip the rights of the minority from using the filibuster to bottle up some or all presidential nominations. And, if you recall, it was basically portrayed as a crisis....so much so that a "Gang of 14" Senators intervened to prevent the use of a political WMD. They struck a deal, some nominees advanced, others were withdrawn, and -- THANK GOD -- the nuclear crisis was averted.
Fast forward several years. New president, new Senate Majority and Minority. Harry Reid didn't merely threaten to use the nuclear option, he used it. No crisis. No bipartisan "Gang" to save the Senate.
In other words, McConnell brought a knife to a gunfight. And, when he did, he was castigated as a dire threat to world peace. When Reid actually pushed the nuclear button, meh. It came and went.
It's not a treaty. It is an "international agreement other than a treaty" or more commonly called just an executive agreement. They can be a solo agreement without Congressional involvement or with Congressional agreement.
Even in the 19th century, the majority, 54%, of international agreements were of the executive kind according to a University of Michigan study. In the 20th century, that rose to over 90% of the agreements.
Strawmen are great aren't they.
You completely change the scenario and want us to believe your point applies.
A bit different mindset involved isn't it, on both sides of the question in your case.
Sucks to have someone else playing the role of big talk and little stick, huh?
Who here, that's objective, see this as anything but what it is, a whine.
My stances don't change so it doesn't matter if you wait 10 min, 10 hrs or 10 days...
Last edited:
“There are anywhere from two to four dozen members who don’t have an affirmative sense of governance. They can’t get to yes. They just can’t get to yes, and so they undermine the ability of the speaker to lead. And not only do they undermine the ability of the speaker to lead, but they undermine the entire Republican conference and also help to weaken the institution of Congress itself. That’s the reality.
“Now, if we have a new speaker, is there going to be an epiphany? They won’t be happy if it’s Paul Ryan or Kevin McCarthy, who will have to make accommodations with a Democratic president and the Senate constituted the way it is.”
Yep. Tea Party hardliners are domestic isolationists . . . and are unfit to govern.
Not sure how you think it works, but women most certainly need men for sperm, regardless of where fertilization takes place.
And here I thought Curmudgeon was you trying to give liberals a bad name; your posting styles are virtually indistinguishable.
And here I thought Curmudgeon was you trying to give liberals a bad name; your posting styles are virtually indistinguishable.
On my short hiatus, here recently, I saw others speculate that I was someone else here.
I've only have one account here, I've only ever had one account here.
