WWTBAM Bored

Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania: Pro-choice for himself and his girlfriend, anti-choice for the rest of us.

And based on the rest of this story (which includes a memo by his Chief of Staff) he seems like a prince of a guy in other ways as well. --Bob

We could fill the Bored's page up with these headlines.

BackInTex wrote:We could fill the Bored's page up with these headlines.

Don't we already?

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:We could fill the Bored's page up with these headlines.

Don't we already?

Only when the show goes into reruns and we don't get the Transcript posts.

He's decided not to run for re-election. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:He's decided not to run for re-election. --Bob

Maybe Jon Ossoff will run for his seat.

He's out. No word yet on when the special election to replace him will be held. --Bob

Anymore news on the hypocrit front we should know about ?

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Anymore news on the hypocrit front we should know about ?

I don't think Bob has enough hours in his day to update all the Republican hypocrisy stories.

silverscreenselect wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Anymore news on the hypocrit front we should know about ?

I don't think Bob has enough hours in his day to update all the Republican hypocrisy stories.

I have one word to say about that.....Harvey Weinstein.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:Anymore news on the hypocrit front we should know about ?

I don't think Bob has enough hours in his day to update all the Republican hypocrisy stories.

I have one word to say about that.....Harvey Weinstein.

Is he running for office? If so, he should immediately withdraw. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you'd like us to do about him. --Bob

Actually, I believe it's YOU who are (or is it 'is') the hypocrite. You, by posting about Tim Murphy, have decided to only highlight the hypocrisy of people of a specific political bent. Where is your outrage over the hypocrisy of those who share your political persuasion? Where are your posts about them? There are plenty of them. Are they any less hypocritical than Mr. Murphy?

Washington is chock full of hypocrites and worse. And they come from all political parties. Why bother to single out one? (Just a rhetorical question, we all know why.)

And I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to give these hypocrites more power than they've already taken over anything that affects our lives.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Actually, I believe it's YOU who are (or is it 'is') the hypocrite. You, by posting about Tim Murphy, have decided to only highlight the hypocrisy of people of a specific political bent. Where is your outrage over the hypocrisy of those who share your political persuasion? Where are your posts about them? There are plenty of them. Are they any less hypocritical than Mr. Murphy?

Washington is chock full of hypocrites and worse. And they come from all political parties. Why bother to single out one? (Just a rhetorical question, we all know why.)

And I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to give these hypocrites more power than they've already taken over anything that affects our lives.

You'd be mistaken about that. The problem you have is that Democrats typically won't put these hypocrites in power in the first place.

If I'd made a big deal about people like Roger Ailes, then you'd have a point. But I haven't done that, precisely because he's always been a private citizen.

As for power over our lives, one lunatic in Las Vegas exercised considerable power over hundreds of lives directly, and probably thousands indirectly. I have no problem at all with politicians giving our police more reasonable tools to protect us from such threats. --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Actually, I believe it's YOU who are (or is it 'is') the hypocrite. You, by posting about Tim Murphy, have decided to only highlight the hypocrisy of people of a specific political bent. Where is your outrage over the hypocrisy of those who share your political persuasion? Where are your posts about them? There are plenty of them. Are they any less hypocritical than Mr. Murphy?

Washington is chock full of hypocrites and worse. And they come from all political parties. Why bother to single out one? (Just a rhetorical question, we all know why.)

And I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to give these hypocrites more power than they've already taken over anything that affects our lives.

As far as I can tell, our own offenders get equal time:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=50304
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=52290
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12681

Our broken political system still manages to give the worst of the hypocrites the boot.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Actually, I believe it's YOU who are (or is it 'is') the hypocrite. You, by posting about Tim Murphy, have decided to only highlight the hypocrisy of people of a specific political bent. Where is your outrage over the hypocrisy of those who share your political persuasion? Where are your posts about them? There are plenty of them. Are they any less hypocritical than Mr. Murphy?

Assuming that Harvey Weinstein donated or supported women's issues (which I'm guessing he probably did), then yes, he is a hypocrite, and he's been condemned by a lot of Democratic officeholders, some of whom have already returned his campaign contributions.

But, as Bob pointed out, Harvey's not in Washington voting on laws this very week to strengthen abortion restrictions while, at the same time, making it very clear in private that he had no intention of abiding by those restrictions if and when they affected his own life. And that's a far more dangerous form of hypocrisy.

And by the way Flock, where is your outrage that Congress is voting on abortion restrictions when you have lectured us over and over again that matters such as gay marriage should be left up to the states? Or does your outrage only extend to one side of the political spectrum as well?

Does no one see the insipid nature of this original post?

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Actually, I believe it's YOU who are (or is it 'is') the hypocrite. You, by posting about Tim Murphy, have decided to only highlight the hypocrisy of people of a specific political bent. Where is your outrage over the hypocrisy of those who share your political persuasion? Where are your posts about them? There are plenty of them. Are they any less hypocritical than Mr. Murphy?

Assuming that Harvey Weinstein donated or supported women's issues (which I'm guessing he probably did), then yes, he is a hypocrite, and he's been condemned by a lot of Democratic officeholders, some of whom have already returned his campaign contributions.

But, as Bob pointed out, Harvey's not in Washington voting on laws this very week to strengthen abortion restrictions while, at the same time, making it very clear in private that he had no intention of abiding by those restrictions if and when they affected his own life. And that's a far more dangerous form of hypocrisy.

And by the way Flock, where is your outrage that Congress is voting on abortion restrictions when you have lectured us over and over again that matters such as gay marriage should be left up to the states? Or does your outrage only extend to one side of the political spectrum as well?

I am not aware that Congress is voting on abortion restrictions. I'll look it up. I do think it's wrong that taxpayer money is used for abortions.
However, I very rarely start a thread like this. I respond to the propagandists on this bored. If I was to post every time Washington does something that outrages me, that's all I'd be doing.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Actually, I believe it's YOU who are (or is it 'is') the hypocrite. You, by posting about Tim Murphy, have decided to only highlight the hypocrisy of people of a specific political bent. Where is your outrage over the hypocrisy of those who share your political persuasion? Where are your posts about them? There are plenty of them. Are they any less hypocritical than Mr. Murphy?

Assuming that Harvey Weinstein donated or supported women's issues (which I'm guessing he probably did), then yes, he is a hypocrite, and he's been condemned by a lot of Democratic officeholders, some of whom have already returned his campaign contributions.

But, as Bob pointed out, Harvey's not in Washington voting on laws this very week to strengthen abortion restrictions while, at the same time, making it very clear in private that he had no intention of abiding by those restrictions if and when they affected his own life. And that's a far more dangerous form of hypocrisy.

And by the way Flock, where is your outrage that Congress is voting on abortion restrictions when you have lectured us over and over again that matters such as gay marriage should be left up to the states? Or does your outrage only extend to one side of the political spectrum as well?

I am not aware that Congress is voting on abortion restrictions. I'll look it up. I do think it's wrong that taxpayer money is used for abortions.
However, I very rarely start a thread like this. I respond to the propagandists on this bored. If I was to post every time Washington does something that outrages me, that's all I'd be doing.

Check the last paragraph of the story I linked in the original post in this thread. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
Assuming that Harvey Weinstein donated or supported women's issues (which I'm guessing he probably did), then yes, he is a hypocrite, and he's been condemned by a lot of Democratic officeholders, some of whom have already returned his campaign contributions.

But, as Bob pointed out, Harvey's not in Washington voting on laws this very week to strengthen abortion restrictions while, at the same time, making it very clear in private that he had no intention of abiding by those restrictions if and when they affected his own life. And that's a far more dangerous form of hypocrisy.

And by the way Flock, where is your outrage that Congress is voting on abortion restrictions when you have lectured us over and over again that matters such as gay marriage should be left up to the states? Or does your outrage only extend to one side of the political spectrum as well?

I am not aware that Congress is voting on abortion restrictions. I'll look it up. I do think it's wrong that taxpayer money is used for abortions.
However, I very rarely start a thread like this. I respond to the propagandists on this bored. If I was to post every time Washington does something that outrages me, that's all I'd be doing.

Check the last paragraph of the story I linked in the original post in this thread. --Bob

Let me ask you this, bob. Is murder a federal crime, or only a state crime? Or both?

Apparently, murders are usually under the jurisdiction of the state in which it was committed. There are several circumstances where it becomes a federal crime, such as murder related to drug trafficking, bank robbery and several others, including Murder Related to Rape, Child Molestation, and Sexual Exploitation of Children.

I would guess this bill is attempting to add the abortion of an unborn child more than 4 months old or so to the federal statutes. I would think that going through the legislative process is the correct way to do this, rather than have the President sign an executive order on an issue of this magnitude. But I doubt it will pass either the House or the Senate. And, of course, anyone who supports it will be vilified by liberals and the MSM.

What is wrong with introducing this bill and debating it? Can we not have a discussion on the morality of aborting unborn children? Or is that out of the question? As I understand it, the bill has exceptions to protect the life of the mother and in the case of rape.

As per Mr. Murphy, I agree he is a hypocrite. If we want to be Clinton-esque, we could ask whether his girlfriend was less than 4 months pregnant.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I would guess this bill is attempting to add the abortion of an unborn child more than 4 months old or so to the federal statutes. I would think that going through the legislative process is the correct way to do this, rather than have the President sign an executive order on an issue of this magnitude. But I doubt it will pass either the House or the Senate. And, of course, anyone who supports it will be vilified by liberals and the MSM.

Murder has nothing to do with anything. This is the exercise of a constitutional right. And your guess is wrong. It has already passed the House. Again, read the story I linked in the original post. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I would guess this bill is attempting to add the abortion of an unborn child more than 4 months old or so to the federal statutes. I would think that going through the legislative process is the correct way to do this, rather than have the President sign an executive order on an issue of this magnitude. But I doubt it will pass either the House or the Senate. And, of course, anyone who supports it will be vilified by liberals and the MSM.

Murder has nothing to do with anything. This is the exercise of a constitutional right. And your guess is wrong. It has already passed the House. Again, read the story I linked in the original post. --Bob

What Constitutional "Right" are you referring to?

Never mind. No discussion with people like you is possible.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:I would guess this bill is attempting to add the abortion of an unborn child more than 4 months old or so to the federal statutes. I would think that going through the legislative process is the correct way to do this, rather than have the President sign an executive order on an issue of this magnitude. But I doubt it will pass either the House or the Senate. And, of course, anyone who supports it will be vilified by liberals and the MSM.

Murder has nothing to do with anything. This is the exercise of a constitutional right. And your guess is wrong. It has already passed the House. Again, read the story I linked in the original post. --Bob

What Constitutional "Right" are you referring to?

Never mind. No discussion with people like you is possible.

The right whose existence was acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. You remember the Court, right? It's the institution designated by the Constitution itself to tell us what it means in case of disputes.

The Court spoke on this subject more than 40 years ago. I get that you don't like what the Court had to say, but the very point of constitutional rights is that the majority doesn't get to take them away just because they're the majority. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Murder has nothing to do with anything. This is the exercise of a constitutional right. And your guess is wrong. It has already passed the House. Again, read the story I linked in the original post. --Bob

What Constitutional "Right" are you referring to?

Never mind. No discussion with people like you is possible.

The right whose existence was acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. You remember the Court, right? It's the institution designated by the Constitution itself to tell us what it means in case of disputes.

The Court spoke on this subject more than 40 years ago. I get that you don't like what the Court had to say, but the very point of constitutional rights is that the majority doesn't get to take them away just because they're the majority. --Bob

I thought the Constitution was a living document, right, bob? Not that this is a matter having to do with the Constitution. I believe this is a matter of amending the US Code, not the Constitution. That is the purpose of the Congress, is it not? It is defining a specific medical procedure as illegal. It restricts doctors from performing a procedure that kills an unborn baby after a certain defined point and does not penalize the mother while also including specified exceptions. That sounds like a reasonable compromise between the pro-lifers and the pro-abortion people, if either side will allow for compromise. Let's debate that in reasoned terms and leave political correctness out of it.

I find it ironic that you bring up the notion that rights cannot be taken away by a majority just because they're the majority in light of all the things that Obama decided to do with a phone and a pen. I said at the time people like you would regret the precedent he set. At least they're trying to do it the correct way.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Not that this is a matter having to do with the Constitution. I believe this is a matter of amending the US Code, not the Constitution. That is the purpose of the Congress, is it not?

Let me see if I have your thinking straight Flock. It's the purpose of Congress to make laws that legislate morality in ways that suit you (or your handlers Hannity and Limbaugh), but if you don't like the decisions the Federal government makes, then it should be left to the states.

Your views of federalism and state's rights seem to be very flexible.