For all the MAGAt Trumpeteers and Lie-brul commies to post their wearisome screeds.
The board admins are not responsible for any items posted from Biker's FaceBook feed.
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 2:07 am
I honestly don't know which is why I said "if" in my original comment. If not that, what is his reasoning?
Wimbledon.
actually, his reasoning is abortion. He is very much opposed to a rule that the military put into place after that Rowe decision. The military now grants leave and pays a service member to travel out of state to get an abortion if they are stationed in a state that has laws against it. Alabama is one of those states and Tubberville is from Alabama. He thinks that rule violates the Hyde Amendment that bans federal funding for abortions. He thinks the tax payers should not be on the hook to fund any of this.
It would seems that a simple solution would be to put a non profit in place that picked up the slack and funding these things and ended this whole matter, but I guess no one is looking for a solution. So the non issue of approving military appointments waits for the abortion point to get made.
And, of course, this whole issue of why one person can create so much havoc, is because the Senate has an age old rule that they require "unanimous consent" for much of what they do. And (hopefully) they are not going to change that just because of this one issue.
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 2:07 am
I honestly don't know which is why I said "if" in my original comment. If not that, what is his reasoning?
Wimbledon.
actually, his reasoning is abortion. He is very much opposed to a rule that the military put into place after that Rowe decision. The military now grants leave and pays a service member to travel out of state to get an abortion if they are stationed in a state that has laws against it. Alabama is one of those states and Tubberville is from Alabama. He thinks that rule violates the Hyde Amendment that bans federal funding for abortions. He thinks the tax payers should not be on the hook to fund any of this.
It would seems that a simple solution would be to put a non profit in place that picked up the slack and funding these things and ended this whole matter, but I guess no one is looking for a solution. So the non issue of approving military appointments waits for the abortion point to get made.
And, of course, this whole issue of why one person can create so much havoc, is because the Senate has an age old rule that they require "unanimous consent" for much of what they do. And (hopefully) they are not going to change that just because of this one issue.
So, this action by Tuberville. Would say that it's popular within the military?
Because, when I want someone to have the decision making power of the US Military, I think of a disgraced college football coach that was paid a $5m buyout?
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 2:07 am
I honestly don't know which is why I said "if" in my original comment. If not that, what is his reasoning?
Wimbledon.
actually, his reasoning is abortion. He is very much opposed to a rule that the military put into place after that Rowe decision. The military now grants leave and pays a service member to travel out of state to get an abortion if they are stationed in a state that has laws against it. Alabama is one of those states and Tubberville is from Alabama. He thinks that rule violates the Hyde Amendment that bans federal funding for abortions. He thinks the tax payers should not be on the hook to fund any of this.
It would seems that a simple solution would be to put a non profit in place that picked up the slack and funding these things and ended this whole matter, but I guess no one is looking for a solution. So the non issue of approving military appointments waits for the abortion point to get made.
And, of course, this whole issue of why one person can create so much havoc, is because the Senate has an age old rule that they require "unanimous consent" for much of what they do. And (hopefully) they are not going to change that just because of this one issue.
So, this action by Tuberville. Would say that it's popular within the military?
Because, when I want someone to have the decision making power of the US Military, I think of a disgraced college football coach that was paid a $5m buyout?
I honestly don't think he gives a fuck if its popular within the military. It seems that he is more concerned about the laws that are in place to protect the tax payers and how money is spent. Its either legal for the federal government to fund abortions or it isn't. right?
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 2:07 am
I honestly don't know which is why I said "if" in my original comment. If not that, what is his reasoning?
Wimbledon.
actually, his reasoning is abortion. He is very much opposed to a rule that the military put into place after that Rowe decision. The military now grants leave and pays a service member to travel out of state to get an abortion if they are stationed in a state that has laws against it. Alabama is one of those states and Tubberville is from Alabama. He thinks that rule violates the Hyde Amendment that bans federal funding for abortions. He thinks the tax payers should not be on the hook to fund any of this.
It would seems that a simple solution would be to put a non profit in place that picked up the slack and funding these things and ended this whole matter, but I guess no one is looking for a solution. So the non issue of approving military appointments waits for the abortion point to get made.
And, of course, this whole issue of why one person can create so much havoc, is because the Senate has an age old rule that they require "unanimous consent" for much of what they do. And (hopefully) they are not going to change that just because of this one issue.
So, this action by Tuberville. Would say that it's popular within the military?
Because, when I want someone to have the decision making power of the US Military, I think of a disgraced college football coach that was paid a $5m buyout?
I honestly don't think he gives a fuck if its popular within the military. It seems that he is more concerned about the laws that are in place to protect the tax payers and how money is spent. Its either legal for the federal government to fund abortions or it isn't. right?
"protecting tax payers"?
This is the US Military. That's never been an issue before!
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 2:07 am
I honestly don't know which is why I said "if" in my original comment. If not that, what is his reasoning?
Wimbledon.
actually, his reasoning is abortion. He is very much opposed to a rule that the military put into place after that Rowe decision. The military now grants leave and pays a service member to travel out of state to get an abortion if they are stationed in a state that has laws against it. Alabama is one of those states and Tubberville is from Alabama. He thinks that rule violates the Hyde Amendment that bans federal funding for abortions. He thinks the tax payers should not be on the hook to fund any of this.
It would seems that a simple solution would be to put a non profit in place that picked up the slack and funding these things and ended this whole matter, but I guess no one is looking for a solution. So the non issue of approving military appointments waits for the abortion point to get made.
And, of course, this whole issue of why one person can create so much havoc, is because the Senate has an age old rule that they require "unanimous consent" for much of what they do. And (hopefully) they are not going to change that just because of this one issue.
So, this action by Tuberville. Would say that it's popular within the military?
Because, when I want someone to have the decision making power of the US Military, I think of a disgraced college football coach that was paid a $5m buyout?
I honestly don't think he gives a fuck if its popular within the military. It seems that he is more concerned about the laws that are in place to protect the tax payers and how money is spent. Its either legal for the federal government to fund abortions or it isn't. right?
"protecting tax payers"?
This is the US Military. That's never been an issue before!
some people think abortion is murder and they don't want their tax dollars paying for it. so they elect people like Tubberville to help make sure that doesn't happen.
CHEEZY17 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 2:07 am
I honestly don't know which is why I said "if" in my original comment. If not that, what is his reasoning?
Wimbledon.
actually, his reasoning is abortion. He is very much opposed to a rule that the military put into place after that Rowe decision. The military now grants leave and pays a service member to travel out of state to get an abortion if they are stationed in a state that has laws against it. Alabama is one of those states and Tubberville is from Alabama. He thinks that rule violates the Hyde Amendment that bans federal funding for abortions. He thinks the tax payers should not be on the hook to fund any of this.
It would seems that a simple solution would be to put a non profit in place that picked up the slack and funding these things and ended this whole matter, but I guess no one is looking for a solution. So the non issue of approving military appointments waits for the abortion point to get made.
And, of course, this whole issue of why one person can create so much havoc, is because the Senate has an age old rule that they require "unanimous consent" for much of what they do. And (hopefully) they are not going to change that just because of this one issue.
So, this action by Tuberville. Would say that it's popular within the military?
Because, when I want someone to have the decision making power of the US Military, I think of a disgraced college football coach that was paid a $5m buyout?
I honestly don't think he gives a fuck if its popular within the military. It seems that he is more concerned about the laws that are in place to protect the tax payers and how money is spent. Its either legal for the federal government to fund abortions or it isn't. right?
"protecting tax payers"?
This is the US Military. That's never been an issue before!
some people think abortion is murder and they don't want their tax dollars paying for it. so they elect people like Tubberville to help make sure that doesn't happen.
Many women see abortion as a form of health care.
You must be amused by stories of pregnant women with complications during pregnancy and are forced to give birth to a dead fetus.
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
actually, his reasoning is abortion. He is very much opposed to a rule that the military put into place after that Rowe decision. The military now grants leave and pays a service member to travel out of state to get an abortion if they are stationed in a state that has laws against it. Alabama is one of those states and Tubberville is from Alabama. He thinks that rule violates the Hyde Amendment that bans federal funding for abortions. He thinks the tax payers should not be on the hook to fund any of this.
It would seems that a simple solution would be to put a non profit in place that picked up the slack and funding these things and ended this whole matter, but I guess no one is looking for a solution. So the non issue of approving military appointments waits for the abortion point to get made.
And, of course, this whole issue of why one person can create so much havoc, is because the Senate has an age old rule that they require "unanimous consent" for much of what they do. And (hopefully) they are not going to change that just because of this one issue.
So, this action by Tuberville. Would say that it's popular within the military?
Because, when I want someone to have the decision making power of the US Military, I think of a disgraced college football coach that was paid a $5m buyout?
I honestly don't think he gives a fuck if its popular within the military. It seems that he is more concerned about the laws that are in place to protect the tax payers and how money is spent. Its either legal for the federal government to fund abortions or it isn't. right?
"protecting tax payers"?
This is the US Military. That's never been an issue before!
some people think abortion is murder and they don't want their tax dollars paying for it. so they elect people like Tubberville to help make sure that doesn't happen.
Many women see abortion as a form of health care.
You must be amused by stories of pregnant women with complications during pregnancy and are forced to give birth to a dead fetus.
unlike you, i don't really have an opinion on it. if it was left up to me i would make abortions legal. i'm just pointing out Tubberville's reasoning.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 3:51 pm
unlike you, i don't really have an opinion on it. if it was left up to me i would make abortions legal. i'm just pointing out Tubberville's reasoning.
His reasoning is flawed on multiple levels. Abortion is not outlawed everywhere, only in backwards thinking areas. Service members don't get to pick their deployments. If they need the care, and their deployment is in said backwards thinking area, that's not on the service members and they should not be punished for it. I look at it from the broad scope of their anti abortion goal as well, to banning it outright, because it puts the full push of what they're doing in perspective. Banning abortion, then charging people that assist people to get to abortion care where it is legal, it's reprehensible to do. As Salty pointed out, the taxpayers money excuse doesn't hold water either when floated against the sheer bloat of other funding that's never accountable for the military.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 3:51 pm
unlike you, i don't really have an opinion on it. if it was left up to me i would make abortions legal. i'm just pointing out Tubberville's reasoning.
His reasoning is flawed on multiple levels. Abortion is not outlawed everywhere, only in backwards thinking areas. Service members don't get to pick their deployments. If they need the care, and their deployment is in said backwards thinking area, that's not on the service members and they should not be punished for it. I look at it from the broad scope of their anti abortion goal as well, to banning it outright, because it puts the full push of what they're doing in perspective. Banning abortion, then charging people that assist people to get to abortion care where it is legal, it's reprehensible to do. As Salty pointed out, the taxpayers money excuse doesn't hold water either when floated against the sheer bloat of other funding that's never accountable for the military.
then i suggest you get the law repealed that says that the federal government can't pay for abortions. that shouldn't take long and that would clear up this whole thing. Thanks.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 9:11 pm
then i suggest you get the law repealed that says that the federal government can't pay for abortions. that shouldn't take long and that would clear up this whole thing. Thanks.
Animal wrote: ↑Tue Sep 19, 2023 9:11 pm
then i suggest you get the law repealed that says that the federal government can't pay for abortions. that shouldn't take long and that would clear up this whole thing. Thanks.
They aren't. There, cleared up.
The Hyde Amendment and Coverage for Abortion Services
Since the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, abortion has been squarely in the middle of political debates at the national and state levels. Soon after the Court’s ruling, Congress enacted the Hyde Amendment, which blocks federal funds from being used to pay for abortion outside of the exceptions for rape, incest, or if the pregnancy is determined to endanger the woman’s life, resulting in dramatically limited coverage of abortion under Medicaid and other federal programs.1 Since it was first enacted over 40 years ago, the amendment has been sponsored and supported by legislators who oppose abortion and, in particular, object to the federal government’s use of taxpayer money for abortion services. The policy is not a permanent law, but rather has been attached as a temporary “rider” to the Congressional appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and has been renewed annually by Congress. While abortion policy has been a hotly contested issue in most presidential elections, the Hyde Amendment was not the focus of these debates.
Frowny face Brennan and Clapper are the definition of "Deep State". And the Deep State takes care of its own. Its not a surprise they would get a cushy paycheck here.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Frowny face Brennan and Clapper are the definition of "Deep State". And the Deep State takes care of its own. Its not a surprise they would get a cushy paycheck here.
Ah yes. The "Deep State". How convenient.
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
Frowny face Brennan and Clapper are the definition of "Deep State". And the Deep State takes care of its own. Its not a surprise they would get a cushy paycheck here.
Ah yes. The "Deep State". How convenient.
Let me guess: The "Deep State" is another thing you think is fake? Do you even know what is meant by "Deep State"?
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Frowny face Brennan and Clapper are the definition of "Deep State". And the Deep State takes care of its own. Its not a surprise they would get a cushy paycheck here.
Ah yes. The "Deep State". How convenient.
Let me guess: The "Deep State" is another thing you think is fake? Do you even know what is meant by "Deep State"?
Please, educate the class
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
Frowny face Brennan and Clapper are the definition of "Deep State". And the Deep State takes care of its own. Its not a surprise they would get a cushy paycheck here.
Ah yes. The "Deep State". How convenient.
Let me guess: The "Deep State" is another thing you think is fake? Do you even know what is meant by "Deep State"?
In essence the Deep State is/are unelected bureaucrats and government types that often operate on their own accord and usually in pursuit of their own agenda which may or may not occasionally line up with the elected Government in power. To simplify it further for you: it is the worst elements of the unelected Washington Bureaucracy.
Last edited by CHEEZY17 on Thu Sep 21, 2023 8:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Frowny face Brennan and Clapper are the definition of "Deep State". And the Deep State takes care of its own. Its not a surprise they would get a cushy paycheck here.
Ah yes. The "Deep State". How convenient.
Let me guess: The "Deep State" is another thing you think is fake? Do you even know what is meant by "Deep State"?
In essence the Deep State is/are unelected bureaucrats and government types that often operate on their own accord and usually in pursuit of their own agenda which may or may not occasionally line up with the elected Government in power. To simplify it further for you: it is the worst elements of the unelected Washington Bureaucracy.
So, like Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers?
The problem is not that there is evil in the world, the problem is that there is good. Because otherwise, who would care?
Frowny face Brennan and Clapper are the definition of "Deep State". And the Deep State takes care of its own. Its not a surprise they would get a cushy paycheck here.
Ah yes. The "Deep State". How convenient.
Let me guess: The "Deep State" is another thing you think is fake? Do you even know what is meant by "Deep State"?
In essence the Deep State is/are unelected bureaucrats and government types that often operate on their own accord and usually in pursuit of their own agenda which may or may not occasionally line up with the elected Government in power. To simplify it further for you: it is the worst elements of the unelected Washington Bureaucracy.
So, like Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers?
No. Murdoch and the Koch brothers are not Deep State. Neither is George Soros.
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Frowny face Brennan and Clapper are the definition of "Deep State". And the Deep State takes care of its own. Its not a surprise they would get a cushy paycheck here.
Ah yes. The "Deep State". How convenient.
Let me guess: The "Deep State" is another thing you think is fake? Do you even know what is meant by "Deep State"?
In essence the Deep State is/are unelected bureaucrats and government types that often operate on their own accord and usually in pursuit of their own agenda which may or may not occasionally line up with the elected Government in power. To simplify it further for you: it is the worst elements of the unelected Washington Bureaucracy.
So, like Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers?
sort of. but its more like the people that fill out Brandon's note cards and tell him what he can and can't talk about and who he can ask questions from, etc.
