Viagra for sex offenders....

#6
#6
Hurr, derp, derp, derp.

They're trying to create situations to make the Dems look bad for voting against them. Straight up political maneuver. Obstruction. Delay tactic.

If this was such a hot issue for them, why did the Republicans not address it before now? Why was there never a bill to do this before now?

In fact, I expect the Republican party to immediately draft a stand alone bill to do this.
 
#7
#7
VolInMn said:
Hurr, derp, derp, derp.

They're trying to create situations to make the Dems look bad for voting against them. Straight up political maneuver. Obstruction. Delay tactic.

If this was such a hot issue for them, why did the Republicans not address it before now? Why was there never a bill to do this before now?

In fact, I expect the Republican party to immediately draft a stand alone bill to do this.
Click to expand...

Could it be that since no one else had a chance to READ the bill, that they have just found it in the last few days???
 
#8
#8
Pelosi said the bill needed to be passed so we could find out all the good things that was in it.

Where have ya'll been?
 
#9
#9
Oldvol75 said:
Could it be that since no one else had a chance to READ the bill, that they have just found it in the last few days???
Click to expand...

There was nothing ever in the bill that changed anything and said "give Viagra to sex offenders".

What the Republicans wanted was a specific statement to ban Medicare payments to cover Viagra for sex offenders. It has nothing to do with the original bill.

If the Republicans are whiskey bent and hell bound for a law that says that sex offenders can't use Medicare for Viagra, they should have submitted a bill to that effect way before now.

It's political grandstanding so they can go into November and say "Look! The Democrats wouldn't even vote to ban Viagra for sex offenders!!!!"

It's pathetic, shallow and transparent.
 
#10
#10
VolInMn said:
There was nothing ever in the bill that changed anything and said "give Viagra to sex offenders".

What the Republicans wanted was a specific statement to ban Medicare payments to cover Viagra for sex offenders. It has nothing to do with the original bill.

If the Republicans are whiskey bent and hell bound for a law that says that sex offenders can't use Medicare for Viagra, they should have submitted a bill to that effect way before now.

It's political grandstanding so they can go into November and say "Look! The Democrats wouldn't even vote to ban Viagra for sex offenders!!!!"

It's pathetic, shallow and transparent.
Click to expand...

umm this was a fix it bill. You know a reform bill on a one day old health care reform bill. The purpose was to fix things that people didn't like in the original bill. Whats crazy is this isn't even a controversial issue. Its not like the proposed amendment was to throw away the previous bill, but it was a common sense straightforward proposal.
 
#14
#14
Give them all the viagra they need.

But the package deal has to include hard grain sandpaper.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#15
#15
What if a sex offender loses his job? How's he supposed to get a stiffy pill?

Boners are a right you heartless bastages.
 
#16
#16
lumberjack4 said:
umm this was a fix it bill. You know a reform bill on a one day old health care reform bill. The purpose was to fix things that people didn't like in the original bill. Whats crazy is this isn't even a controversial issue. Its not like the proposed amendment was to throw away the previous bill, but it was a common sense straightforward proposal.
Click to expand...

So the Republicans wanted to "fix" the fact that the bill didn't explicitly say "no Viagra for sex offenders"? You reckon they just thought of that three days ago? One would think they would have brought this up weeks ago, huh?

As I said, since they failed to hold up the process with this "fix", I'll be looking for a stand alone bill from the Republicans to that effect. After all, if it's an important issue, it's certainly worth a bill of it's own.
 
#17
#17
I think it is ridiculous to bash someone who wants the House vote to stand for voting against this amendment. This is pure political maneuvering and we should expect nothing more out of a politician than a political vote on it.
 
#18
#18
The French solution.

LOL at the two by four remark about Pelosi.

One of the things I will never forget; when the 'pedophile protection act' was inserted (that should be illegal although it is common practice in Washington) into last year's defense bill, senator Grasslely attempted to add an amendment to that amendment that the pedophile protection act that protected all sorts of perverts and also muslims or islamic doctrine, not be construed to prevent first amendment rights, which would have caused the democrats to withdraw the bill, but six republicans registered a no vote which effectivly killed the Grassley amendment.

Any one of those votes expressed as yeas would have caused the Grassley amendment to pass.

Two of those six were Alexander and Corker.
 
#20
#20
I didn't word my above post all that well.

I didn't mean to imply Alexander and Corker voted against the Grassley amendment that would clarify that hate crimes prosecutions wouldn't infringe on first amendment rights.

They just didn't register a vote at all, if either had voted for it, the democrats would have withdrawn the hate crimes amendment aka pedophile protection act altogether.

Just one more aye vote and we could be sure to avoid idiocy such as the Geert Wilders trial, at least for a while.

Why hasn't the media covered it???

Free speech on trial.
 
#22
#22
Hormones anyone????

If the ruling stands, taxpayers will likely be required to pay the inmates' legal fees, which (ACommieLU lawyer) Dupuis called substantial.
Click to expand...

Presiding judge:


Clevert, Charles N. Jr.
Born 1947 in Richmond, VA

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
Nominated by William J. Clinton on December 7, 1995, to a seat vacated by Terence T. Evans; Confirmed by the Senate on July 17, 1996, and received commission on July 29, 1996. Served as chief judge, 2009-present.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 1977-1995
Chief judge, 1986-1995


Education:
Davis and Elkins College, B.A., 1969
Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1972

Professional Career:
Assistant district attorney, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, 1972-1975
Assistant U.S. attorney, Eastern District of Wisconsin, 1975-1977
Special assistant U.S. attorney, Northern District of Illinois, 1977
Lecturer, University of Wisconsin Law School, 1989-1990

Race or Ethnicity: African American

Gender: Male
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top