When does a difference that makes no difference, a difference?

There is currently a sex trafficking bill in the Senate. It is designed to give the feds the tools it needs to combat Chinese and Central American sex trafficking. It was passed out of committee and looked like a smooth non partisan passage into law until some democrats saw an amendment reiterating the same federal law that has been on the books for 20 years. No federal funding for abortions! So, an amendment that only restates current law is handicapping the democrats into voting for a bill that they did say was absolutely necessary.

So once again, if this bill is so important then why are the democrats suddenly shy? Politics...pure and simple. They'd rather miss an opportunity to help people (women, children) than to score political points. Whether they admit it or not the democrats are afraid that some of their supporters will go ballistic to hear that their reps voted against abortion.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...women-senators

What does a prohibition of using Federal funds to perform abortions have to do with sex trafficking? On the other hand:

Now if there is a prohibition against the Feds funding abortions for victims of sex trafficking (the imported whores) that ought to be re-visited, because if these imported whores get pregnant while plying their slave-trade obligations to avoid being killed, or worse mutilated, then it might be less of a burden on the Feds to extract the fetus now than to pay for the next 40-50 years benefits and assistance to another unwanted citizen who was born in the U.S.A. by a foreign parent, who can now also seek citizenship because of the unwanted child, who she couldn't afford to abort, but the Feds refused to cough up a couple of hundred bucks to save 100's of $1,000's for the next 50 years. But let's spell it "p..r..i..n..c..i...p...l. ..e" AND NOT "p..r..i..n..c..i..p..a..l"!!! !!

If the Republicans stuck that nearsighted bullshit in there, the Republicans own it.

Actually the GOP has a bill in the works to do away with instant citizenship. I agree that any child born in this country should have at least one US citizen for a parent or someone in the process of getting citizenship. Do away with anchor babies! Not so short sighted are they?

There is currently a sex trafficking bill in the Senate. It is designed to give the feds the tools it needs to combat Chinese and Central American sex trafficking. It was passed out of committee and looked like a smooth non partisan passage into law until some democrats saw an amendment reiterating the same federal law that has been on the books for 20 years. No federal funding for abortions! So, an amendment that only restates current law is handicapping the democrats into voting for a bill that they did say was absolutely necessary.

So once again, if this bill is so important then why are the democrats suddenly shy? Politics...pure and simple. They'd rather miss an opportunity to help people (women, children) than to score political points. Whether they admit it or not the democrats are afraid that some of their supporters will go ballistic to hear that their reps voted against abortion.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...women-senators Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

If it's reiterating existing federal law, then why not just take it out? Why would repetitive legislation be included in a new bill?

I know the answer admiral....do you?

Not so short sighted are they? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Actually, they are, if what is stated holds true. The problem with dropping your pants to fuck someone is your ass is exposed. For what purpose? Just to show their asses? Or is it more correct to say: Just to show they're asses. Sex Trafficking. That's all. These people on both sides of the aisle are playing "Gotcha" on the taxpayers' dime and time, like it is some posting blog congested with a bunch of teenagers trying to "one up" each other. Do the people's business or go home.

Except it was the democrats who said that this bill was soooo important and they passed it out of committee. So who is playing politics? The democrats who suddenly find that they can't vote for what they already approved of. Kind of like the girl who says NO when you just put the head inside. WTF?

Kind of like the girl who says NO when you just put the head inside. WTF? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Not at all.

Are you suggesting the amendment was attached when the committee voted it out?

And if so, can you provide a link to the version voted out of committee with the amendment.

In this case, using your example, the girl hadn't seen the canker sores until the head was in.

Except it was the democrats who said that this bill was soooo important and they passed it out of committee. So who is playing politics? The democrats who suddenly find that they can't vote for what they already approved of. Kind of like the girl who says NO when you just put the head inside. WTF? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Did you ever stop to think that maybe things were added to the bill that they didn't like?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe things were added to the bill that they didn't like? Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Like that NEVER happens!

At least the "headline writers" on the forum have something else to squeal about!

HINT: These are the guys who sound like the "troubleshooting" tab on an online guide to Freudian theory.

It was in the bill two months ago.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/03/1...pass/21153085/

What they said about the bill last week (Amy Klobuchar)

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/09/opinio...afficking-law/

Another democrat praises the bill (Carolyn Maloney)

http://poe.house.gov/2015/1/poe-malo...rafficking-act

The bill is HR 181, there are five versions of it, it has passed the House

Have to make an appointment so don't have the time right now to look further.

JDB

Give them a break and cut them a little slack. You know they don't read bills before voting.

They wait until after to see what's in them....you know. If "it works." If the Bill works!

Throw it on the wall ... if it sticks great. If it oozes down, well..... it's Bush's fault.

Half of the shit that does get passed most who voted on it did not read it.

So....are elected representatives allowed buyers remorse? I know the voters have a hell of a case of buyers remorse over Obama.

So....are elected representatives allowed buyers remorse? I know the voters had a hell of a case of buyers remorse over Shrubbie. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...odern-history/


No charge!

When IS a difference that makes no difference a difference. Goddamn I swear you're retarded.