GOP House campaign chief says abortion ban is no blunder

Jun 20, 2013 Full story: USA Today 359

In this edition of Capital Download, This Week with Susan Page, Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee Rep. Greg Walden discussed the abortion bill and immigration plan in the House, and the "slippery seven."

Full Story
conservative crapola

Bethlehem, PA

#45 Jun 20, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Kernerman English Learner's Dictionary
arms(noun)&#712;&#593; &#593;rmz
weapons for military groups
countries supplying arms to terrorists; an arms dealer
arms&#712;&#593;&# 593;rmz
limiting the number of weapons a country can have
arms&#712;&#593;&# 593;rmz
angry about sth
Environmental groups were up in arms at the president's decision.
Name the year a super majority in the house and senate will ever agree on Article 5 and, then, name the 3/4 of states that will have to go along, laparanoid. There's no way around that. How much does the nationalretardass. pay you to post these paranoid fears?

hahahahahahahahahahaha
senior citizen

Granite City, IL

#46 Jun 20, 2013
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
The constitution says "arms" not guns. Obama wants to take our "arms" away. How will you type on Topix without any arms?
The Second Amendment says "firearms"

The Second Amendment Defined:

The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.

The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.

Stipulations of the 2nd Amendment:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.

The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia, and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.

The Second Amendment was developed as a result of the tyrannous rule of the British parliament. Colonists were often oppressed and forced to pay unjust taxes at the hand of the unruly parliament. As a result, the American people yearned for an Amendment that would guarantee them the right to bear arms and protect themselves against similar situations. The Second Amendment was drafted to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States through the ability to raise and support militias.

Court Cases Tied into the Second Amendment

In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm to use for traditionally lawful purposes, such as defending oneself within their home or on their property. The court case ruled that the Amendment was not connected to service in a militia.
3 posts removed
Sheik Yerbouti

Doylestown, PA

#50 Jun 20, 2013
I don't know why rethugs are so concerned about abortion. Most rethug women are so ugly that no man in his right mind would boink em!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#51 Jun 20, 2013
Another Day wrote:
<quoted text>First off you are Gay so you can't have kid in the fashion way and 2 what the hell is wrong with you? Read the damn article. They weren’t saying any more abortions. They we trying to set a limit on how many weeks to get one and I think 20 weeks is pretty much a good time line for an adult to decide if they want one or not and I am getting to freaking tired of you freaking Liberals saying it’s the women’s choice when there is a father involved and the holy grail is that the very life can't speak because you have a selfish person who decide to have unprotected sex which created this life and decides to get rid of it without the fathers consent, so if this isn't murder I don't know what is. I also find it strange that if pregnant women get killed they charge the suspect with 2 murders, but yet women can get an abortion and it's legal. WTF!!!!
Nope, a woman has the right to control her body and anything growing in it. If men don't want any abortions, then they shouldn't get pregnant.
senior citizen

Granite City, IL

#52 Jun 20, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? Right-wing blogsites (one from Ohio idiot Joe the Dumber Plumber!) say that Kerry says we'll sign the treaty? What's that prove?
YOu said this, moron:
"Yes, Obama wants to sign the treaty with UN to take our guns."
That's what I was referring to when I said there was "no such treaty." There isn't. The U.N. treaty in question regulates INTERNATIONAL ARMS DEALING. It's not "taking Americans' guns away," as the NRA and other far-right alarmists and fearmongers claim.
Now sit down and SHUT UP, moron.
Read this for your self.

Is U.N. Arms Treaty a back door to U.S. gun control?

Posted: June 10, 2013 - 2:42pm

President Obama has signed off on the United Nations’(U.N.) Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), joining 153 signatories in the support of international sales of conventional weapons. However, the treaty does regulate small arms. This portion of the treaty has supporters of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment wincing.

At first glance, this treaty seems like a good idea. After all, who wants arms in the hands of unstable governments of rogue bands of militants like al Queda? No one of course.

The ATT calls for export controls of heavy conventional weapons, such as missiles, tanks, helicopters, warships, and artillery. That’s a good thing, right?

There’s a fly in the ointment, however. Nations not signing on to limit sales are bothersome: Syria, Iran, North Korea, China and of course, Russia. Without the support of these nations, the hands of those defending freedom around the world are tied.

Here’s the sticky part of this treaty:“But the new treaty also demands domestic regulation of ‘small arms and light weapons.’ The treaty’s Article 5 requires nations to ‘establish and maintain a national control system,’ including a ‘national control list.’ Article 10 requires signatories ‘to regulate brokering of conventional arms.’ The treaty offers no guarantee for individual rights, but instead only declares it is ‘mindful’ of the ‘legitimate trade and lawful ownership’ of arms for ‘recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities.’ Not a word about the right to possess guns for a broader individual right of self-defense,” as pointed out in a recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) opinion.

Proponents of gun control in the U.S. may use the treaty’s provision to enact a national gun registry in order to comply with the U.N. treaty. It is feared by the authors of the WSJ opinion that if the treaty, which President Obama has signed, is ratified by the U.S. Senate, it could lead to establishment of gun registration, require licenses to own guns and to purchase ammunition.

This attempt to move gun control forward via the Arms Trade Treaty might surprise average Americans, but not those advocating gun control here in America. They have been frustrated by the Constitution’s limits on government.

Gun-control statutes have to survive Congress, and then convince the president, for approval.

“It is far easier to advance an agenda through treaties, unwritten international law and even ‘norms’ delivered by an amorphous ‘international community,’” the WSJ opinion states.

If it’s true, that the U.N. treaty is a back door to limiting guns in the U.S., then we’re about to find out the value of our Constitution in the minds of our nation’s leaders.

Keith Hansen
Responsibility

San Francisco, CA

#53 Jun 20, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, a woman has the right to control her body and anything growing in it. If men don't want any abortions, then they shouldn't get pregnant.
Perhaps those men should listen to that silly republicant man who joked about an aspirin between the legs. LOLL
Responsibility

San Francisco, CA

#54 Jun 20, 2013
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
The constitution says "arms" not guns. Obama wants to take our "arms" away. How will you type on Topix without any arms?
Learn how to type with a paintbrush between your teeth! LOLL
Chicopee

Danbury, CT

#55 Jun 20, 2013
TonyT1961 wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen up you twit - you clowns attacking a woman's right to choose will never go anywhere. Even if you had a republican president ready to sign off on this nonsense, the SCOTUS has already ruled on Roe vs. Wade - get over it!
You very same pro lifers are also against contraception and morning after pills also. You want fewer "embryos" destroyed, get behind contraception first!
Trying to set a limit? Give me a break! You azzholes just want a foot in the door to ban abortions completely! Ask your congressmen to do some real work - not this crap that's destined to go nowhere - and we the people pay millions for these congressmen to pay attention to this?
Roe v Wade set limits, dork. There are already legal limits to abortion. Have you been living under a rock?

Sixteen weeks (1st trimester), up to 20 weeks in cases of severe health problems with the fetus or risk to the mother. A few states allow this up to 24 weeks for the same.

The United States allows abortion later than any other country in the world and is the most lax in upholding abortion laws.

As the Kermit Gosnell case showcased, these laws are broken all the time. That's why he was convicted of murder. At some point, it's not a fetus or zygote any longer. It's a baby. And the SC agrees. Read Roe v Wade. You'll obviously learn something.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#56 Jun 21, 2013
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
Name the year a super majority in the house and senate will ever agree on Article 5 and, then, name the 3/4 of states that will have to go along, laparanoid. There's no way around that. How much does the nationalretardass. pay you to post these paranoid fears?
hahahahahahahahahahaha
You can tell it would pass pookie, by the people running away from Obama's attempt to produce a coup on the second ammendment.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#57 Jun 21, 2013
Responsibility wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps those men should listen to that silly republicant man who joked about an aspirin between the legs. LOLL
With all the protection devices, operation or pills available, only stupid women get pregnant. Women want an excuse for being stupid and then wanting uncle sugar to pay for their stupidity.

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#58 Jun 21, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, a woman has the right to control her body and anything growing in it. If men don't want any abortions, then they shouldn't get pregnant.
They controlled their body to get pregnant, they can control their body to have the baby, whether they give it away or put it up for adoption. Any abortion for simply being too stupid to use protection should also include the tubes being tied.
conservative crapola

Whitehall, PA

#59 Jun 21, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>You can tell it would pass pookie, by the people running away from Obama's attempt to produce a coup on the second ammendment.
I didn't ask for your pathetic whining. I said name the year it will happen and name the 3/4 states.

crickets..........
1 post removed

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#61 Jun 21, 2013
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't ask for your pathetic whining. I said name the year it will happen and name the 3/4 states.
crickets..........
Yo pookie, let me see your crystal ball you use to project your bullchit.
Don Joe

Maple Grove, MN

#62 Jun 21, 2013
senior citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
The Second Amendment says "firearms"
The Second Amendment Defined:
The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.
The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.
Stipulations of the 2nd Amendment:
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.
The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia, and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.
The Second Amendment was developed as a result of the tyrannous rule of the British parliament. Colonists were often oppressed and forced to pay unjust taxes at the hand of the unruly parliament. As a result, the American people yearned for an Amendment that would guarantee them the right to bear arms and protect themselves against similar situations. The Second Amendment was drafted to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States through the ability to raise and support militias.
Court Cases Tied into the Second Amendment
In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm to use for traditionally lawful purposes, such as defending oneself within their home or on their property. The court case ruled that the Amendment was not connected to service in a militia.
Here is a couple of versions:

As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Neither one says you should put your arms on fire. But I suppose you might think you have the right to put your arms in fire, but don't go to the hospital, or expect Obama care to dress your wounds.

What is a Militia anyway????? Why is a Militia mentioned?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#63 Jun 21, 2013
Sheik Yerbouti wrote:
I don't know why rethugs are so concerned about abortion. Most rethug women are so ugly that no man in his right mind would boink em!!
To be fair, some are pretty but stupid. The Faux NewsBimbo Team comes to mind...and of course some of their politicians, particularly Palin and Bachmann.

:)

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#64 Jun 21, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>She lied, she said it cost $3000 a year, when there are outlets to get birthcontrol pills for $6 and $9 a month. This was a set up to con the womens vote. Rush stepped into the trap by calling her what she is.
You have NO clue what you're talking about, no supporting evidence, and you lie CONSTANTLY yourself. IOW, and as we all know, you're Mr. No-Credibility.

But go on fighting the War on Women, it helps the Dem/Liberal side in the long run

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#65 Jun 21, 2013
Don Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a couple of versions:
As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Neither one says you should put your arms on fire. But I suppose you might think you have the right to put your arms in fire, but don't go to the hospital, or expect Obama care to dress your wounds.
What is a Militia anyway????? Why is a Militia mentioned?
stupidity noted.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#66 Jun 21, 2013
senior citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
Read this for your self.
Is U.N. Arms Treaty a back door to U.S. gun control?
Posted: June 10, 2013 - 2:42pm
President Obama has signed off on the United Nations’(U.N.) Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), joining 153 signatories in the support of international sales of conventional weapons. However, the treaty does regulate small arms. This portion of the treaty has supporters of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment wincing.
At first glance, this treaty seems like a good idea. After all, who wants arms in the hands of unstable governments of rogue bands of militants like al Queda? No one of course.
The ATT calls for export controls of heavy conventional weapons, such as missiles, tanks, helicopters, warships, and artillery. That’s a good thing, right?
There’s a fly in the ointment, however. Nations not signing on to limit sales are bothersome: Syria, Iran, North Korea, China and of course, Russia. Without the support of these nations, the hands of those defending freedom around the world are tied.
Here’s the sticky part of this treaty:“But the new treaty also demands domestic regulation of ‘small arms and light weapons.’ The treaty’s Article 5 requires nations to ‘establish and maintain a national control system,’ including a ‘national control list.’ Article 10 requires signatories ‘to regulate brokering of conventional arms.’ The treaty offers no guarantee for individual rights, but instead only declares it is ‘mindful’ of the ‘legitimate trade and lawful ownership’ of arms for ‘recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities.’ Not a word about the right to possess guns for a broader individual right of self-defense,” as pointed out in a recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) opinion.
Proponents of gun control in the U.S. may use the treaty’s provision to enact a national gun registry in order to comply with the U.N. treaty. It is feared by the authors of the WSJ opinion that if the treaty, which President Obama has signed, is ratified by the U.S. Senate, it could lead to establishment of gun registration, require licenses to own guns and to purchase ammunition.
This attempt to move gun control forward via the Arms Trade Treaty might surprise average Americans, but not those advocating gun control here in America. They have been frustrated by the Constitution’s limits on government.
Gun-control statutes have to survive Congress, and then convince the president, for approval.
“It is far easier to advance an agenda through treaties, unwritten international law and even ‘norms’ delivered by an amorphous ‘international community,’” the WSJ opinion states.
If it’s true, that the U.N. treaty is a back door to limiting guns in the U.S., then we’re about to find out the value of our Constitution in the minds of our nation’s leaders.
Keith Hansen
Right-wing drivel from a blog?

ROTFLMAO!

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#67 Jun 21, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
To be fair, some are pretty but stupid. The Faux NewsBimbo Team comes to mind...and of course some of their politicians, particularly Palin and Bachmann.
:)
HOUSE REPUBLICANS BLOCK BLOATED 'FARM BILL'...

Pelosi:'Taking Food Out Of The Mouths Of Babies'.........instead of aborting them which is her preference.
conservative crapola

Whitehall, PA

#68 Jun 21, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Yo pookie, let me see your crystal ball you use to project your bullchit.
I'll have to borrow yours, that claims gun will be taken away.

hahahahahahahahahaha

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min The Dude 142,419
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Waxman 1,173,452
Republican leaders look for escape plan on immi... 5 min Le Duped 23
IMF sets June deadline for progress on governan... 5 min Duh and DUhher 1
Sarah Palin and her onetime fans on the right: ... 6 min Le Duped 3
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 6 min KiMerde 51,373
Obama: Racism, bias in US will take time to tackle 8 min Go Blue Forever 2,411
Scott Walker has no college degree. That's norm... 14 min Le Duped 696
Obama Calls for Two Years of Free Community Col... 1 hr Sleepy 856
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 hr Sharp Shooter 305,026
More from around the web