All together now: Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are L - I - A - R - S - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

guy44 · 04-27-2005, 12:06 PM

Query: If you are a Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and Democrats amendments to your bill, what do you do?

Answer: Lie about the contents of the amendments to the House of Representatives:

Quote:

Democrats in the House are furious over what they see as a deliberate attempt by Republicans to rewrite Democratic amendments to make the Democrats amendments look preposterous, RAW STORY has learned.

The Republican-written rewrites, along with the Democratic description of the amendments, follows. RAW STORY has also learned that Republicans have not rewritten similar amendments in the past, and is expected to obtain a copy of previously "neutral" rewrites sometime this afternoon.

###

The following amendments were offered and voted down by recorded votes in the Judiciary Committee markup of H.R. 748-The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA):

DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION IN HOUSE REPORT 109-51

DEMS: a Nadler amendment allows an adult who could be prosecuted under the bill to go to a Federal district court and seek a waiver to the state’s parental notice laws if this remedy is not available in the state court. (no 11-16)
GOP REWRITE:. Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have created an additional layer of Federal court review that could be used by sexual predators to escape conviction under the bill. By a roll call vote of 11 yeas to 16 nays, the amendment was defeated.

DEMS: a Nadler amendment to exempt a grandparent or adult sibling from the criminal and civil provisions in the bill (no 12-19)
GOP REWRITE: . Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution under the bill if they were grandparents or adult siblings of a minor. By a roll call vote of 12 yeas to 19 nays, the amendment was defeated.

DEMS: a Scott amendment to exempt cab drivers, bus drivers and others in the business transportation profession from the criminal provisions in the bill (no 13-17):
GOP REWRITE. Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers, bus drivers, or others in the business of professional transport. By a roll call vote of 13 yeas to 17 nays, the amendment was defeated.

DEMS: a Scott amendment that would have limited criminal liability to the person committing the offense in the first degree (no 12-18)
GOP REWRITE:. Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted from prosecution under the bill those who aid and abet criminals who could be prosecuted under the bill. By a roll call vote of 12 yeas to 18 nays, the amendment was defeated

DEMS: a Jackson-Lee amendment to exempt clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles or first cousins from the penalties in the bill (no 13-20)
GOP REWRITE. Ms. Jackson-Lee offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution under the bill if they were clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, or first cousins of a minor, and would require a study by the Government Accounting Office. By a roll call vote of 13 yeas to 20 nays, the amendment was defeated.

###

The following statement was issued by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee.

"The Rules Committee discovered yesterday that the Judiciary Committee Report on this very bill, which was authored by the Majority Staff, contained amendment summaries which had been re-written by committee staff for the sole purpose of distorting the original intent of the authors.

"This Committee Report took liberty to mischaracterize and even falsify the intent of several amendments offered in Committee by Democratic Members of this body.

"At least five amendments to this bill, which were designed to protect the rights of family members and innocent bystanders from prosecution under this bill, were rewritten as amendments designed to protect sexual predators from prosecution and were then included in the committee report as if that was the original intent of the authors. The thing is, sexual predators were not mentioned anywhere in any of these amendments.

"These amendments were no more about sexual predators then they were about terrorists or arsonists or any other criminal class in our society. These amendments were about the rights of grandmothers and siblings and clergy and innocent bystanders. I asked the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee about this deception yesterday afternoon at the Rules Committee hearing.

"And instead of decrying what I certainly expected would be revealed as a mistake by an overzealous staffer...The Chairman stood by those altered
amendment descriptions.

"He made very clear to the Rules Committee that the alterations to these members' amendments were deliberate.

"When pressed as to why his committee staff took such an unprecedented action, the Chairman immediately offered up his own anger over the manner in which Democrats had chosen to debate and oppose this unfortunate piece of legislation we have before us today.

"In fact...He said, and I quote..."You don't like what we wrote about your amendments, and we don't like what you said about our bill."

Wowza. So rather than allow Democrat amendments, which will be voted down in the House anyways, come to a routine vote on the floor, House Judiciary Republicans lied to the rest of the House about the content of the amendments. Egregiously.

Ladies and gentlement, your 2005 Republican Party!

kutulu · 04-27-2005, 01:05 PM

Once again, the arrogance displayed by the Republicans makes me sick. I'm so pissed I can't say anything else right now.

guthmund · 04-27-2005, 02:23 PM

I was going to comment....well, I'll just wait.

/bangs head against keyboard in frustration

scout · 04-27-2005, 05:55 PM

Looks to me like they just put the translated the amendments into simple english. So tell me, you all think it's ok for bus drivers, cabbies, aunts, uncles, grandparents etc to be sexual predators and when it gets blocked then shame on the Republicans??

Kinda warped that anyone should be excluded from criminal prosecution after molesting a child or assisting a child molester don't ya think? Where does the Dems even come up with some of this crap anyway?

guy44 · 04-27-2005, 05:59 PM

scout, what the hell are you talking about? The bill and amendments in question had NOTHING to do with sexual predators. It was a bill about abortion notification laws. The amendments had as much to do with changes rules for sexual predators as they did with changing campaign finance laws or commending the Red Sox on their World Series win.

Kadath · 04-28-2005, 03:41 AM

What is this, third grade?

"Mr. Scott likes child molestors!"
"What? No I don't! I was just --"
"Child molestor lover! Child molestor lover!"
"But if you'd just look at the amendment you'd see--"
"Run away! He'll turn you into a child molestor!"

kutulu · 04-28-2005, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

Looks to me like they just put the translated the amendments into simple english. So tell me, you all think it's ok for bus drivers, cabbies, aunts, uncles, grandparents etc to be sexual predators and when it gets blocked then shame on the Republicans??

Kinda warped that anyone should be excluded from criminal prosecution after molesting a child or assisting a child molester don't ya think? Where does the Dems even come up with some of this crap anyway?

Not surprised by this response at all.

liquidlight · 04-28-2005, 11:14 AM

Without the original text of both the bills, the amendments, and the complete original report all this is amounts to heresay. I'm not saying that they didn't lie, they ARE politicians, but why are we getting bent out of shape over 3rd and 4th party reporting about something that someone supposedly said or did?

99% of what goes on in congress is deplorable, one of the reasons that I don't claim allegiance to either party, but I would tend to go back to it being some overzealous staffer and the claim not being denied or an apology issued because they didn't want to accept responsibility for the report.

hrdwareguy · 04-28-2005, 12:41 PM

The offense section of HR748 reads as such:

Quote:

(1) GENERALLY- Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly transports a minor across a State line, with the intent that such minor obtain an abortion, and thereby in fact abridges the right of a parent under a law requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision, in force in the State where the minor resides, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(2) DEFINITION- For the purposes of this subsection, an abridgement of the right of a parent occurs if an abortion is performed or induced on the minor, in a State other than the State where the minor resides, without the parental consent or notification, or the judicial authorization, that would have been required by that law had the abortion been performed in the State where the minor resides.

So this law prohibits anyone except a parent from taking a minor across state lines to get an abortion only if the state the minor resides in has a parental consent law in place.

The idea behind parental consent laws was for 2 reasons. 1)Sexauly active minors would get abortions and their parents would never know they had been sexualy active. 2)Sex offenders known to the minor (such as grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, godparents and whomever else) would take minors across state lines to have an abortion. Thus the parents would never know about the offense.

Allowing anyone other than the parent to make this choice is insane. What if the person that molested your daughter was your step-father, your daughters grandfather, these amendments would allow him to take your daughter across state lines and get an abortion and you would never know. How would you feel then?

All the people listed in the article have the potential to be sexual preditors and excluding them from prosecution of getting your daughter an abortion you had no knowledge of is not right. You are responsible for the safety and well being of your child. What would happen if your daugheter had complications during the abortion and died? How can you provide safety if you don't know what's going on?

What's that you say? This is just infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens. Funny, the dems don't seem to feel that way about gun control, but that's for another thread. The analogy is the same though. As you may feel republicans "lied" about these amendments, many republicans feel the same about democrats when democrats talk about gun control. It's politics as usual.

And every single one of us in here knows that if the shoe were on the other foot, each of our stances would be 180 degrees different than our current one.

guy44 · 04-28-2005, 12:58 PM

You know, at first I thought you were right and believed that some overzealous staffer, who should surely be fired, was responsible. Then...well, I'll let Representative Louise Slaughter explain:

Quote:

M. Speaker. After being brought to task by the American people for meddling in the personal and private life decisions of an American family during the Schiavo tragedy, you would think the Majority in this Congress would have learned...

You would think that they would have learned that the people of this country don’t want the government intruding into the lives of American families… But they haven’t learned M. Speaker, because here they go again.

This bill is another an invasion into the private lives of American families, and it is an invasion into the legal rights afforded to all women in this country.

I am talking about the legal right for women to choose, which is afforded by the Supreme Court of the United States.

We have a duty in this body to consider legislation which will maximize our freedom and equality, values which are the very fabric of our society.

Our job here is to protect the legal rights of those we serve, not take them away. And I urge a no vote on its passage.

But I want to talk for a minute about another abuse which has occurred in this chamber, a personal affront to three of our colleagues I have never witnessed in my near twenty years serving in this House.

The Rules Committee discovered yesterday that the Judiciary Committee Report on this very bill, which was authored by the Majority Staff, contained amendment summaries which had been re-written by committee staff for the sole purpose of distorting the original intent of the authors.

This Committee Report took liberty to mischaracterize and even falsify the intent of several amendments offered in Committee by Democratic Members of this body.

At least five amendments to this bill, which were designed to protect the rights of family members and innocent bystanders from prosecution under this bill, were rewritten as amendments designed to protect sexual predators from prosecution and were then included in the committee report as if that was the original intent of the authors. The thing is, sexual predators were not mentioned anywhere in any of these amendments.

These amendments were no more about sexual predators then they were about terrorists or arsonists or any other criminal class in our society.

These amendments were about the rights of grandmothers and siblings and clergy and innocent bystanders.

I asked the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee about this deception yesterday afternoon at the Rules Committee hearing.

And instead of decrying what I certainly expected would be revealed as a mistake by an overzealous staffer...The Chairman stood by those altered amendment descriptions.

He made very clear to the Rules Committee that the alterations to these members’ amendments were deliberate.

When pressed as to why his committee staff took such an unprecedented action, the Chairman immediately offered up his own anger over the manner in which Democrats had chosen to debate and oppose this unfortunate piece of legislation we have before us today.

In fact…He said, and I quote... "You don’t like what we wrote about your amendments, and we don’t like what you said about our bill."

To falsely rewrite the intent of an amendment submitted by another member, to intentionally distort its description as being designed to protect sexual predators, is no different than accusing a fellow member of Congress as being an apologist for sexual predators themselves.

That is in effect what the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee has done here, with all deliberation.

And he has ensured that these amendment descriptions will be encapsulated in the record for all time by including those unfair and incorrect amendment summaries in the Committee report.

This is a new low for this chamber M. Speaker.

This is a clearly dishonest, unethical attack on the credibility and character of another member. And sadly, it is just the latest in a pattern of unethical and abusive tactics employed by this Majority.

How incredibly arrogant is this majority...that they believe they have the right to tamper with official congressional documents for their own political purposes?

How unbelievably arrogant is the leadership of this Congress…that they would force their own politicized interpretation of another members work upon this body, and upon the American people, in an official committee report?

The Majority’s actions are not only an affront to all members of this house, but they are also an affront to the American people.

There is no question that we can debate and disagree over the impact a bill will have.

We can argue over how well it has been written or what language it should include to be more effective. But regardless of how that debate turns out, the caption on the top of that bill or amendment serves to instruct the American people as to what original intent of that legislation was.

It serves as an unbiased reading on what that amendment aims to accomplish.

To falsify and rewrite that description as a political attack, is not only unprecedented, it is fundamentally dishonest and it is an abuse of the power given to the Majority by the American people.

And I have no doubts Mr. Speaker, no doubts, that unless the congressional record is amended to reflect the true captions of these amendments, then we will surely see these erroneous captions again in the form of campaign attack mail pieces.

In fact, when we pressed last night in the Rules Committee to have the record amended to reflect the honest and accurate captions that belong on those amendments, we were defeated on a party line vote.

So now, these honorable and hardworking Members of Congress will be forever branded in the official record as having offered amendments which were designed to protect sexual predators, when nothing, nothing could be further from the truth.

M Speaker, I have often heard the Chairman of the Rules Committee as well as other Republicans talk about the loss of civility in this chamber.

But perhaps they will be the last to realize, that in order to regain some of that lost civility, they need look no further than their own abusive, unethical and arrogant administration of this House of Representatives.

Link.

The key sections are in bold. The point being, this was a deliberate action taken by the Republicans and, when confronted with it, they refused to change their obvious distortions and lies.

And hrdwareguy, this isn't a debate over the merits of parental notification laws. I have an opinion on that, as I imagine many do, but this isn't the tread for that. This thread is about the deliberate distortion of Democrat amendments by Republicans in order to make it seem as though Democrats were trying in some way to protect sexual predators.

As to this, hrdwareguy:

Quote:

All the people listed in the article have the potential to be sexual preditors and excluding them from prosecution of getting your daughter an abortion you had no knowledge of is not right.

With all due respect, what the fuck are you talking about? The legislation and amendments at hand had NOTHING to do with sexual predators. Are you saying that it is OK to characterize any law as defending sexual predators because any individual at all has the possibility of being one? Do you know how, um, silly that is?

Lastly, hrdwareguy, if you can provide me with one single shred of evidence that Democrats have ever altered the official House or Senate reports on Republican amendments at any time in the entire history of the United States of America, I'll shut up. If you can't, don't call this politics as usual, because it is far from that.

kutulu · 04-28-2005, 01:08 PM

It is an assumption that the relative or clergy member is a sexual predator. I'm sure that we can all agree that the family member who happens to be a sexual predator that got the girl pregnant is an extreme outlier.

Quote:

DEMS: a Scott amendment to exempt cab drivers, bus drivers and others in the business transportation profession from the criminal provisions in the bill (no 13-17):
GOP REWRITE. Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers, bus drivers, or others in the business of professional transport. By a roll call vote of 13 yeas to 17 nays, the amendment was defeated.

and

DEMS: a Scott amendment that would have limited criminal liability to the person committing the offense in the first degree (no 12-18)
GOP REWRITE:. Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted from prosecution under the bill those who aid and abet criminals who could be prosecuted under the bill. By a roll call vote of 12 yeas to 18 nays, the amendment was defeated

Cab drivers, bus drivers, and other people that take the girl over there without knowing she is going there to circumvent parental consent laws are not first degree offenders. However, this law does not treat them as such and therefore they could face penalties for this.

Backing the GOP rewrite is defending the indefensible. The dems didn't like the law so they tried to put as many holes in it as possible. There is nothing ethically wrong with that. The GOP rewrites intentionally changed that and at the same time tried to make the dems look like they love child molesters. It was uncalled for and those involved should be reviewed by the ethics committee and censured.

scout · 04-28-2005, 01:40 PM

I think the KEY to all this the word MINOR. A PARENT should be "in the loop" whenever any child that is not of age wants,desires or is in need of an ABORTION. While your young you may not deem this necessary but as you grow older you become wiser, or at least we can all hope. If someone assists a minor without parental consent they should be prosecuted. End of story.

Save me the "if the parent knows the minor may be abused or worse" crap.

kutulu · 04-28-2005, 01:45 PM

scout,

This thread has nothing to do with the bill inself. This has to do with republicans intentionally rewriting a summary to make democrates look like they sympathize with sex offenders. The republicans openly admit that they did this intentionally. You see nothing wrong with that?

Ilow · 04-28-2005, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

Backing the GOP rewrite is defending the indefensible. The dems didn't like the law so they tried to put as many holes in it as possible. There is nothing ethically wrong with that. The GOP rewrites intentionally changed that and at the same time tried to make the dems look like they love child molesters. It was uncalled for and those involved should be reviewed by the ethics committee and censured.

You got it, Kutulu. You can debate the pros and cons of not allowing minors to go out of state to have an abortion or parental consent all you want, that's democracy and everyone is entitled to an opinion, but to do so in the context of this thread is a red herring. This is about Republicans lying because they didn't like that they had to actually follow the normal progression toward getting a law passed.

dksuddeth · 04-28-2005, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

I think the KEY to all this the word MINOR. A PARENT should be "in the loop" whenever any child that is not of age wants,desires or is in need of an ABORTION. While your young you may not deem this necessary but as you grow older you become wiser, or at least we can all hope. If someone assists a minor without parental consent they should be prosecuted. End of story.

Save me the "if the parent knows the minor may be abused or worse" crap.

WTF??? If a 15 year old gets in a cab for a 10 mile trip across the state line, tells the cabbie she's going to visit her auntie, and ends up getting an abortion, you want to prosecute the cabbie? ARE YOU INSANE!!!!!!!!

kutulu · 04-28-2005, 02:54 PM

well that cabbie must have been a sexual predator

scout · 04-28-2005, 03:41 PM

Crap such as this routinely comes out of Capitol Hill from both sides. The Dems are just as bad as the Republicans. Both sides are full of self rightous bullshit. One side is as far to the left as the other is to the right. This doesn't change my opinion of either side one iota. I personally agree with the GOP rewrite, one of the few issues as of late I agree with. Anyone who knowingly transports a minor to have an abortion should be criminally prosecuted and there shouldn't be any exceptions. I can't believe the Dems even tried to exempt anyone. I'm in shock they even offered the amendments.

*edit* then to come in here and fuckin' whine about it like the fricken Democrats never done anything like this...... thats bullshit... geeeez get over it.

RAGEAngel9 · 04-28-2005, 03:51 PM

Once again, you want to prosecute a cab driver, even if they have no idea what the girl was planning?

kutulu · 04-28-2005, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

Crap such as this routinely comes out of Capitol Hill from both sides. The Dems are just as bad as the Republicans.

Please provide an example of this type of fraud coming from the Democrats.

docbungle · 04-28-2005, 04:23 PM

This thread =

"Hey, look at this. This is wrong."

"Yeah, but I like twinkies."

"What does that have to do with this thread?"

"Twinkies are so delicious."

RAGEAngel9 · 04-28-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

This thread =

"Hey, look at this. This is wrong."

"Yeah, but I like twinkies."

"What does that have to do with this thread?"

"Twinkies are so delicious."

No that's this board most of the time.

kutulu · 04-28-2005, 04:27 PM

But Twinkies taste good and they are fun to talk about when you have nothing to add.

Elphaba · 04-29-2005, 03:43 PM

I agree that there seems to be a pattern by the Republicans to cater to the religious right and overreach in many cases. Guy44's example is similar to the ethics rules changes to protect Delay, the Schiavo interference by the Federal government, and the threat of a "nuclear option" to push forward activist judges.

I have been watching the legislative branch for a good number of years, and I don't recall either party ever being this craven in promoting it's agenda.

Redlemon · 05-06-2005, 12:32 PM

It's been fixed now, without GOP comment.

GOP Retracts Report Dems Call Slanderous

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- After a week of Democratic protests, Republicans agreed on Thursday to change a report that had said the Democrats' amendments to an abortion bill could assist sexual predators.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said in a floor speech that the changes made to the House Judiciary Committee report were "a tacit acknowledgment of the inaccuracy and untruthfulness of the original report."

He commended the committee chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., for the change and said he hoped that, "with this correction of the slanderous report language, this unfortunate chapter can be brought to a close."

The dispute involved a bill, passed by the House last week, that would criminalize the transporting of a minor across state lines to get an abortion.

The report accompanying the bill, normally a dry, unremarkable explanation, set off protests because of the way it described several Democratic amendments, all defeated by the committee.

It said Nadler, who wanted to exempt some relatives from the act, "offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution under the bill if they were grandparents or adult siblings of a minor."

On Tuesday Democrats offered a resolution, defeated on a party-line vote, accusing the Republican majority of deliberately mischaracterizing the amendments.

Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi demanded that Sensenbrenner apologize for "the disgusting misrepresentations."

Sensenbrenner, refused to back down, saying that "we were accurate, and if you do not want this to happen again, draft your amendments properly."

But on Thursday Sensenbrenner filed, without speaking on the House floor, the amended report that removed the references to sexual predators.

It did provide comment, common in reports, from the majority side expressing concerns that the amendments would create loopholes that sexual predators could exploit, and dissenting views from the Democratic side denying that this was the intent or effect of the amendments.

guy44 · 05-06-2005, 01:05 PM

Sensenbrenner is a bastard and a coward.

Blech. As bad and corrupt as the Democrats got in the early 90s, they would never do anything like this.

kutulu · 05-06-2005, 01:11 PM

The still need to pursue disciplinary action against him and all involved.

04-27-2005, 02:23 PM	#3 (permalink)
guthmund big damn hero	I was going to comment....well, I'll just wait. /bangs head against keyboard in frustration __________________ No signature. None. Seriously.

04-27-2005, 05:59 PM	#5 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	scout, what the hell are you talking about? The bill and amendments in question had NOTHING to do with sexual predators. It was a bill about abortion notification laws. The amendments had as much to do with changes rules for sexual predators as they did with changing campaign finance laws or commending the Red Sox on their World Series win. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

04-28-2005, 03:41 AM	#6 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	What is this, third grade? "Mr. Scott likes child molestors!" "What? No I don't! I was just --" "Child molestor lover! Child molestor lover!" "But if you'd just look at the amendment you'd see--" "Run away! He'll turn you into a child molestor!" __________________ it's quiet in here

04-28-2005, 11:14 AM	#8 (permalink)
liquidlight AHH! Custom Title!! Location: The twisted warpings of my brain.	Without the original text of both the bills, the amendments, and the complete original report all this is amounts to heresay. I'm not saying that they didn't lie, they ARE politicians, but why are we getting bent out of shape over 3rd and 4th party reporting about something that someone supposedly said or did? 99% of what goes on in congress is deplorable, one of the reasons that I don't claim allegiance to either party, but I would tend to go back to it being some overzealous staffer and the claim not being denied or an apology issued because they didn't want to accept responsibility for the report. __________________ Halfway to hell and picking up speed.

04-28-2005, 03:41 PM	#17 (permalink)
scout Psycho	Crap such as this routinely comes out of Capitol Hill from both sides. The Dems are just as bad as the Republicans. Both sides are full of self rightous bullshit. One side is as far to the left as the other is to the right. This doesn't change my opinion of either side one iota. I personally agree with the GOP rewrite, one of the few issues as of late I agree with. Anyone who knowingly transports a minor to have an abortion should be criminally prosecuted and there shouldn't be any exceptions. I can't believe the Dems even tried to exempt anyone. I'm in shock they even offered the amendments. edit then to come in here and fuckin' whine about it like the fricken Democrats never done anything like this...... thats bullshit... geeeez get over it. Last edited by scout; 04-28-2005 at 03:44 PM..

04-27-2005, 01:05 PM	#2 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	Once again, the arrogance displayed by the Republicans makes me sick. I'm so pissed I can't say anything else right now.

04-27-2005, 05:55 PM	#4 (permalink)
scout Psycho	Looks to me like they just put the translated the amendments into simple english. So tell me, you all think it's ok for bus drivers, cabbies, aunts, uncles, grandparents etc to be sexual predators and when it gets blocked then shame on the Republicans?? Kinda warped that anyone should be excluded from criminal prosecution after molesting a child or assisting a child molester don't ya think? Where does the Dems even come up with some of this crap anyway?

04-28-2005, 01:40 PM	#12 (permalink)
scout Psycho	I think the KEY to all this the word MINOR. A PARENT should be "in the loop" whenever any child that is not of age wants,desires or is in need of an ABORTION. While your young you may not deem this necessary but as you grow older you become wiser, or at least we can all hope. If someone assists a minor without parental consent they should be prosecuted. End of story. Save me the "if the parent knows the minor may be abused or worse" crap.

04-28-2005, 01:45 PM	#13 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	scout, This thread has nothing to do with the bill inself. This has to do with republicans intentionally rewriting a summary to make democrates look like they sympathize with sex offenders. The republicans openly admit that they did this intentionally. You see nothing wrong with that?

04-28-2005, 02:54 PM	#16 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	well that cabbie must have been a sexual predator

04-28-2005, 03:51 PM	#18 (permalink)
RAGEAngel9 Insane Location: Vermont	Once again, you want to prosecute a cab driver, even if they have no idea what the girl was planning?

04-28-2005, 04:23 PM	#20 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	This thread = "Hey, look at this. This is wrong." "Yeah, but I like twinkies." "What does that have to do with this thread?" "Twinkies are so delicious." __________________ Bad Luck City

04-28-2005, 04:27 PM	#22 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	But Twinkies taste good and they are fun to talk about when you have nothing to add.

04-29-2005, 03:43 PM	#23 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I agree that there seems to be a pattern by the Republicans to cater to the religious right and overreach in many cases. Guy44's example is similar to the ethics rules changes to protect Delay, the Schiavo interference by the Federal government, and the threat of a "nuclear option" to push forward activist judges. I have been watching the legislative branch for a good number of years, and I don't recall either party ever being this craven in promoting it's agenda.

05-06-2005, 01:05 PM	#25 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Sensenbrenner is a bastard and a coward. Blech. As bad and corrupt as the Democrats got in the early 90s, they would never do anything like this. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

05-06-2005, 01:11 PM	#26 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	The still need to pursue disciplinary action against him and all involved.