The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: pissant on February 27, 2013, 07:19:19 PM
-
House majority leader Eric Cantor is increasingly frustrated with a group of House Republicans who are working against the leadership, and he’s not afraid of voicing his dismay.
In a closed-door conference meeting on Wednesday, Cantor told one GOP member that if they blocked the Senate-passed Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) from coming to the floor, they’d cause “civil war†in the ranks.
Cantor’s comment irked some Republican aides, who told National Review Online that such strong language is inappropriate. In recent days, some conservatives have been upset about the Senate’s version of VAWA, saying that parts of the bill are unconstitutional.
Nevertheless, Cantor’s warning may have had an effect. When the bill came to the floor on Wednesday, only nine Republicans voted against the rule to take up the bill.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341825/closed-door-meeting-cantor-warned-civil-war-katrina-trinko
So Cantor and Boehner are forcing liberal claptrap like the Violence Against Women Act down our throats? What a crock of shiite. And worse, only 9 members voted against this unconstitutional boondoggle. We're so screwed.
-
There are some great comments at the bottom of that article. :-)
-
In so many words, **** the establishment GOP. You abandoned conservatism, now we abandon you.
-
There are some great comments at the bottom of that article. :-)
This one had me in stitches...
Is there some "loophole" that permits violence against women? Please, point me to the part of the vast federal criminal code that allows for violence against women. There are a few broads in my office building that need a beating.
-
I had read that part of the opposition to renewing VAWA was the inclusion of some new things. One of those is the inclusion of gays and lesbians or something.
-
Hi,
I read the article and was pleased to hear there is some dissention in the ranks. At the same time there is an old saying about "bigger fish to fry". The conservatives are going to have to pick their battles and find one with a lot of public support like stopping the insane spending.
The BS about cuts is a good place to start. As you all know there are no cuts, just a reduction in the rate of spending increases. Perhaps they should rebel and speak out on that issue, it would make more sense.
regards,
5412
-
Hi,
I read the article and was pleased to hear there is some dissention in the ranks. At the same time there is an old saying about "bigger fish to fry". The conservatives are going to have to pick their battles and find one with a lot of public support like stopping the insane spending.
The BS about cuts is a good place to start. As you all know there are no cuts, just a reduction in the rate of spending increases. Perhaps they should rebel and speak out on that issue, it would make more sense.
regards,
5412
Yes, there are always bigger fish to fry. But it would be a welcome relief to see them fry alot of minnows that all add up to a Bloomberg-esque nanny state. The first question a GOP congressman should ask himself when any legislation is proposed is: Is this constitutional? And if it isn't, which is the case 95% of the time, vote no. And if its not only unconstitutional, but also vapid, liberal PC bullcrap - such as the VAWA - vote HELL NO and tell the eunuchs in charge to shove it. Just my 2 cents.
-
In so many words, **** the establishment GOP. You abandoned conservatism, now we abandon you.
Time to let them go.
-
This one had me in stitches...
Is there some "loophole" that permits violence against women? Please, point me to the part of the vast federal criminal code that allows for violence against women. There are a few broads in my office building that need a beating.
LOL
-
LOL
I always get a kick out of the term "broads". These days I hear more women use it then men.
Of course, on a scale of 1 to 10 on the PC meter, I prolly rate about -752.
-
In so many words, **** the establishment GOP. You abandoned conservatism, now we abandon you.
:exactly: :agree: :yeahthat: :werd: