Democrats Deny Work to Conservative Businesses

a reply to: Gryphon66

:..your response was absolutely ish.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

"Constitutional protected medical services"?... Are you talking about abortion?... Could you show us where in the U.S. Constitution it says "abortion is a right"?...

Yeah, that's right. Please see the Supreme Court ruling Roe V Wade.

I'm talking about the hypocrisy from those who are aghast that law makers want to cut off business entities from state funds if they perform services for a cause they're opposed to, when Trump just issued an EO that does exactly that, a few weeks back.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Why do we have to wait for it. Can't we just disown a state? CA is a burden on our economy

Might want to check sources... googling for this says that they contribute about 13% of the economy of the US (more than any other state) If you want to kick out laggarts, toss out New Hampshire.

I would love to see the figures on those that have actually been to countries with real issues versus those that just read social media posts and get angered.

I've been abroad several times and lived abroad.

a reply to: windword

It still isn't "protected by the Constitution" because the Constitution does not define it as a right.

As for "where the hypocrisy comes from"? The wall would be a deterrent for criminals from Mexican cartels and their allies to smuggle drugs, not only "illegal immigration". Not to mention that illegal immigration as it's defined is "illegal".

So the Senators from California who proposed this bill, and those who will agree with it, are only agreeing to allow more crime to spill into our side of the border.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

It still isn't "protected by the Constitution" because the Constitution does not define it as a right.

The US Constitution neither bestows nor enumerates human rights, it limits the government's ability to interfere in an individual's life choices. Further the Supreme Court has determined that abortion is between a woman and her doctor up to viability.

As for "where the hypocrisy comes from"? The wall would be a deterrent for criminals from Mexican cartels and their allies to smuggle drugs, not only "illegal immigration". Not to mention that illegal immigration as it's defined is "illegal".

That's your opinion. You opinion doesn't make the hypocrisy any less palpable. You have states denying funds to business entities for performing legal, constitutionally protected services that state legislators disagree with. It's the same in either case.

a reply to: windword

You are comparing PP who gets money for nothing, versus a company that is bidding on a contract to do work that is available. PP should either stand on its own with no federal funding, or close down. And I'm pro-choice!

Well they're going to have to right a new law now. Cannot discriminate because of political affiliation. This is similar to the IRS scandal.

originally posted by: windword
...
That's your opinion. You opinion doesn't make the hypocrisy any less palpable. You have states denying funds to business entities for performing legal, constitutionally protected services that state legislators disagree with. It's the same in either case.

The one giving an opinion based on nothing but delusion is you. Stop trying to use some other claim that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Illegal aliens are not protected by the Constitution because they are neither citizens, nor legal residents... The only thing Senators who pulled this latest delusional stunt are doing is trying to legalize what in fact is a crime.

We have already seen several examples of the left trying to make criminal illegal aliens "as good people" despite the fact that many illegal aliens resort to identity theft, stealing social securities and the identity of Americans and legal residents, among other crimes.

ICE: Yes, 75 Percent Of Illegal Immigrants We Arrested Have Criminal Records

New York is safer without illegal-immigrant gangsters — no thanks to the mayor

In case you didn't know, despite the Mexican government and President claiming the U.S. trying to stop illegal immigration from Mexico as "being an affront to human rights". Under Mexican law illegal immigration is a crime punishable for up to two years...

The Mexican government is known for throwing out of Mexico illegal immigrants even if the illegal immigrants going to Mexico are trying to flee a dictatorship. But for some reason the Mexican government, and the global leftist elites want to make an exception of Mexico, and of immigrants from the Middle East.

I guess the one thing all these people have in common is that these people vote more left leaning, has nothing to do with how the globalists want to make exceptions of certain immigrants, even illegal ones. Immigrants from Mexico and the Middle East vote mostly left-wing even in Europe, meanwhile the globalists have been trying to stop immigration from nations where people would tend to vote more right-wing. Immigration policies are being used by the leftist globalists to gain more left-wing voters in Europe and the U.S... I wonder why?...

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: windword

You are comparing PP who gets money for nothing, versus a company that is bidding on a contract to do work that is available. PP should either stand on its own with no federal funding, or close down. And I'm pro-choice!

No, that's not true. Planned Parenthood provides services that are covered under Medicare and Medicaid. Now, with Trump's new Executive order, some states can refuse to reimburse Planned Parenthood, or any doctor or facility that offers full reproductive services that include abortions, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for services that are otherwise covered, because their state legislators are opposed to abortion.

That's exactly the same stance as some states enacting laws that refuse to grant contracts to contractors that provide services to the Federal Government to build Trump's wall, because their state legislators are opposed to the wall.

Same/same.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This thread isn't about illegal aliens. It's about certain states' legislators enacting laws that allow their state to refuse to grant contracts to businesses that otherwise provide services for Trump's wall.

a reply to: windword

Oh, so "Trump's wall" will not be build to stop/slow down illegal immigration from south of the border and to try to stop the transfer of drugs into the U.S.?... Why would it be built then, for decoration?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This thread isn't about abortion or Trump's wall. It's about state and federal legislators enacting laws that allow states to refuse state and federal reimbursements/contracts to businesses that are conducting legal business services that the majority of those legislators personally disagree with.

a reply to: windword

Ironic that it was you who started with the claims on page 3 about, and I quote:...

originally posted by: windword

I don't see how this is any different that the Federal Government allowing states to deny state and federal Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to individuals and facilities that accommodate the full spectrum of legal and Constitutionally protected women's health and reproductive services.
...

In another response in page 4 of this same thread you also stated...

originally posted by: windword

No, they're not different. If a facility or an individual chooses to offer the full spectrum of women's health services, the state can refuse to reimburse that entity for other services, offered to other individuals covered by Medicare and Medicaid. They can be barred from serving all medical clients who use Medicare and Medicaid. Just as those states mentioned in the OP have proposed that those contractors that perform services related to "The Wall" can be refused state contracts for other projects, not connected to "The Wall". Same/Same.

The wall would be build to stop the influx of illegal aliens and drugs. In other words, it will be built to stop, or at least deter crimes from spilling into our borders... It is a completely separate issue to the other fallacious arguments you are making about "women's health services"...

This bill in fact aims at stopping the wall being built. Those states proposing this bill are aiding and abiding in the crimes that will continue to spill into our borders by refusing to give jobs to contractors who would accept the contracts to build a wall, which again is being build to stop more crime to spill into our borders.

I hope that the Trump administration files charges against these Senators who proposed and will vote for this bill, since it is a bill that would make it easier for more crimes to spill into U.S. soil.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Now you're getting it! It's the same, whether it's extreme right wingnuts trying to stop doctors and clinics from being reimbursed for Medicare and Medicaid services or extreme left wingnut trying to stop contractors from being granted state contracts, it's about lawmakers trying to push their personal opinions into public policy by trying to enact questionable legislation.

I hope that the Trump administration files charges against these Senators who proposed and will vote for this bill

I hope the ACLU sues states that try to interfere with doctors and clinics that service women's legal reproductive needs!

a reply to: windword

Again, it is not the same. Companies/contractors that will take the contract to build the wall will be helping in at least deterring more crimes from spilling over into the U.S. Democrats/Republicans voting for this bill that is trying to stop the wall being built are aiding and abiding criminals

a reply to: ElectricUniverse


It's not the same in your opinion, because of your personal bias.

You think that the ends justify the means, and that because you support the wall, that it's unfair to punish contractors who want funds to build it. But, because you're opposed to abortion, you think it's okay for the same type of law that aims to alienate and punsih individual doctors and clinics, forbidding them from serving Medicare and Medicaid patients, by refusing their reimbursements.

It's the same situation. But, your person bias won't allow you to see your own hypocrisy.

a reply to: windword

I wonder who keeps trying to derail the thread by continuously bringing up another subject which has nothing to do with the subject of the thread?...

It isn't my opinion that illegal immigration is a crime... Already posted evidence that in Mexico, if you are an illegal immigrant you can spend up to two years in prison, just for being illegally in Mexico...

Illegal immigration causes an increase in many crimes in the U.S. From identity theft, fraud by illegal immigrants stealing social security numbers from people residing legally in the U.S. and illegal immigrants receiving money that is meant for Americans or legal residents who are entitled to this money, etc, etc.

Then there is the drug trafficking spilling into U.S. soil...

None of this is "based on bias", it is based on facts.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This thread isn't about the merits of Trump's wall, or abortion for that matter. It's about the right, or if it's right, for lawmakers to punish business entities who perform legal services because those services go against lawmakers' personal political agendas and biases.

a reply to: windword

Then perhaps you should stop trying to make a comparison with another subject which has nothing to do with this one... You keep trying to compare apples to oranges...

While the U.S. Constitution does allow states to decide certain issues, it doesn't include having any state redefine crime and criminal activities...

Is it a Crime to Enter The U.S. Illegally?
Illegal entry (or "improper entry") to the US carries criminal penalties (fines and jail or prison time), in addition to civil penalties and immigration consequences (deportation and bars from future entry).

by Ilona Bray, J.D.

Whether it’s by crossing the U.S. border with a "coyote" or buying a fake U.S. passport, a foreign national who enters the U.S. illegally can be both convicted of a crime and held responsible for a civil violation under the U.S. immigration laws. Illegal entry also carries consequences for anyone who might later attempt to apply for a green card or other immigration benefit.

The penalties and consequences get progressively more severe if a person enters illegally more than once, or enters illegally after an order of removal (deportation) or having been convicted of an aggravated felony.
...
...

www.alllaw.com...

Then there are the other crimes that many illegal immigrants partake in. From identity theft, fraud by using someone else identity and receiving benefits that are supposed to be received by legal residents and American citizens. Then there is the drug trafficking, and other crimes including murder that are caused by drug trafficking spilling into the U.S.

Completely constructing a wall separating the U.S. with Mexico will help to stop, or deter such crimes from spilling into U.S. soil. This is not based on "bias", but it is based on facts. By trying to stop attempts to control crimes spilling into U.S. soil, these stupid Senators and their accomplices are in fact aiding and abiding in criminal acts

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

There's no proof that Trump's wall will detour crime. In fact, there's a vast majority of people who believe that Trump's wall will do absolutely nothing to curb illegal immigration, that it's a huge boondoggle that will require hundreds, of not thousands of people to be forced to sell their land to the government under "imminent domain" while causing havoc for migrating species and waste billions of dollars.

However, I'll say it again. The argument here isn't about the merit of Trump's wall. It's about lawmakers enacting laws that punish businesses who perform legal services that the lawmakers personally oppose, whether it be Trump's wall or abortion. The issue is the same.