Rep Vote Yes On Rape, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 03:23 PM by SaturnFX
reply to post by fraterormus


Actually, I agree with that post. I have not read the bill and how its written, so these republicans may have had issue with the wording overall. I find that to be an acceptable answer, alternatively the concept of anyone voting against stopping funding to rape companys bewilders the mind.

Since it passed anyhow, I wont spend the energy investigating it much, but just wanted to comment on a good counterargument.


reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 05:12 PM by Snarf
Originally posted by fraterormus
Just because an official gave a "nay" vote, doesn't mean that they advocate the opposite.

A conscientious voter will do as our elected officials will do.

There are issues that I whole-heartedly agree with, but when they come up for vote, I sometimes vote against them.

Why?

Because sometimes legislation is too vague, or too poorly written, allowing for it to be abused.

Sometimes legislation is too broad, containing too many riders.

Sometimes legislation is written in such a way that it makes it legally contestable as unconstitutional.

Sometimes legislation makes too severe of demands unto being unreasonable upon certain demographics, despite it being for a good reason.

I may support the spirit of the legislation, but in good conscience I can't always vote for that legislation and may give a "Nay".

A "Nay" Vote can sometimes mean, "I agree, but not as it is worded now. Send it back to the drawing board and write a better thought out draft and I'll reconsider because I do agree with what you are trying to do, just not with how you are wording it."

[edit on 19-10-2009 by fraterormus]



and sometimes legislation is clear and concise - saying no federal funding to companies who allow these clauses in their contracts


like in this case

and if you vote against it - you advocate gang rape.

Very few times can this so easily be sumarized

but in this case, it can.

if you disagree with me - you can clearly read the proposed amendment by clicking here

and as for their responses?

They didnt condone it by saying "too flaky of legislation"

no - they condoned it by saying govt shouldnt be allowed to tell private business what to do
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Bruins goalie Tim Thomas takes stand against U.S Government
  Posted 19 days ago with 88 member flags
Romney: "I\'m Not Concerned About the Very Poor"
  Posted 11 days ago with 73 member flags
The Girl Killed by Obama: She "never saw it coming"
  Posted 4 days ago with 62 member flags
Ron Paul In Nevada - The Caucus Is Rigged!! - w/VIDEO
  Posted 6 days ago with 60 member flags