BREAKING: Texas Republicans pass abortion law after marathon filibuster

[ProVobis]

What do you think voting is, it’s basically rounding up the biggest loudmouths. Whoever can get the most people to the polls that will vote for them wins. The apathetic don’t vote in as high of numbers as those loudmouthed committed people.

By definition the apathetic aren’t motivated to vote, less motivated to round up any voters.

But what’s the old adage? The squeaky wheel gets the oil. In this case, from the network coverage.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

What do you think voting is, it’s basically rounding up the biggest loudmouths. Whoever can get the most people to the polls that will vote for them wins. The apathetic don’t vote in as high of numbers as those loudmouthed committed people.

That’s not the way it’s supposed to work.

 

[gracepoole]

Totally disingenuous. And you presume facts not in evidence. WERE there any protestors on the pro life side disrupting the proceedings?

It was a hypothetical example.

I honestly don’t think even YOU believe what you are saying but as a consistent supporter of these issues, I understand why you think you must make these claims.

Lisa

Respectfully, please don’t make assumptions about my beliefs.

 

[gracepoole]

Everyone points to British Parliament, but they have many rules that aren’t necessarily obvious to us Americans. They have spirited debate, but they don’t allow 1,000 people off the street into the chambers to cause disruption of their proceedings. It’s not the same thing AT ALL.

My point was regarding the passion. I’d take people flooding into the chambers any day over an outright ignoring of the sometimes nasty side effects of representative democracy. It really sounds like folks are angry about the filibuster.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

My point was regarding the passion. I’d take people flooding into the chambers any day over an outright ignoring of the sometimes nasty side effects of representative democracy. It really sounds like folks are angry about the filibuster.

No, that’s not what I’ve seen and heard. Of course the filibuster took up the clock, but the screaming and shouting from the gallery really ended the session in a very underhanded and uncivilized way.

In any case, what they did was subversion of democracy. The will of the people is that this bill should pass, and it will. They acted like fools, showed themselves for what they are, and should ALL have been arrested.

 

[gracepoole]

In any case, what they did was subversion of democracy. The will of the people is that this bill should pass, and it will. They acted like fools, showed themselves for what they are, and should ALL have been arrested.

Understand I’m not making a claim regarding this question – but I’m curious whether you’d claim the same if the protestors *had *been pro-life. Pro-lifers would have been created a ruckus for a righteous reason. Would that make their behavior acceptable?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Understand I’m not making a claim regarding this question – but I’m curious whether you’d claim the same if the protestors *had *been pro-life. Pro-lifers would have been created a ruckus for a righteous reason. Would that make their behavior acceptable?

No. That kind of demonstration would likely make me question my affiliation. Fortunately, it will never happen.

 

[LisaA]

It was a hypothetical example.

Respectfully, please don’t make assumptions about my beliefs.

I made no assumption but took you at your word. So I was correct that your statement was disingenuous?

And Juliane makes a good point. It was not the filibuster but the screaming that allowed Dewhurst (and aren’t we GLAD he was defeated by TED CRUZ!!!) to dismiss the voting that did take place within the time frame. Due to the loud voices and disruption the vote was not recorded in the time frame required. Hence the nullification of the vote on the Fetal Pain bill…which HAD passed.

It continues to be a war of words between Davis and Governor Perry. He commented that as the child of a single teenage mother who ended up going to Harvard and being very successful, that he didn’t understand why she wasn’t working for other babies conceived in less than optimal circumstances to have the same chance SHE had…because HER mother chose life.

How anyone who was given this gift of life can have such a disregard for the rights of others stuns me. I look to POTUS who was certainly conceived in a very unstable situation. Yet he was given the chance and here he is the Leader of the Free World. Yet HE and Davis and others of their ilk are so incredibly self absorbed, they have no compassion for other babies conceived in such tenuous situations. I truly do not get it.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Understand I’m not making a claim regarding this question – but I’m curious whether you’d claim the same if the protestors *had *been pro-life. Pro-lifers would have been created a ruckus for a righteous reason. Would that make their behavior acceptable?

No. I am totally against the few pro-lifers who are shrill, uncharitable and call women who have abortions “baby murderers.” I do not approve of the gory signs on the streets or in front of abortion clinics.

We need to appeal to peoples’ better angels, to their reasoning ability and their natural compassion for the weak and powerless. Even when you watch something like the March for Life which has hundreds of thousands of marchers, you hear chanting, singing and praying but not howls and screeches.

I know it must be hard to believe but there is more to this than partisanship. Some of us actually care about unborn babies and traumatized women, neither of whom will be helped by the pro life movement looking like a bunch of wing nuts on parade.

Lisa

 

[Tucker_R]

Of course they don’t… they’re liberals.

Those 1,000 or so protestors just wasted a whole lot of taxpayer money by interfering with the democratic process.

 

[gracepoole]

No. That kind of demonstration would likely make me question my affiliation. Fortunately, it will never happen.

I don’t know that we can say with certainty that it will never happen, but I hear you.

I made no assumption but took you at your word. So I was correct that your statement was disingenuous?

I really have no idea why you think my comments were disingenuous. What about this is disingenuous in your mind?

“I said it was a byproduct of representative democracy. Citizens want to ensure that their voices are heard. That’s not mob rule – it’s not a witch trial. It is, however, a result of the filibuster. If the protestors were pro-life and became rowdy to ensure that their message was heard and abortion was severely restricted, would we really be outraged at their antics? Or would we be grateful for their brazenness? Would we be angry at the money it cost taxpayers to curb abortion? I’m sure we could find cheaper forms of government – but I doubt we’d be happy living with them.”

And you did make an assumption about my beliefs when you wrote, “I honestly don’t think even YOU believe what you are saying but as a consistent supporter of these issues, I understand why you think you must make these claims.”

A “consistent supporter of these issues”? What does that mean?

 

[LisaA]

I said it was a byproduct of representative democracy. Citizens want to ensure that their voices are heard. That’s not mob rule – it’s not a witch trial. It is, however, a result of the filibuster. If the protestors were pro-life and became rowdy to ensure that their message was heard and abortion was severely restricted, would we really be outraged at their antics? Or would we be grateful for their brazenness? Would we be angry at the money it cost taxpayers to curb abortion? I’m sure we could find cheaper forms of government – but I doubt we’d be happy living with them.

I thought much of this was disingenuous. Do you really believe that blocking the legislative process by screaming and yelling is “a byproduct of representative democracy.” Really? I thought the point of our form of government is that our voices are heard (during the legislative process) in the actions of our elected representatives. Mob rule is not what is intended by a representative government. It might be a by-product of a direct Democracy…and perhaps the reason we have representatives although it is not a perfect system either.

Also your speculation that were pro-life groups have taken over by force, we would be cheering is without the slightest bit of evidence or merit. Presumably the pro lifers had the same opportunity to attend the session and “make their voices heard” yet no one heard them chanting and trying to drown out the vote so it could not be recorded.

As to your consistent support of these issues, after a while on CAF we can pretty much predict which direction a poster will head with his/her argument. You seem to support the Left’s agenda quite consistently. And your posts on this thread simply demonstrate that this is indeed your perspective on the issue.

Lisa

 

[gracepoole]

I thought much of this was disingenuous. Do you really believe that blocking the legislative process by screaming and yelling is “a byproduct of representative democracy.” Really? I thought the point of our form of government is that our voices are heard (during the legislative process) in the actions of our elected representatives. Mob rule is not what is intended by a representative government. It might be a by-product of a direct Democracy…and perhaps the reason we have representatives although it is not a perfect system either.

Also your speculation that were pro-life groups have taken over by force, we would be cheering is without the slightest bit of evidence or merit. Presumably the pro lifers had the same opportunity to attend the session and “make their voices heard” yet no one heard them chanting and trying to drown out the vote so it could not be recorded.

As to your consistent support of these issues, after a while on CAF we can pretty much predict which direction a poster will head with his/her argument. You seem to support the Left’s agenda quite consistently. And your posts on this thread simply demonstrate that this is indeed your perspective on the issue.

Lisa

First, and again, this was not mob rule. It was disorderly and chaotic, I grant you. But this event and the Salem witch trials, for example, are not comparable. Second, I asked if the protestors were pro-life (meaning they would have a righteous cause), would we be as upset. The point isn’t that “pro-lifers would never act this way!” or something akin to that. The point is the reaction we might have to this scenario. I was asking a hypothetical question. I don’t need evidence or merit to do so. Finally, you don’t really know me. It’s an online forum, not a family dinner. Painting everyone with broad brushes like “left” and “right” only results in mistakes on your part. I oppose abortion. Surprise, surprise.

 

[LisaA]

First, and again, this was not mob rule. It was disorderly and chaotic, I grant you. But this event and the Salem witch trials, for example, are not comparable. Second, I asked if the protestors were pro-life (meaning they would have a righteous cause), would we be as upset. The point isn’t that “pro-lifers would never act this way!” or something akin to that. The point is the reaction we might have to this scenario. I was asking a hypothetical question. I don’t need evidence or merit to do so. Finally, you don’t really know me. It’s an online forum, not a family dinner. Painting everyone with broad brushes like “left” and “right” only results in mistakes on your part. I oppose abortion. Surprise, surprise.

A couple of strawmen make an appearance. I don’t think ANYONE mentioned the Salem Witch Trials, except you. So no one made that comparison for you to shoot down. Disorderly? They invalidated a vote. They disenfranchised the people who elected the officials who were unable to vote on their behalf.

I didn’t say “pro lifers wouldn’t act that way” although I believe in the vast majority of cases, pro life demonstrations are very peaceful, even large demonstrations such as the March for Life with hundreds of thousands of participants. What I did say was there was no evidence that pro life folks were part of the howling banshees who prevented the vote. Did you have any? If not why did you suggest that the only reason we were objecting to the demonstrators was that they were not supporting our cause? I guess you can speculate all you want, but don’t presume anything absent the slightest bit of evidence.

As to Left or Right, your posts seem rather overly defensive of the pro aborts. As a Catholic I hope you are against abortion, but I have to wonder why you wanted to defend a group screaming down your cause? Other threads have given me the impression you are a bit left of center in your politics. Gay marriage anyone?

BTW I assume your CAF name Grace Poole is not your actual name. Grace Poole is the red herring in Jane Eyre. I think often people choose a CAF name that indicates their objective. Perhaps you are simply playing devil’s advocate throwing out the fishies?
Lisa

 

[gracepoole]

A couple of strawmen make an appearance. I don’t think ANYONE mentioned the Salem Witch Trials, except you. So no one made that comparison for you to shoot down. Disorderly? They invalidated a vote. They disenfranchised the people who elected the officials who were unable to vote on their behalf.

I didn’t say “pro lifers wouldn’t act that way” although I believe in the vast majority of cases, pro life demonstrations are very peaceful, even large demonstrations such as the March for Life with hundreds of thousands of participants. What I did say was there was no evidence that pro life folks were part of the howling banshees who prevented the vote. Did you have any? If not why did you suggest that the only reason we were objecting to the demonstrators was that they were not supporting our cause? I guess you can speculate all you want, but don’t presume anything absent the slightest bit of evidence.

As to Left or Right, your posts seem rather overly defensive of the pro aborts. As a Catholic I hope you are against abortion, but I have to wonder why you wanted to defend a group screaming down your cause? Other threads have given me the impression you are a bit left of center in your politics. Gay marriage anyone?

BTW I assume your CAF name Grace Poole is not your actual name. Grace Poole is the red herring in Jane Eyre. I think often people choose a CAF name that indicates their objective. Perhaps you are simply playing devil’s advocate throwing out the fishies?
Lisa

I mentioned the Salem witch trials as an example of true mob rule.

I don’t need evidence of something happening in order to pose a hypothetical question about something happening. If I had evidence, it wouldn’t be hypothetical any longer.

I’m not attempting to defend or defame anyone. I understand that it’s easiest to simply assume from threads on one topic how some feel about other topics. It’s easiest, but not fruitful, as evidenced here.

As to my name, I teach literature and my favorite novel is Jane Eyre. Mystery solved.

 

[LisaA]

I mentioned the Salem witch trials as an example of true mob rule.

I don’t need evidence of something happening in order to pose a hypothetical question about something happening. If I had evidence, it wouldn’t be hypothetical any longer.

I’m not attempting to defend or defame anyone. I understand that it’s easiest to simply assume from threads on one topic how some feel about other topics. It’s easiest, but not fruitful, as evidenced here.

As to my name, I teach literature and my favorite novel is Jane Eyre. Mystery solved.

OK point taken and best to get back to the thread. I didn’t see the question as so much hypothetical as a thinly veiled inference that those objecting to the chaos only did so because the screaming meemies were pro aborts. I guess I just overthought it along with your CAF name.

Thanks for the explanation.
Lisa

 

[gracepoole]

OK point taken and best to get back to the thread. I didn’t see the question as so much hypothetical as a thinly veiled inference that those objecting to the chaos only did so because the screaming meemies were pro aborts. I guess I just overthought it along with your CAF name.

Thanks for the explanation.
Lisa

(And congrats – in over sixteen years of using the name in various online spots, you’re one of only two people to actually identify its source correctly.)

 

[LisaA]

(And congrats – in over sixteen years of using the name in various online spots, you’re one of only two people to actually identify its source correctly.)

Why thank you! I am a total bookworm. My idea of a great weekend program is Book TV after which I run to the bookstore and buy what looks intriguing.

Lisa

 

[gracepoole]

Why thank you! I am a total bookworm. My idea of a great weekend program is Book TV after which I run to the bookstore and buy what looks intriguing.

Lisa

:clapping: :yup: :clapping:

 

[CompSciGuy]

Well since many people don’t seem put off by the way the protestors disrupted the democratic process by shouting down the senate, perhaps they also won’t be upset if pro-lifers shout down Ms. Davis at the next fiilibuster. The rule is that she can’t stop speaking for more than a few seconds… If yelling in screaming is enough to delay the vote then it is enough to delay Ms. Davis from being heard for long enough to break her fillibuster.