-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 01:35:03 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Endless Summer Quarterly
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION  (Read 93002 times)
0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #225 on: November 28, 2015, 09:19:45 PM »


[quote author=Emily link=topic=22609.msg549541#msg549541
They are gaining an unfair advantage because their relationships are not for good government but being incentivized by organizations who should not have all this money that they get from donations, and whose donors are likely unaware that as their money is going to fund political campaigns, when donors are told that money is going to "women's health."      
In what way is it "unfair"? Anyone can do it. I can start a PAC if I like. If you think that all politicians who've accepted PAC money and all industries supporting PACs are anathema, well, that's all politicians and all industries. You may be right, they all stink, but why you bring it up in particular reference to Planned Parenthood, I don't know. Look further on that site. You'll find plenty of PAC money going to things you support. Will you write them off as scoundrels?.
And I expect that most people giving money to a Political Action Committee are aware that it is going to political contributions or advertising (exactly what political action committees are for) and not to the industry that the PAC supports. These were not donations to Planned Parenthood, but to a PAC.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #226 on: November 29, 2015, 07:29:26 AM »


[quote author=Emily link=topic=22609.msg549541#msg549541
They are gaining an unfair advantage because their relationships are not for good government but being incentivized by organizations who should not have all this money that they get from donations, and whose donors are likely unaware that as their money is going to fund political campaigns, when donors are told that money is going to "women's health."      
In what way is it "unfair"? Anyone can do it. I can start a PAC if I like. If you think that all politicians who've accepted PAC money and all industries supporting PACs are anathema, well, that's all politicians and all industries. You may be right, they all stink, but why you bring it up in particular reference to Planned Parenthood, I don't know. Look further on that site. You'll find plenty of PAC money going to things you support. Will you write them off as scoundrels?.
And I expect that most people giving money to a Political Action Committee are aware that it is going to political contributions or advertising (exactly what political action committees are for) and not to the industry that the PAC supports. These were not donations to Planned Parenthood, but to a PAC.
Emily - Planned Parenthood has a couple of charitable type designations. One is a political organization designation and one seems to be the organization itself.  When a politician gets such huge donations for campaigns they should be disclosing how much money they got from those organizations when they advocate legislation or policy. It is transparent.  If you get money, it helps "frame your policy." That is how it works.  "To the victor belongs the spoils." That phrase goes back to the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 which translates to "helping out your friends" after the election.

Yes, you can start a PAC but if you get money in that PAC from an organization then you should be disclosing that.  These tax exemptions are generally for charitable purposes.  If I give a hundred dollars to a charity, or even one dollar, I want it to go to direct services to the charity, to help people, and not for overhead or lobbying politicians whose organizations make millions to frame policy in DC or for favored procurement (as is how the VA operates.)

PP was the title of this thread and that is why I discussed it.  I looked up familiar political figures who were outspoken and it was exactly those who attempted to minimize what was going on this past fall. There is a direct correlation between political contributions and future policy support.  
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 07:50:52 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #227 on: November 29, 2015, 08:05:34 AM »

Unfortunately, the law is the law. I think very few people support the campaign finance structure we currently have. But I don't see any evidence that PP has done anything outside the letter or spirit of the current law, or outside of common accepted. procedures. It seemed to me that you were implying that they had. If you weren't, then that's my mistake.
Eta: perhaps not in all cases, but in some cases I think you've got it backward. There are many people, including me, who think PP provides important and useful services. For instance, they provide low-cost gynecological exams, OB/gyn services, early pregnancy health education, and birth control to many, many lower and middle income women.
If I were in congress, I would have "minimized what was going on this past fall" because I thought it was a scuzzy attempt by some scuzzy underhanded people to smear a fine organization for political points, probably feeding into what went on a few days ago. It's hardly a coincidence that this guy selected PP as his target.
Now, if I were in congress, it would be clear that I support PP. It would then make sense for PP to support my reelection. It would then make sense for their PAC to give me money. Would they have bought my vote? No. They already had it.
As there are many people who support PP, shall we assume that some people in congress supports them without being bought? Or might we think that no one in congress supports them, so they have to buy votes?
The NRA outspends PP by far, as do many other PACs. Do we then conclude that the only reason anyone votes against gun control legislation is because they've been bought? Or do we think that some of those congresspeople are actually against the legislation and that's why the NRA supports them?  
When someone first starts to run for higher office, they seek funds from orgs who will benefit from their existing beliefs. If I were to run, I would not go ask the NRA for funds, but I would ask PP for funds. As your positions are more broadly known, funds come from orgs who know they can count on your support. PP isn't going to give money to someone who doesn't support them. And people in congress aren't blank slates. They came with positions. Lobbyists, and funds, unfortunately will move their positions sometimes, but it's a much more complex interchange than you seem to believe.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 08:29:36 AM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #228 on: November 29, 2015, 08:43:08 AM »

Unfortunately, the law is the law. I think very few people support the campaign finance structure we currently have. But I don't see any evidence that PP has done anything outside the letter or spirit of the current law, or outside of common accepted. procedures. It seemed to me that you were implying that they had. If you weren't, then that's my mistake.
Emily - the burden should be on the candidate or the lawmaker to disclose the donations when advocating for a policy.  I made no such implication.  Going back, personally, when I found out that the CEO of a major charitable foundation, was making $300,00 a year, I stopped donating.  When the CEO gets $300k, it means that they get salary first, and then the charity and the people for whom the charity is set up to benefit, goes after the "suit."

That carries over to these research foundations.  One of the smartest foundations was one set up to find cure for a specific genetic disease, where the foundation set up its own hiring of researchers rather than rely on an organizational approach. They hired their own doctors and scientists.  It is a new approach.  They found some pretty high profile people to "donate their time and talent" for many tasks. They act "in concert with the foundation" to raise funds, and have a better handle on emerging progress, addressing the disease and research and development and accountability rather than creating a slush fund that has to be split up like a pie with little accountability.  It is more efficient and lead to more rapid treatment development. 

Many of these non-transparent foundations are top-heavy in organizational costs and bottom heavy on service-delivery.  With money comes influence and PP has created a quasi- monopoly as a non-profit.  I guess I just have a problem with that, because they are almost given the status of a quasi-governmental agency.  They are a health care provider.  And they don't have the market cornered as far as medical skill sets or social service skill sets.  But they get the most money because they have infiltrated and paid off the political system.

The letter of the law might not have been violated but certainly if they have this "super access" to the White House or other governmental agencies, there could be a violation of the "spirit" of the law.  Generally, I think we need to have more accountability with regard "501 tax-exempt designations." And, more disclosure.  It may not be big oil or big pharma, but there is certainly big influence over millions of tax dollars.

Maybe there will be a deeper and more forensic (for the court) analysis of their funding sources and who is tied to all those millions.  Why does a charity need a $3 million budget for a lobbying sector?  That is my question. 
Logged
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #229 on: November 29, 2015, 09:39:34 AM »

And before get any sh*t about being a typical liberal who supports abortion and blah blah blah blah...I happen to be pro-life in most cases, and that was only strengthened after my wife and I going through a miscarriage a couple of days ago.

You know, cause this board likes to generalize and all of that.
Oh wow. I'm sorry to hear that. Been through it and it was devastating for a long time. Please note that this wreaks havoc with the hormones and your wife will be struggling with an imbalance for a while.

Oh yeah...been there. This was our 3rd loss, so sadly we've been through this before.
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
Freddie French-Pounce
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571


A.K.A. mrmoustachioto


View Profile
« Reply #230 on: November 29, 2015, 09:41:55 AM »

What is now exposed is that these videos are faked and a hoax and you failed to update the thread on your now debunked story. It boggles the mind how so many of you use the Fox News propaganda machine as truth and fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/opinions/louis-planned-parenthood/

Not only that, it is illegal for PP to sell fetal tissue, and PP is prohibited by law to use Federal money for abortion services.

I'd like to control your right to buy a gun but it is your Constitutional right. Funny how you Republicans complain about the over reach of big govt and govt regulation but when it comes to your issues, like abortion,  you want to pass laws to control and stop it.

Yes, the woman's right to chose, Constitutional right as handed down by the Supreme Court. In case you didn't  realize, carrying around a big thing in your belly for 9 months is no trivial thing.  It  can endanger a woman's health, mess up her body permanently and affect her life in multiple ways you obviously have never seriously considered. Not to mention, deciding not to bring a child into a situation of poverty in some cases. Seems like not adding to the 50% of takers Mitt Romney and Fox NEWS love to complain about would make you happy.

I love this post so much.

Abortion should always be a choice.
Logged

Check out the Mono/Stereo Mix Breakdown podcast Mixology here: https://mixology.podbean.com/
The LEGENDARY OSD
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1948

luHv Estrangement Syndrome. It's a great thing!


View Profile
« Reply #231 on: November 29, 2015, 09:57:53 AM »

What is now exposed is that these videos are faked and a hoax and you failed to update the thread on your now debunked story. It boggles the mind how so many of you use the Fox News propaganda machine as truth and fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/opinions/louis-planned-parenthood/

Not only that, it is illegal for PP to sell fetal tissue, and PP is prohibited by law to use Federal money for abortion services.

I'd like to control your right to buy a gun but it is your Constitutional right. Funny how you Republicans complain about the over reach of big govt and govt regulation but when it comes to your issues, like abortion,  you want to pass laws to control and stop it.

Yes, the woman's right to chose, Constitutional right as handed down by the Supreme Court. In case you didn't  realize, carrying around a big thing in your belly for 9 months is no trivial thing.  It  can endanger a woman's health, mess up her body permanently and affect her life in multiple ways you obviously have never seriously considered. Not to mention, deciding not to bring a child into a situation of poverty in some cases. Seems like not adding to the 50% of takers Mitt Romney and Fox NEWS love to complain about would make you happy.

You read my mind. Great post, ORR!
Logged

myKe luHv, the most hated, embarrassing clown the world of music has ever witnessed.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #232 on: November 29, 2015, 10:55:00 AM »

What is now exposed is that these videos are faked and a hoax and you failed to update the thread on your now debunked story. It boggles the mind how so many of you use the Fox News propaganda machine as truth and fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/opinions/louis-planned-parenthood/

Not only that, it is illegal for PP to sell fetal tissue, and PP is prohibited by law to use Federal money for abortion services.

I'd like to control your right to buy a gun but it is your Constitutional right. Funny how you Republicans complain about the over reach of big govt and govt regulation but when it comes to your issues, like abortion,  you want to pass laws to control and stop it.

Yes, the woman's right to chose, Constitutional right as handed down by the Supreme Court. In case you didn't  realize, carrying around a big thing in your belly for 9 months is no trivial thing.  It  can endanger a woman's health, mess up her body permanently and affect her life in multiple ways you obviously have never seriously considered. Not to mention, deciding not to bring a child into a situation of poverty in some cases. Seems like not adding to the 50% of takers Mitt Romney and Fox NEWS love to complain about would make you happy.

You read my mind. Great post, ORR!
OSD - Let's not forget this is not about the "woman's right to choose." This is not in issue. 

The issue is what happened to the "foetal tissue" post abortion and whether methods and means were used to maximize profit. And whether, in contravention to the law, their procedures were tailored to maximize tissue output to procure an entire organ with sustainablility.  That CNN movie cameo post is misleading because the "right to choose" was never in question.  This is not about the days of back-alley and coat-hanger abortions and subsequent maternal death.

The issue is whether women who underwent these procedures were mislead about where "their" products of their conception were sold, or bartered, and whether any laws were broken to make that happen. Consent is required to donate a umbilical cord for research. A hospital cannot use your cord blood for research unless the mother gives consent.  I gave consent for medical research.  That goes back several decades.  These women had ultrasounds but were not shown the ultrasounds.  That could be argued that perhaps the procedure done without showing the photo could negate "informed consent." No one put words in those Planned Parenthood doctors and staffers.  This is about corruption in an industry.  Corruption is corruption.

The defense of "heavily edited" videos came from some senators who got no less than $11 grand in one election cycle from a charitable non-profit which is tax exempt. That is hefty dough for a elected official to act as spokesperson for an organization that is not the only one which provides woman's health care as they claim.   They don't have a monopoly on taking care of women's health.  We have community health centers and tons of HMO's that area connected to teaching hospitals to do that. 

Planned Parenthood has $3 million for lobbying and they don't need, nor should they be "calling in their favors" when the ocean gets turbulent.  They could have hired their own PR to do their damage control.  It is a matter of following the money.       
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #233 on: November 29, 2015, 11:04:18 AM »

And before get any sh*t about being a typical liberal who supports abortion and blah blah blah blah...I happen to be pro-life in most cases, and that was only strengthened after my wife and I going through a miscarriage a couple of days ago.

You know, cause this board likes to generalize and all of that.
Oh wow. I'm sorry to hear that. Been through it and it was devastating for a long time. Please note that this wreaks havoc with the hormones and your wife will be struggling with an imbalance for a while.

Oh yeah...been there. This was our 3rd loss, so sadly we've been through this before.
Ugh. I'm so very and honestly sorry. I actually feel it. I had a few, though only one that was past the first trimester. If it helps, I eventually had a lovely healthy happy child.
Eta: I just realized that this might read as though it might help you that I eventually had said child. What I meant is that you still can realistically hope. Though at this stage, maybe you aren't ready to think of the future. In any case, I mean to extend my sympathy. Sorry for bumbling.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 11:10:11 AM by Emily » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #234 on: November 29, 2015, 02:41:49 PM »

Whoops, I forgot the Middle East was a peaceful Utopia before the Bush's blundered along.

I'll be glad to engage with you when you address anything I have actually said but you seem intent here on concocting a position for me out of thin air. I have said nothing whatsoever along those lines. If you wish to dispense with the deceitful straw men, we could continue in a reasonable fashion.

Quote
FOR THE LAST TIME!!!! I think we should leave the middle east countries alone. I can't be any clearer on the subject.

You have been very clear in terms of answering the question that you are asking yourself. As far as answering my question, you still haven't. Once again, you appear to suggest that "we should leave the middle east countries alone" under the assumption that we have been trying to help helpless people. My question is whether you are in favour of stopping policies that lead to an increase in terror. For example, recently there was a very good article in The Globe and Mail which suggested that blocking refugees enhances the threat of terror and that ISIS is actively counting on refugees being blocked entrance because it helps immensely with their recruitment. Here is the article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-strategic-value-of-compassion-welcoming-refugees-is-devastating-to-is/article27373931/

So if you are in favour of policies that prevent the likelihood of an increase in the threat of terror, you would probably be in favour of bringing in refugees. Now, you do not take this into account when it comes to answering my question, because the fact is that you are not answering it.

Quote
It's a straw man question

You are using the term "straw man" incorrectly.

Quote
and I've been led down the garden path with your hypothetical questions one too many times now, so I choose not to answer.

I'm mostly just trying to figure out what you mean when you say that we should declare Islam to be  ideology "far beyond that of a religion". When I asked you to explain what that meant you did not answer. Then I asked this:

Do you really think we should declare Islam to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion" as you said or did you actually mean something else?

You didn't answer that either. So in an effort to try and understand what you were saying, and in response to your refusal to explain what you meant, I asked that hypothetical question. The question is, do you think it would make sense to say that we should declare Christianity to be an ideology to be "far beyond that of a religion" on the basis of a few churches that were promoting the use of terrorism?  You refused to answer this as well.

This was an effort, by the way, of giving you the benefit of the doubt after I quoted you directly and you told me that that's not what you really meant. But thus far you have neglected to confirm what it is you really meant.

So am I to assume that I was correct in my initial claim or are you actually going to clarify your point?

Quote
Also you've just inadvertently admitted that we are potentially more at risk from Muslims then we are from Christians.

What do you mean by "we"? If by "we," you mean the world, then the world is far more potentially at risk as a result of Western actions than they are at risk from Muslims. I'm not particularly concerned with the safety of one particular group over another - I'm concerned with everyone's safety and I'm concerned primarily with the kind of dangerous actions that I have control over and have some power to stop.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 06:05:37 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Mike's Beard
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4265


Check your privilege. Love & Mercy guys!


View Profile
« Reply #235 on: November 29, 2015, 05:07:33 PM »

Any form of worship be it Islamic, Christian or the Cult of Cthulhu that uses it's teachings as a basis to try dominate the rest of the world by force, intolerance and fear mongering has an ideology that has moved beyond that of a mere religion and into fascist supremacism territory.
I now patiently await your reply where you claim I haven't answered your question and ask me the same question yet again.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 05:48:19 PM by Mike's Beard » Logged

I'd rather be forced to sleep with Caitlyn Jenner then ever have to listen to NPP again.
Mike's Beard
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4265


Check your privilege. Love & Mercy guys!


View Profile
« Reply #236 on: November 29, 2015, 05:12:48 PM »


I'll be glad to engage with you when you address anything I have actually said but you seem intent here on concocting a position for me out of thin air. I have said nothing whatsoever along those lines.

Also this;  LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL. After all the sh*t that has been insinuated towards me on this and the other thread? Pot say hello to the kettle.
Logged

I'd rather be forced to sleep with Caitlyn Jenner then ever have to listen to NPP again.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #237 on: November 29, 2015, 05:52:36 PM »

Any form of worship be it Islamic, Christian or the Cult of Cthulhu that uses it's teachings as a basis to try dominate the rest of the world by force, intolerance and fear mongering has an ideology that has moved beyond that of a mere religion and into fascist supremacism territory.
I now patiently await your reply where you claim I haven't answered your question and ask me the same question yet again.
Wow. Several forms of worship have sprung to my mind that fit that bill. I'd say the most active and successful right now at domination through those methods is not Islam.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #238 on: November 29, 2015, 05:56:04 PM »

Any form of worship be it Islamic, Christian or the Cult of Cthulhu that uses it's teachings as a basis to try dominate the rest of the world by force, intolerance and fear mongering has an ideology that has moved beyond that of a mere religion and into fascist supremacism territory.

A form of worship has an ideology? I'm not sure what that means. What's the ideology?

And furthermore, I am asking about whether what happens in several churches allows you to make a declaration about the religion as a whole, which you do not address here. Could you?

Quote
I now patiently await your reply where you claim I haven't answered your question and ask me the same question yet again.

Given that I still have questions means that you have not answered my question.

Quote
Also this;  LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL. After all the sh*t that has been insinuated towards me on this and the other thread? Pot say hello to the kettle.

I quoted you directly. You didn't give any quotation because you couldn't find one that could even come close to reinforcing the position that you were attributing to me. To equate these two things is ludicrous. And furthermore, you have claimed that the quote that I gave from you didn't actually mean what it said so I have been actively trying to figure out what you actually meant. So it should be quite obvious that I'm trying to do whatever it takes to not concoct a position for you.
Logged
Mike's Beard
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4265


Check your privilege. Love & Mercy guys!


View Profile
« Reply #239 on: November 29, 2015, 07:11:32 PM »

Well as predicted you again asked the same question.Can you please change your name to Many Questions Man? It seems to fit you much better.
Seriously. Questions, questions, more fucking questions. Which I answer. Which you then claim that I don't. Which I then answer again, followed by the same question rephrased. Which I answer but like chopping off the head of the Hydra leads to 3 more fucking questions. And on and on and on it goes.
Here, let me cut through your endless parade of questions and repeat what I pretty much posted two weeks back which sums up exactly where I stand on Islamic terrorism. It's my final say on the matter, so for all those questions that you are bound to feel compelled to ask in response please kindly keep to yourself.

DON'T LET ANYBODY FROM PREDOMINATELY MUSLIM COUNTRIES SETTLE IN THE WEST AT THIS TIME.
DEPORT OR IMPRISON ANYBODY WITH LINKS TO OR SUPPORTS ANY FORM OF RADICALIZED ISLAMIC ACTIVITY.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 08:15:01 PM by Mike's Beard » Logged

I'd rather be forced to sleep with Caitlyn Jenner then ever have to listen to NPP again.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #240 on: November 29, 2015, 07:20:28 PM »

Can you please change your name to Many Questions Man? It seems to fit you much better.

I'm mostly asking one question which you are still refusing to answer. Here it is again:

Do you really think we should declare Islam to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion" as you said or did you actually mean something else?
Logged
Mike's Beard
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4265


Check your privilege. Love & Mercy guys!


View Profile
« Reply #241 on: November 29, 2015, 07:37:37 PM »

Can you please change your name to Many Questions Man? It seems to fit you much better.

I'm mostly asking one question which you are still refusing to answer. Here it is again:

Do you really think we should declare Islam to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion" as you said or did you actually mean something else?
Already answered that and clarified my initial statement so I repeat.


Well as predicted you again asked the same question.Can you please change your name to Many Questions Man? It seems to fit you much better.
Seriously. Questions, questions, more fucking questions. Which I answer. Which you then claim that I don't. Which I then answer again, followed by the same question rephrased. Which I answer but like chopping off the head of the Hydra leads to 3 more fucking questions. And on and on and on it goes.
Here, let me cut through your endless parade of questions and repeat what I pretty much posted two weeks back which sums up exactly where I stand on Islamic terrorism. It's my final say on the matter, so for all those questions that you are bound to feel compelled to ask in response please kindly keep to yourself.

DON'T LET ANYBODY FROM PREDOMINATELY MUSLIM COUNTRIES SETTLE IN THE WEST AT THIS TIME.
DEPORT OR IMPRISON ANYBODY WITH LINKS OR SUPPORTS ANY FORM OF RADICALIZED ISLAMIC ACTIVITY.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 07:40:48 PM by Mike's Beard » Logged

I'd rather be forced to sleep with Caitlyn Jenner then ever have to listen to NPP again.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #242 on: November 29, 2015, 07:41:48 PM »

And you still haven't answered my question, which transparently had nothing to do with "Islamic terrorism." But fair enough -- if you'd like me to stop asking, I will.
Logged
Mike's Beard
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4265


Check your privilege. Love & Mercy guys!


View Profile
« Reply #243 on: November 29, 2015, 07:51:51 PM »

I have, repeatedly Many Questions Man. And still you ask it. I've ran out of ways to answer you, it's mentally exhausting trying to think of different ways to get my reply through your head.
Like I said before, this isn't a conversation or debate, it's a one sided question fest.
Good day to you.
Logged

I'd rather be forced to sleep with Caitlyn Jenner then ever have to listen to NPP again.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #244 on: November 29, 2015, 08:20:13 PM »

I have, repeatedly Many Questions Man. And still you ask it. I've ran out of ways to answer you, it's mentally exhausting trying to think of different ways to get my reply through your head.
Like I said before, this isn't a conversation or debate, it's a one sided question fest.
Good day to you.

I would be happy to debate you or have a conversation if I understood your position. I suppose that when you note above that you "clarified" your original statement, you are saying that you don't actually believe that we should declare Islam to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion" and then outlaw it as a terror organization. However, if you were specifically referring to Islamic terrorism, then I'm still puzzled since obviously that's already outlawed, as it should be. If you mean that all fundamentalists should be thrown in jail, I would disagree. I would say that fundamentalism of any kind is dangerous but so is throwing people in jail on the basis of their beliefs. As has already been noted, most terrorism in the United States is carried out by reactionaries who hold anti-government views, which are themselves a kind of fundamentalism. In fact, the similarities are quite striking between those who hold anti-government points of view and those who hold fundamentalist religious points of view. Nevertheless, while slavish anti-government figures can present a threat and it is quite possible that someone in a group of anti-government fundamentalists could indeed be violently destructive, I nevertheless would not support throwing into prison anybody who holds those views, unless they were actively pursuing or encouraging illegal activity.

Phewf. An entire thread with not a single question. That was difficult for Many Questions Man.  Smiley
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 08:56:34 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Gerry
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


View Profile
« Reply #245 on: December 03, 2015, 08:44:00 AM »

It wasn't busted, it is a doctored video. This is more truth twisting on the right. The only time you right wingers care about children is when they're in the womb. This is just another situation where mostly men are trying to make decisions that affect mostly women. How big of you that you are willing to "possibly" allow an exception in the case of rape and incest. Republicans use the abortion issue as a fundraiser .GW Bush had control of the senate and congress at one point during his administration and Roe v. Wade could've been overturned but no, it brings in too much money.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #246 on: December 03, 2015, 09:12:25 AM »

It wasn't busted, it is a doctored video. This is more truth twisting on the right. The only time you right wingers care about children is when they're in the womb. This is just another situation where mostly men are trying to make decisions that affect mostly women. How big of you that you are willing to "possibly" allow an exception in the case of rape and incest. Republicans use the abortion issue as a fundraiser .GW Bush had control of the senate and congress at one point during his administration and Roe v. Wade could've been overturned but no, it brings in too much money.
Disagree big time.  Those words came out of those doctor's mouths.  They clearly uttered those words. 

Several important things came out of this exposé:

First, women have been given ultrasounds that they did not have access to prior to their procedures.  That could compromise whether they ever gave "informed consent." 

Second, this raises the whole issue of false representation as to what happened with the proceeds from the women's bodies.  PP has "walked this back" saying they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.  That is an admission.  Tissue and organ trafficking is a multi-million dollar business. 

Third, Roe v. Wade was never on the table.   

And, no one gets more money in each election cycle from Planned Parenthood than the Dems, who have become their "public relations agency" instead of hiring a PR firm to clean up the mess.  If you check out opensecrets.org there is an accounting of monies given to political campaigns.   

That is an unfair statement to make that people only care about pre-born children.  There are lots of safety nets in place to feed, clothe and educate all children.  We have the WIC program (Women, Infants and Children.)  So nutrition is covered.   
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #247 on: December 03, 2015, 09:20:08 AM »

It wasn't busted, it is a doctored video. This is more truth twisting on the right. The only time you right wingers care about children is when they're in the womb. This is just another situation where mostly men are trying to make decisions that affect mostly women. How big of you that you are willing to "possibly" allow an exception in the case of rape and incest. Republicans use the abortion issue as a fundraiser .GW Bush had control of the senate and congress at one point during his administration and Roe v. Wade could've been overturned but no, it brings in too much money.
Disagree big time.  Those words came out of those doctor's mouths.  They clearly uttered those words. 

Several important things came out of this exposé:

First, women have been given ultrasounds that they did not have access to prior to their procedures.  That could compromise whether they ever gave "informed consent." 

Second, this raises the whole issue of false representation as to what happened with the proceeds from the women's bodies.  PP has "walked this back" saying they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.  That is an admission.  Tissue and organ trafficking is a multi-million dollar business. 

Third, Roe v. Wade was never on the table.   

And, no one gets more money in each election cycle from Planned Parenthood than the Dems, who have become their "public relations agency" instead of hiring a PR firm to clean up the mess.  If you check out opensecrets.org there is an accounting of monies given to political campaigns.   

That is an unfair statement to make that people only care about pre-born children.  There are lots of safety nets in place to feed, clothe and educate all children.  We have the WIC program (Women, Infants and Children.)  So nutrition is covered.   

- Thinking that women are unable to give informed consent without seeing an ultrasound is incredibly condescending. Almost all women, by the age they can become pregnant, have learned enough language that they no longer need pictures to understand communications.

"Second, this raises the whole issue of false representation as to what happened with the proceeds from the women's bodies.  PP has "walked this back" saying they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.  That is an admission. "
Yes, it's admission that they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.

Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for, other than defamation on the part of the videographers.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #248 on: December 03, 2015, 09:29:56 AM »

It wasn't busted, it is a doctored video. This is more truth twisting on the right. The only time you right wingers care about children is when they're in the womb. This is just another situation where mostly men are trying to make decisions that affect mostly women. How big of you that you are willing to "possibly" allow an exception in the case of rape and incest. Republicans use the abortion issue as a fundraiser .GW Bush had control of the senate and congress at one point during his administration and Roe v. Wade could've been overturned but no, it brings in too much money.
Disagree big time.  Those words came out of those doctor's mouths.  They clearly uttered those words. 

Several important things came out of this exposé:

First, women have been given ultrasounds that they did not have access to prior to their procedures.  That could compromise whether they ever gave "informed consent." 

Second, this raises the whole issue of false representation as to what happened with the proceeds from the women's bodies.  PP has "walked this back" saying they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.  That is an admission.  Tissue and organ trafficking is a multi-million dollar business. 

Third, Roe v. Wade was never on the table.   

And, no one gets more money in each election cycle from Planned Parenthood than the Dems, who have become their "public relations agency" instead of hiring a PR firm to clean up the mess.  If you check out opensecrets.org there is an accounting of monies given to political campaigns.   

That is an unfair statement to make that people only care about pre-born children.  There are lots of safety nets in place to feed, clothe and educate all children.  We have the WIC program (Women, Infants and Children.)  So nutrition is covered.   

- Thinking that women are unable to give informed consent without seeing an ultrasound is incredibly condescending. Almost all women, by the age they can become pregnant, have learned enough language that they no longer need pictures to understand communications.

"Second, this raises the whole issue of false representation as to what happened with the proceeds from the women's bodies.  PP has "walked this back" saying they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.  That is an admission. "
Yes, it's admission that they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.

Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for, other than defamation on the part of the videographers.
Condescending?  Not really.  The law might not look at it that way.

1 - If you are in a room having an ultrasound, and you are not allowed to view it, then I would argue that you were not fully informed. 

2 - If you were in a room having this procedure and were told your "tissue" was going for medical research, and not that it was being sold, then I would argue that there was fraud and false representation. 

3 - And, I would not look at it as defamatory.  The truth is a defense to defamation. Those docs uttered those words.  We heard them. 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #249 on: December 03, 2015, 09:38:10 AM »

It wasn't busted, it is a doctored video. This is more truth twisting on the right. The only time you right wingers care about children is when they're in the womb. This is just another situation where mostly men are trying to make decisions that affect mostly women. How big of you that you are willing to "possibly" allow an exception in the case of rape and incest. Republicans use the abortion issue as a fundraiser .GW Bush had control of the senate and congress at one point during his administration and Roe v. Wade could've been overturned but no, it brings in too much money.
Disagree big time.  Those words came out of those doctor's mouths.  They clearly uttered those words. 

Several important things came out of this exposé:

First, women have been given ultrasounds that they did not have access to prior to their procedures.  That could compromise whether they ever gave "informed consent." 

Second, this raises the whole issue of false representation as to what happened with the proceeds from the women's bodies.  PP has "walked this back" saying they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.  That is an admission.  Tissue and organ trafficking is a multi-million dollar business. 

Third, Roe v. Wade was never on the table.   

And, no one gets more money in each election cycle from Planned Parenthood than the Dems, who have become their "public relations agency" instead of hiring a PR firm to clean up the mess.  If you check out opensecrets.org there is an accounting of monies given to political campaigns.   

That is an unfair statement to make that people only care about pre-born children.  There are lots of safety nets in place to feed, clothe and educate all children.  We have the WIC program (Women, Infants and Children.)  So nutrition is covered.   

- Thinking that women are unable to give informed consent without seeing an ultrasound is incredibly condescending. Almost all women, by the age they can become pregnant, have learned enough language that they no longer need pictures to understand communications.

"Second, this raises the whole issue of false representation as to what happened with the proceeds from the women's bodies.  PP has "walked this back" saying they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.  That is an admission. "
Yes, it's admission that they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.

Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for, other than defamation on the part of the videographers.
Condescending?  Not really.  The law might not look at it that way.

1 - If you are in a room having an ultrasound, and you are not allowed to view it, then I would argue that you were not fully informed. 

2 - If you were in a room having this procedure and were told your "tissue" was going for medical research, and not that it was being sold, then I would argue that there was fraud and false representation. 

3 - And, I would not look at it as defamatory.  The truth is a defense to defamation. Those docs uttered those words.  We heard them. 
-Is there evidence they were not allowed to look at ultrasounds? I find this highly unlikely.
-You think the law is the final word on what's right? Good to know you're pro-choice and only playing devil's advocate here.  Love
-no evidence
-splicing video to manipulate the meaning of words can certainly be defamatory.
You haven't done this:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for, other than defamation on the part of the videographers.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 1.167 seconds with 22 queries.