-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 17, 2019, 07:55:00 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Carnival Of Sound
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION  (Read 35920 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #250 on: December 03, 2015, 09:55:02 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 exposť:

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.
The issue was the changed "methodology and procedure" to extract the "tissue" to preserve the integrity of organs for sale.   They said, they were "no longer going to sell tissue." There is a difference.  When they said, "no longer" that is a definite admission.  It means they are "stopping the practice in existence." That is one of the things that is problematic. 

No, there were some who came forward, who have discussed not viewing the ultrasounds.  I am looking at the issues of consent, fraud, misrepresentation, and not the pro-choice aspect.  I find it a distractor that "choice" is being raised because it is muddying the waters.  Roe v. Wade is not in issue. 

But, some will take this opportunity to use this as an election or political issue to muddy the waters as to whether there are "choice" rights.  This is wrong. 

PP is worried because it will undermine the entire industry because they became "organ and tissue suppliers."  Think of those in the "distribution stream" who can't "market product." This bartering or sale of organs or tissue is a whole other dimension.    Wink
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #251 on: December 03, 2015, 10:25:26 AM »


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.    

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.  


The issue was the changed "methodology and procedure" to extract the "tissue" to preserve the integrity of organs for sale.   They said, they were "no longer going to sell tissue." There is a difference.  When they said, "no longer" that is a definite admission.  It means they are "stopping the practice in existence." That is one of the things that is problematic.  

No, there were some who came forward, who have discussed not viewing the ultrasounds.  I am looking at the issues of consent, fraud, misrepresentation, and not the pro-choice aspect.  I find it a distractor that "choice" is being raised because it is muddying the waters.  Roe v. Wade is not in issue.  

-Please provide evidence that women who wanted to see ultrasounds were refused.
-I see nothing wrong or suspicious in changing from one legal procedure to another legal procedure. That political opponents are able to rally outrage over the first legal procedure is not a bad motive for changing procedure, but it does not mean that the original procedure was either wrong or illegal.
-Once again, you imply that there's something fishy about a PAC giving money to politicians who support their cause. Once again, I will ask, what's wrong with that? And is it equally wrong when a PAC that supports a cause you support gives money to politicians who support that same cause?
-Regarding WIC, etc. I have no idea what you support, but I think you'll find that the majority of pro-lifers are also against most family-support welfare programs.
-your response regarding defamation did not take into account the intentional splicing of the video to change the meaning. If I say, "I hate pizza. I love Mike Love" and someone splices it to show me saying, "I hate Mike Love," you would hear me and see me saying those words but the video would be defamatory. It would be intentionally lying.
-several investigations by people inclined to find fault with PP were carried out. NONE found anything illegal.
3rd time I ask:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...


Logged
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #252 on: December 03, 2015, 10:30:06 AM »

The only time you right wingers care about children is when they're in the womb.

D'oh!  You made a boo-boo. 
Logged

409.
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #253 on: December 03, 2015, 10:38:16 AM »


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.    

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.  


The issue was the changed "methodology and procedure" to extract the "tissue" to preserve the integrity of organs for sale.   They said, they were "no longer going to sell tissue." There is a difference.  When they said, "no longer" that is a definite admission.  It means they are "stopping the practice in existence." That is one of the things that is problematic.  

No, there were some who came forward, who have discussed not viewing the ultrasounds.  I am looking at the issues of consent, fraud, misrepresentation, and not the pro-choice aspect.  I find it a distractor that "choice" is being raised because it is muddying the waters.  Roe v. Wade is not in issue.  

-Please provide evidence that women who wanted to see ultrasounds were refused.
-I see nothing wrong or suspicious in changing from one legal procedure to another legal procedure. That political opponents are able to rally outrage over the first legal procedure is not a bad motive for changing procedure, but it does not mean that the original procedure was either wrong or illegal.
-Once again, you imply that there's something fishy about a PAC giving money to politicians who support their cause. Once again, I will ask, what's wrong with that? And is it equally wrong when a PAC that supports a cause you support gives money to politicians who support that same cause?
-Regarding WIC, etc. I have no idea what you support, but I think you'll find that the majority of pro-lifers are also against most family-support welfare programs.
-your response regarding defamation did not take into account the intentional splicing of the video to change the meaning. If I say, "I hate pizza. I love Mike Love" and someone splices it to show me saying, "I hate Mike Love," you would hear me and see me saying those words but the video would be defamatory. It would be intentionally lying.
-several investigations by people inclined to find fault with PP were carried out. NONE found anything illegal.
3rd time I ask:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...
Some of the videos are available on youtube.  I watched several hours of C-SPAN testimony with Cecile Richards who is their spokesperson.  They are very informative.

In the medical industry, there are standards that are consistent with medical procedures, say for example having your tonsils out.  So, the doc follows the "Standards and Procedures" in the industry.  The doc doesn't try to take your tonsils out through your arm.  S/he takes them out of an oral cavity.  There was a discussion of altering a procedure to "maximize the quality of the organ."

Same with this procedure.  There are standards for this medical procedure...some of the language is graphic on the videos, and I am paraphrasing..."if we want an organ to come out intact, we do a procedure that is 'less crunchy'"

Mike Love is a public figure.  The standard for defamation is different.  It is complicated.  

The statement was made in a post that conservatives (I guess rightwing and what does that mean anyway?) only care about children who are pre-born.  After born children have programs in place for nutrition that are in place and universally supported and funded.  

Youtube is a very good start if you weren't able to catch the series and the CSPAN hearings.

And on the PAC's - PP has two 501 (charitable org.) setups.  One for its clinics and one for its political and lobbying arm.  They are tax free so we get to inquire were the dough is going.  But 501's are very non-transparent and I think that needs changing.  Just like the DoD.  I want to see their books. If I pay for it, I want to see the books.   
« Last Edit: December 03, 2015, 10:43:41 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #254 on: December 03, 2015, 11:07:01 AM »


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.    

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.  


The issue was the changed "methodology and procedure" to extract the "tissue" to preserve the integrity of organs for sale.   They said, they were "no longer going to sell tissue." There is a difference.  When they said, "no longer" that is a definite admission.  It means they are "stopping the practice in existence." That is one of the things that is problematic.  

No, there were some who came forward, who have discussed not viewing the ultrasounds.  I am looking at the issues of consent, fraud, misrepresentation, and not the pro-choice aspect.  I find it a distractor that "choice" is being raised because it is muddying the waters.  Roe v. Wade is not in issue.  

-Please provide evidence that women who wanted to see ultrasounds were refused.
-I see nothing wrong or suspicious in changing from one legal procedure to another legal procedure. That political opponents are able to rally outrage over the first legal procedure is not a bad motive for changing procedure, but it does not mean that the original procedure was either wrong or illegal.
-Once again, you imply that there's something fishy about a PAC giving money to politicians who support their cause. Once again, I will ask, what's wrong with that? And is it equally wrong when a PAC that supports a cause you support gives money to politicians who support that same cause?
-Regarding WIC, etc. I have no idea what you support, but I think you'll find that the majority of pro-lifers are also against most family-support welfare programs.
-your response regarding defamation did not take into account the intentional splicing of the video to change the meaning. If I say, "I hate pizza. I love Mike Love" and someone splices it to show me saying, "I hate Mike Love," you would hear me and see me saying those words but the video would be defamatory. It would be intentionally lying.
-several investigations by people inclined to find fault with PP were carried out. NONE found anything illegal.
3rd time I ask:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...
Some of the videos are available on youtube.  I watched several hours of C-SPAN testimony with Cecile Richards who is their spokesperson.  They are very informative.

In the medical industry, there are standards that are consistent with medical procedures, say for example having your tonsils out.  So, the doc follows the "Standards and Procedures" in the industry.  The doc doesn't try to take your tonsils out through your arm.  S/he takes them out of an oral cavity.  There was a discussion of altering a procedure to "maximize the quality of the organ."

Same with this procedure.  There are standards for this medical procedure...some of the language is graphic on the videos, and I am paraphrasing..."if we want an organ to come out intact, we do a procedure that is 'less crunchy'"

Mike Love is a public figure.  The standard for defamation is different.  It is complicated.  

The statement was made in a post that conservatives (I guess rightwing and what does that mean anyway?) only care about children who are pre-born.  After born children have programs in place for nutrition that are in place and universally supported and funded.  

Youtube is a very good start if you weren't able to catch the series and the CSPAN hearings.

And on the PAC's - PP has two 501 (charitable org.) setups.  One for its clinics and one for its political and lobbying arm.  They are tax free so we get to inquire were the dough is going.  But 501's are very non-transparent and I think that needs changing.  Just like the DoD.  I want to see their books. If I pay for it, I want to see the books.   
Your first three paragraphs are irrelevant and not responsive.
- the fourth- lol yes I know that. The point was to illustrate the potential of splicing and the irrelevancy of your assertion, in the face of knowing the tape was spliced, that the doctors "uttered those words." One's words can be spliced to completely change the meaning, as in my example. So intentionally splicing a tape to change the meaning to imply wrong-doing is defamation. I did not mean -haha- that I'd have grounds for suit if someone implied I hate Mike Love. Though if they spliced a tape to make it look like I did knowing someone on this board would track me down and assault me, I might have a case.
- the fifth, I stand by what I say. There is, I expect, no program that is universally supported.
-6th irrelevant
-7th I haven't seen you mention this issue with the NRA on the gun control thread. What's the difference? Why do you keep bringing up campaign finance law only with reference to PP?

4th time I ask:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...

2nd or 3rd time I ask:
Please provide evidence that women who wanted to see ultrasounds were refused.
Logged
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #255 on: December 03, 2015, 11:09:09 AM »

Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   LOL

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)

This is all a big witch hunt by evil, racist, white men, who hate minorities and gays -- and they hate women especially.  Did I mention they're white?  Well, they are.  They're white.  And they're **gasp** men too!!!!  White males.  Yuky.

Republicans, understand, hate women more than anything, becuz, they want to keep women perpetually pregnant with incestuously conceived children, so they can take over the world.  They don't really care about children, you see... becuz if they did, they would welcome undocumented refugees from war-torn areas, during a war, with a President who properly understands we're not in a war.  Besides, the real concern -- THE ONLY CONCERN -- is Climate Change.  Climate.  Change.

Babies.  Ppppppttt.   Razz   The climate is gonna kill everybody!!! AAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhh!!!  Ahhh!


(...leftist hood off).




Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...

Who cares if it's legal or illegal Emily?  If the whole thing is just as bogus as you pretend I mean, say it is... and it's nothing more than bad PR -- then you're good.  You'll survive.  And babies won't.  They will continue to be harvested for their arms and brains -- and the Democrats will continue to benefit from it -- so, why do you cares!?  The babies surely aren't complaining... cuz they're too stupid to unionize or they're already dead and on their way to the Left-wing processing plant.

Emily.  Listen to me.  It's not tuff.  You're either offended by this stuff....       or...      you're a Leftist.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2015, 11:12:46 AM by Bean Bag » Logged

409.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #256 on: December 03, 2015, 11:21:39 AM »

Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   LOL

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.





Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...
Who cares if it's legal or illegal Emily?  If the whole thing is just as bogus as you pretend I mean, say it is... and it's nothing more than bad PR -- then you're good.  You'll survive.  And babies will continue to be harvested for their arms and brains -- and the Democrats will continue to benefit from it -- so, why do you cares!?  The babies surely aren't complaining... cuz they're too stupid to unionize or they're already dead and on their way to the Left-wing processing plant.

Emily.  Listen to me.  It's not tuff.  You're either offended by this stuff....       or...      you're a Leftist.
My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #257 on: December 03, 2015, 11:32:12 AM »


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.    

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.  

The issue was the changed "methodology and procedure" to extract the "tissue" to preserve the integrity of organs for sale.   They said, they were "no longer going to sell tissue." There is a difference.  When they said, "no longer" that is a definite admission.  It means they are "stopping the practice in existence." That is one of the things that is problematic.  

No, there were some who came forward, who have discussed not viewing the ultrasounds.  I am looking at the issues of consent, fraud, misrepresentation, and not the pro-choice aspect.  I find it a distractor that "choice" is being raised because it is muddying the waters.  Roe v. Wade is not in issue.  

-Please provide evidence that women who wanted to see ultrasounds were refused.
-I see nothing wrong or suspicious in changing from one legal procedure to another legal procedure. That political opponents are able to rally outrage over the first legal procedure is not a bad motive for changing procedure, but it does not mean that the original procedure was either wrong or illegal.
-Once again, you imply that there's something fishy about a PAC giving money to politicians who support their cause. Once again, I will ask, what's wrong with that? And is it equally wrong when a PAC that supports a cause you support gives money to politicians who support that same cause?
-Regarding WIC, etc. I have no idea what you support, but I think you'll find that the majority of pro-lifers are also against most family-support welfare programs.
-your response regarding defamation did not take into account the intentional splicing of the video to change the meaning. If I say, "I hate pizza. I love Mike Love" and someone splices it to show me saying, "I hate Mike Love," you would hear me and see me saying those words but the video would be defamatory. It would be intentionally lying.
-several investigations by people inclined to find fault with PP were carried out. NONE found anything illegal.
3rd time I ask:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...
Some of the videos are available on youtube.  I watched several hours of C-SPAN testimony with Cecile Richards who is their spokesperson.  They are very informative.

In the medical industry, there are standards that are consistent with medical procedures, say for example having your tonsils out.  So, the doc follows the "Standards and Procedures" in the industry.  The doc doesn't try to take your tonsils out through your arm.  S/he takes them out of an oral cavity.  There was a discussion of altering a procedure to "maximize the quality of the organ."

Same with this procedure.  There are standards for this medical procedure...some of the language is graphic on the videos, and I am paraphrasing..."if we want an organ to come out intact, we do a procedure that is 'less crunchy'"

Mike Love is a public figure.  The standard for defamation is different.  It is complicated.  

The statement was made in a post that conservatives (I guess rightwing and what does that mean anyway?) only care about children who are pre-born.  After born children have programs in place for nutrition that are in place and universally supported and funded.  

Youtube is a very good start if you weren't able to catch the series and the CSPAN hearings.

And on the PAC's - PP has two 501 (charitable org.) setups.  One for its clinics and one for its political and lobbying arm.  They are tax free so we get to inquire were the dough is going.  But 501's are very non-transparent and I think that needs changing.  Just like the DoD.  I want to see their books. If I pay for it, I want to see the books.   
Your first three paragraphs are irrelevant and not responsive.
- the fourth- lol yes I know that. The point was to illustrate the potential of splicing and the irrelevancy of your assertion, in the face of knowing the tape was spliced, that the doctors "uttered those words." One's words can be spliced to completely change the meaning, as in my example. So intentionally splicing a tape to change the meaning to imply wrong-doing is defamation. I did not mean -haha- that I'd have grounds for suit if someone implied I hate Mike Love. Though if they spliced a tape to make it look like I did knowing someone on this board would track me down and assault me, I might have a case.
- the fifth, I stand by what I say. There is, I expect, no program that is universally supported.
-6th irrelevant
-7th I haven't seen you mention this issue with the NRA on the gun control thread. What's the difference? Why do you keep bringing up campaign finance law only with reference to PP?

4th time I ask:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...

2nd or 3rd time I ask:
Please provide evidence that women who wanted to see ultrasounds were refused.
Emily - in order to arrive at my position, it took a while.

First, I watched the exposť series.

Second, I watched the C-SPAN hearings. It took quite a while.  But, I wondered about this Democratic rhetoric about "sending women back to the Dark Ages."  I noticed that the division was along party lines.  They were not looking at potential illegality (the changing of procedures to get a whole organ - a no-no) I wondered why they were so dramatic about defending this organization which looks more like a monopoly.    

Third, I noticed certain senators were especially outspoken in their defense, even after Hillary Clinton characterized them as "troubling." I wondered why they were not stepping back.

So, fourth, I looked up how much these senators were given in their election cycles.  And that answered the question as to why there were relationships between PP and the elected officials.  I am not being evasive but think you need to see them for yourself in order, and then see if the supporters of PP were incentivized to do so.

And, I watched the interviews of the staffers which are online, so you can do the same. They are pretty much still on line.  What I avoided were the inflammatory ones with protesters and just watched the doctors and the workers.  That is not productive in my view.  My argument should not inform your position - only seeing and researching those facts and videos can do that. I learned a lot.
Logged
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #258 on: December 03, 2015, 11:45:00 AM »

Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   LOL

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.

I see.
Logged

409.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #259 on: December 03, 2015, 11:51:09 AM »


Emily - in order to arrive at my position, it took a while.

First, I watched the exposť series.

Second, I watched the C-SPAN hearings. It took quite a while.  But, I wondered about this Democratic rhetoric about "sending women back to the Dark Ages."  I noticed that the division was along party lines.  They were not looking at potential illegality (the changing of procedures to get a whole organ - a no-no) I wondered why they were so dramatic about defending this organization which looks more like a monopoly.    

Third, I noticed certain senators were especially outspoken in their defense, even after Hillary Clinton characterized them as "troubling." I wondered why they were not stepping back.

So, fourth, I looked up how much these senators were given in their election cycles.  And that answered the question as to why there were relationships between PP and the elected officials.  I am not being evasive but think you need to see them for yourself in order, and then see if the supporters of PP were incentivized to do so.

And, I watched the interviews of the staffers which are online, so you can do the same. They are pretty much still on line.  What I avoided were the inflammatory ones with protesters and just watched the doctors and the workers.  That is not productive in my view.  My argument should not inform your position - only seeing and researching those facts and videos can do that. I learned a lot.

Of course the difference was along party lines. This is one of the divisive issues of our times. It is part of what causes people to choose parties. Most Democrats are pro-choice and consider Planned Parenthood to be a valuable community resource in many ways and are really annoyed at the campaign to undermine them by mostly (surprise!) Republicans. There are lots of issues that go along party lines. Once again, I'll use the example of the NRA. Would it be suspicious if their money goes more to one party than another? Would it be suspicious if one party defended them more than another? No.
And there are many people who consider the positions of some people to be, essentially, trying to send women back to the dark ages. Some people actually believe that other people are trying to do that. Is it suspicious that they say it, if they believe it? Do I think there's something suspicious in what you're saying? No. I disagree with it. It doesn't mean that you are corrupt.
You repeatedly take a line that people who disagree with you are corrupt and you don't comment on people who agree with you following the same practices. I'm beginning to think it's disingenuous because you persist even after it's been pointed out, unchallenged and repeatedly, as inconsistent and unsupported.

5th time I ask:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...

3rd or 4th time I ask:
Please provide evidence that women who wanted to see ultrasounds were refused.

2nd time I ask (in this thread though it's been asked, without response, in other threads):  
I haven't seen you mention this issue (campaign finance) with the NRA on the gun control thread. What's the difference? Why do you keep bringing up campaign finance law only with reference to PP?Is it equally wrong when a PAC that supports a cause you support gives money to politicians who support that same cause?
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #260 on: December 03, 2015, 11:53:13 AM »

Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   LOL

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

good word! That's true, but in this case I'm thinking that left and right are both pretty hunkered down in their positions and aren't going to budge or be convinced of anything.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #261 on: December 03, 2015, 12:00:40 PM »


Emily - in order to arrive at my position, it took a while.

First, I watched the exposť series.

Second, I watched the C-SPAN hearings. It took quite a while.  But, I wondered about this Democratic rhetoric about "sending women back to the Dark Ages."  I noticed that the division was along party lines.  They were not looking at potential illegality (the changing of procedures to get a whole organ - a no-no) I wondered why they were so dramatic about defending this organization which looks more like a monopoly.    

Third, I noticed certain senators were especially outspoken in their defense, even after Hillary Clinton characterized them as "troubling." I wondered why they were not stepping back.

So, fourth, I looked up how much these senators were given in their election cycles.  And that answered the question as to why there were relationships between PP and the elected officials.  I am not being evasive but think you need to see them for yourself in order, and then see if the supporters of PP were incentivized to do so.

And, I watched the interviews of the staffers which are online, so you can do the same. They are pretty much still on line.  What I avoided were the inflammatory ones with protesters and just watched the doctors and the workers.  That is not productive in my view.  My argument should not inform your position - only seeing and researching those facts and videos can do that. I learned a lot.

Of course the difference was along party lines. This is one of the divisive issues of our times. It is part of what causes people to choose parties. Most Democrats are pro-choice and consider Planned Parenthood to be a valuable community resource in many ways and are really annoyed at the campaign to undermine them by mostly (surprise!) Republicans. There are lots of issues that go along party lines. Once again, I'll use the example of the NRA. Would it be suspicious if their money goes more to one party than another? Would it be suspicious if one party defended them more than another? No.
And there are many people who consider the positions of some people to be, essentially, trying to send women back to the dark ages. Some people actually believe that other people are trying to do that. Is it suspicious that they say it, if they believe it? Do I think there's something suspicious in what you're saying? No. I disagree with it. It doesn't mean that you are corrupt.
You repeatedly take a line that people who disagree with you are corrupt and you don't comment on people who agree with you following the same practices. I'm beginning to think it's disingenuous because you persist even after it's been pointed out, unchallenged and repeatedly, as inconsistent and unsupported.

5th time I ask:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...

3rd or 4th time I ask:
Please provide evidence that women who wanted to see ultrasounds were refused.

2nd time I ask (in this thread though it's been asked, without response, in other threads):  
I haven't seen you mention this issue (campaign finance) with the NRA on the gun control thread. What's the difference? Why do you keep bringing up campaign finance law only with reference to PP?Is it equally wrong when a PAC that supports a cause you support gives money to politicians who support that same cause?
Emily - I don't like the aggressive questioning. 

The videos are quite graphic and I won't be posting links on this forum.  You will get your answers within the staff videos.  Some of the staffers are quite upset.  And, I would suggest if you watch them, not to do so in the presence of your daughter.  You are a smart cookie and can follow the trail if you choose. 
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #262 on: December 03, 2015, 12:22:55 PM »


Emily - in order to arrive at my position, it took a while.

First, I watched the exposť series.

Second, I watched the C-SPAN hearings. It took quite a while.  But, I wondered about this Democratic rhetoric about "sending women back to the Dark Ages."  I noticed that the division was along party lines.  They were not looking at potential illegality (the changing of procedures to get a whole organ - a no-no) I wondered why they were so dramatic about defending this organization which looks more like a monopoly.    

Third, I noticed certain senators were especially outspoken in their defense, even after Hillary Clinton characterized them as "troubling." I wondered why they were not stepping back.

So, fourth, I looked up how much these senators were given in their election cycles.  And that answered the question as to why there were relationships between PP and the elected officials.  I am not being evasive but think you need to see them for yourself in order, and then see if the supporters of PP were incentivized to do so.

And, I watched the interviews of the staffers which are online, so you can do the same. They are pretty much still on line.  What I avoided were the inflammatory ones with protesters and just watched the doctors and the workers.  That is not productive in my view.  My argument should not inform your position - only seeing and researching those facts and videos can do that. I learned a lot.

Of course the difference was along party lines. This is one of the divisive issues of our times. It is part of what causes people to choose parties. Most Democrats are pro-choice and consider Planned Parenthood to be a valuable community resource in many ways and are really annoyed at the campaign to undermine them by mostly (surprise!) Republicans. There are lots of issues that go along party lines. Once again, I'll use the example of the NRA. Would it be suspicious if their money goes more to one party than another? Would it be suspicious if one party defended them more than another? No.
And there are many people who consider the positions of some people to be, essentially, trying to send women back to the dark ages. Some people actually believe that other people are trying to do that. Is it suspicious that they say it, if they believe it? Do I think there's something suspicious in what you're saying? No. I disagree with it. It doesn't mean that you are corrupt.
You repeatedly take a line that people who disagree with you are corrupt and you don't comment on people who agree with you following the same practices. I'm beginning to think it's disingenuous because you persist even after it's been pointed out, unchallenged and repeatedly, as inconsistent and unsupported.

5th time I ask:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...

3rd or 4th time I ask:
Please provide evidence that women who wanted to see ultrasounds were refused.

2nd time I ask (in this thread though it's been asked, without response, in other threads):  
I haven't seen you mention this issue (campaign finance) with the NRA on the gun control thread. What's the difference? Why do you keep bringing up campaign finance law only with reference to PP?Is it equally wrong when a PAC that supports a cause you support gives money to politicians who support that same cause?
Emily - I don't like the aggressive questioning. 

The videos are quite graphic and I won't be posting links on this forum.  You will get your answers within the staff videos.  Some of the staffers are quite upset.  And, I would suggest if you watch them, not to do so in the presence of your daughter.  You are a smart cookie and can follow the trail if you choose. 
I'm sorry for the aggressive tone, but it gets very frustrating when someone makes repeated assertions but won't answer questions that challenge those assertions. It leads one to assume that they can't support their assertions or defend their inconsistency.
If you've watched the videos and the videos will answer my questions why can't you just answer them?
Of course, the videos could not possibly answer my 3rd question.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #263 on: December 03, 2015, 12:49:40 PM »

Emily - you can find out for yourself.  I watched many hours. 

After you do your viewing then you can opine as to whether my opinion is supported.  I just re-watched some from "stem express" with employees.  I am more frustrated that you aren't doing the digging.  And the C-SPAN hearings are quite interesting.   

Doing the wrong thing should not fall according to party lines.  The "party line" is dying quickly.  We have "non-party" vetted candidates.  The "party" is ovah.  LOL

Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #264 on: December 03, 2015, 01:36:53 PM »

Emily - you can find out for yourself.  I watched many hours. 

After you do your viewing then you can opine as to whether my opinion is supported.  I just re-watched some from "stem express" with employees.  I am more frustrated that you aren't doing the digging.  And the C-SPAN hearings are quite interesting.   

Doing the wrong thing should not fall according to party lines.  The "party line" is dying quickly.  We have "non-party" vetted candidates.  The "party" is ovah.  LOL


The thing is that I haven't seen any serious supported assertions of anything that sounds wrong to me and I'm not willing to spend many hours looking for fire when I haven't even seen smoke.
I've read articles and seen that several investigations have failed to find anything.
It's correct that doing the wrong thing, or the right thing, does not fall according to party lines. I just wonder why you consistently bring up the supposed wrong thing on threads about things you don't support, but don't bring up the exact same thing for things you do support. I wonder if you don't recognize the bias in your judgment.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #265 on: December 04, 2015, 12:25:37 AM »

Fille de Plage, I want to apologize for the above. I was rude and out of line. I was very cantankerous today and I took it out on you. I'm very sorry for it.
Logged
Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1565


SMiLE is America: Infinite Potential Never Reached


View Profile WWW
« Reply #266 on: December 04, 2015, 12:56:49 AM »

Oh boy. This entire thread makes me facepalm. Im sure in the ten pages I couldnt be bothered to read someone corrected the original poster, but those videos were an admitted hoax. And PP does a LOT more than abortion, so regardless of whether you are pro-choice or not, to slander the entire organization is really misinformed. Similarly, if you think you have a moral duty to fight abortion, you cannot call yourself pro-life if you condone, tolerate, or excuse the actions of that disgusting madman who shot up the place. Killing innocent people is NOT the answer.

Thats all I have to say about this whole thing. And now Ill be staying away, as this whole thread--whole subject--is toxic.
Logged

Here are my SMiLE Mixes. All are 2 suite, but still vastly different in several ways. Be on the lookout for another, someday.

Aquarian SMiLE>HERE
Dumb Angel (Olorin Edition)>HERE
Dumb Angel [the Romestamo Cut]>HERE

& This is a new pet project Ive worked on, which combines Fritz Lang's classic film, Metropolis (1927) with The United States of America (1968) as a new soundtrack. More info is in the video description.
The American Metropolitan Circus>HERE
[
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #267 on: December 04, 2015, 05:32:41 AM »

Oh boy. This entire thread makes me facepalm. Im sure in the ten pages I couldnt be bothered to read someone corrected the original poster, but those videos were an admitted hoax. And PP does a LOT more than abortion, so regardless of whether you are pro-choice or not, to slander the entire organization is really misinformed. Similarly, if you think you have a moral duty to fight abortion, you cannot call yourself pro-life if you condone, tolerate, or excuse the actions of that disgusting madman who shot up the place. Killing innocent people is NOT the answer.

Thats all I have to say about this whole thing. And now Ill be staying away, as this whole thread--whole subject--is toxic.

Mujan - absolutely false.  The C-SPAN hearings drew out the truth from PP.  They have painted a picture of offering mammograms (one in eight women get breast cancer - a primary function of what we call "women's health care") and during the hearings, the head of PP, Cecile Richards admitted,  that they subcontract that work out. In fact they do not have ONE mammogram machine -scanner, in their whole network. That is 700 clinics.  They claimed to do breast cancer screenings.  They could not do that without mammography (mastography.)

If people (pro or against)really want to learn the truth (my own eyes were opened, as I believed they did onsite mammograms and found out differently during the hearings) then find the Youtubes and listen to the investigations.  The Dems wish they were a hoax.  Even Hillary Clinton said they were "troubling" - she is a lawyer and knows the drill.  I was shocked. Mammograms are an annual event.  Every woman, every year.  

If those films were a hoax, (claimed by the Dems who get millions in campaign financing from PP) those states who pulled the funding would not and could not have made that move. And there would not have been a call to have Congressional hearings on the issue.  They are only sorry that they got caught. Just like every other criminal.  

This is not a "choice" issue.  (Roe v. Wade) This is a " human tissue trafficking" corruption (among other issues) problem.  
« Last Edit: December 04, 2015, 05:35:05 AM by filledeplage » Logged
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2449


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #268 on: December 20, 2015, 05:35:03 PM »

Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   LOL

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.

I see.
So after all the doctored video and the crazy right wing rhetoric whipping up the gullible into a frenzy, the Republican controlled House and Senate pass funding bills, now signed into law, keeping Planned Parenthood funding intact.

Wow, you far right extremists can't understand that your party: A. Realizes Planned Parenthood performs vital health services for women B. Realizeds how gullible you all are and how easy manipulated you seem to be.
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #269 on: December 20, 2015, 06:12:51 PM »

Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   LOL

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.

I see.
So after all the doctored video and the crazy right wing rhetoric whipping up the gullible into a frenzy, the Republican controlled House and Senate pass funding bills, now signed into law, keeping Planned Parenthood funding intact.

Wow, you far right extremists can't understand that your party: A. Realizes Planned Parenthood performs vital health services for women B. Realizeds how gullible you all are and how easy manipulated you seem to be.
Well that's good news. When I was a teenager I lived with my dad, and he was a great dad, but I didn't feel comfortable talking to him about sex-related stuff, and he was kind of clueless so didn't send me to a gynecologist for exams - just the regular GP. On a friend's advice I went to Planned Parenthood. I know lots of other young women who did the same.
They provide necessary health services for a lot of low and middle income women and it would be a shame if those services were cut because they're in the cross-fire of a political battle.
I also saw that the doctors in that scam video have been getting death threats:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-no-evidence-of-crimes-in-planned-parenthood-videos/
Logged
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2449


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #270 on: December 20, 2015, 06:28:12 PM »

Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   LOL

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.

I see.
So after all the doctored video and the crazy right wing rhetoric whipping up the gullible into a frenzy, the Republican controlled House and Senate pass funding bills, now signed into law, keeping Planned Parenthood funding intact.

Wow, you far right extremists can't understand that your party: A. Realizes Planned Parenthood performs vital health services for women B. Realizeds how gullible you all are and how easy manipulated you seem to be.
Well that's good news. When I was a teenager I lived with my dad, and he was a great dad, but I didn't feel comfortable talking to him about sex-related stuff, and he was kind of clueless so didn't send me to a gynecologist for exams - just the regular GP. On a friend's advice I went to Planned Parenthood. I know lots of other young women who did the same.
They provide necessary health services for a lot of low and middle income women and it would be a shame if those services were cut because they're in the cross-fire of a political battle.
I also saw that the doctors in that scam video have been getting death threats:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-no-evidence-of-crimes-in-planned-parenthood-videos/

Bravo for speaking up Emily! PP provides vital services and is a drop in the bucket compared to the latest billion dollar military gadget that didn't work. Like the new mine hunting system.

Yes, the PP videos are just the latest in a long line of fabricated conspiracies by the right wing. Benghazi, the IRS, PP take the attention away from Republican President Bush crashing the economy and falsifying data into the Iraq War. Even Donald Trump is honest in pointing these things out.
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #271 on: December 21, 2015, 07:12:52 AM »

Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   LOL

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.

I see.
So after all the doctored video and the crazy right wing rhetoric whipping up the gullible into a frenzy, the Republican controlled House and Senate pass funding bills, now signed into law, keeping Planned Parenthood funding intact.

Wow, you far right extremists can't understand that your party: A. Realizes Planned Parenthood performs vital health services for women B. Realizeds how gullible you all are and how easy manipulated you seem to be.

ORR - the funding may have been part of the overall budgetary bill that was impossible to separate, so as to risk other expenditures such as national defense spending and avoid a government shutdown.  But the "cat is out of the bag" with the policy changes that have been put in place by PP, such as the trafficking of human tissue. 

The debate is far from over.  This is not a party issue.  Plenty of Demmies are quite upset with the funding.  One of senators (who got $25g in PP donations) voted against the Ominibus Spending bill. The vote was 65 to 33.  That is hardly a mandate.  The vote was largely along party lines, but some Dems did vote against it. And many Republicans voted for it.  Senator Harry Reid said (Twitter) that the omnibus goals were to "roll back sequester, parity in funding for Pentagon and middle class, and keep of poison pill riders."

Barbara Boxer (D) and Marco Rubio (D) did not vote.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/18/find-out-how-your-senators-voted-on-the-government-spending-bill/   

Hope it copies.  Wink
Logged
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #272 on: December 21, 2015, 08:47:22 AM »

Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   LOL

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.

I see.
So after all the doctored video and the crazy right wing rhetoric whipping up the gullible into a frenzy, the Republican controlled House and Senate pass funding bills, now signed into law, keeping Planned Parenthood funding intact.

Wow, you far right extremists can't understand that your party: A. Realizes Planned Parenthood performs vital health services for women B. Realizeds how gullible you all are and how easy manipulated you seem to be.
Well that's good news. When I was a teenager I lived with my dad, and he was a great dad, but I didn't feel comfortable talking to him about sex-related stuff, and he was kind of clueless so didn't send me to a gynecologist for exams - just the regular GP. On a friend's advice I went to Planned Parenthood. I know lots of other young women who did the same.
They provide necessary health services for a lot of low and middle income women and it would be a shame if those services were cut because they're in the cross-fire of a political battle.
I also saw that the doctors in that scam video have been getting death threats:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-no-evidence-of-crimes-in-planned-parenthood-videos/

Bravo for speaking up Emily! PP provides vital services and is a drop in the bucket compared to the latest billion dollar military gadget that didn't work. Like the new mine hunting system.

Yes, the PP videos are just the latest in a long line of fabricated conspiracies by the right wing. Benghazi, the IRS, PP take the attention away from Republican President Bush crashing the economy and falsifying data into the Iraq War. Even Donald Trump is honest in pointing these things out.

Liberals/Progressives must be caught in the act, because they are a dishonest peoples.  That's a pillar of their religion.  They're never going to be open and tell you what they're up to.  And if you do happen to find that a liberal is telling you what they're actually doing... it's typically a radically infected malignant branch, that feels they have TOTAL control (therefore it doesn't matter, cuz you can't escape) OR they've just plain lost their grip on reality.

I say that because...
Logged

409.
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2449


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #273 on: December 21, 2015, 11:55:19 AM »

Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   LOL

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.

I see.
So after all the doctored video and the crazy right wing rhetoric whipping up the gullible into a frenzy, the Republican controlled House and Senate pass funding bills, now signed into law, keeping Planned Parenthood funding intact.

Wow, you far right extremists can't understand that your party: A. Realizes Planned Parenthood performs vital health services for women B. Realizeds how gullible you all are and how easy manipulated you seem to be.

ORR - the funding may have been part of the overall budgetary bill that was impossible to separate, so as to risk other expenditures such as national defense spending and avoid a government shutdown.  But the "cat is out of the bag" with the policy changes that have been put in place by PP, such as the trafficking of human tissue.  

The debate is far from over.  This is not a party issue.  Plenty of Demmies are quite upset with the funding.  One of senators (who got $25g in PP donations) voted against the Ominibus Spending bill. The vote was 65 to 33.  That is hardly a mandate.  The vote was largely along party lines, but some Dems did vote against it. And many Republicans voted for it.  Senator Harry Reid said (Twitter) that the omnibus goals were to "roll back sequester, parity in funding for Pentagon and middle class, and keep of poison pill riders."

Barbara Boxer (D) and Marco Rubio (D) did not vote.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/18/find-out-how-your-senators-voted-on-the-government-spending-bill/  

Hope it copies.  Wink

That conclusion of yours, unfortunetly, lacks the merit of fact! There was no debate on the PP funding in the bill. The debate was over things like renewable energy tax credits and the export of US oil. It is a delusion to think Barbara Boxer vote skip had anything to do with PP funding. PP funding was a no brainer/done deal.

I remind you PP is legally prohibited from using Federal Funding for abortion  services. So what you are arguing against are health services for low and middle class women. Not a hypocrisy road the Republicans want to walk down amist a Presidential campaign. Not shutting the government down again thus not reminding voters they ride the crazy train was the goal. As half the electorate is female, goal achieved.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2015, 12:06:45 PM by OregonRiverRider » Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2449


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #274 on: December 21, 2015, 12:29:24 PM »

Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   LOL

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.

I see.
So after all the doctored video and the crazy right wing rhetoric whipping up the gullible into a frenzy, the Republican controlled House and Senate pass funding bills, now signed into law, keeping Planned Parenthood funding intact.

Wow, you far right extremists can't understand that your party: A. Realizes Planned Parenthood performs vital health services for women B. Realizeds how gullible you all are and how easy manipulated you seem to be.
Well that's good news. When I was a teenager I lived with my dad, and he was a great dad, but I didn't feel comfortable talking to him about sex-related stuff, and he was kind of clueless so didn't send me to a gynecologist for exams - just the regular GP. On a friend's advice I went to Planned Parenthood. I know lots of other young women who did the same.
They provide necessary health services for a lot of low and middle income women and it would be a shame if those services were cut because they're in the cross-fire of a political battle.
I also saw that the doctors in that scam video have been getting death threats:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-no-evidence-of-crimes-in-planned-parenthood-videos/

Bravo for speaking up Emily! PP provides vital services and is a drop in the bucket compared to the latest billion dollar military gadget that didn't work. Like the new mine hunting system.

Yes, the PP videos are just the latest in a long line of fabricated conspiracies by the right wing. Benghazi, the IRS, PP take the attention away from Republican President Bush crashing the economy and falsifying data into the Iraq War. Even Donald Trump is honest in pointing these things out.

Liberals/Progressives must be caught in the act, because they are a dishonest peoples.  That's a pillar of their religion.  They're never going to be open and tell you what they're up to.  And if you do happen to find that a liberal is telling you what they're actually doing... it's typically a radically infected malignant branch, that feels they have TOTAL control (therefore it doesn't matter, cuz you can't escape) OR they've just plain lost their grip on reality.

I say that because...

Here is what many hypocritical Republicans have been up to:
http://jesusnorepublican.org/+Reasonable/gopimmorality.html

Course, these are just some examples of Republicans who preach the godly way but in real life are just the sinful cheating husbands we see in everyday life. What this list doesn't tell us is how many didn't get caught and how many got abortions for staffers they knocked up. See, the Republican Party panders to the religious right simply for votes. In real life, they are, behind closed doors, banging their staffers, taking gratuity and snorting coke! The difference is Democrats aren't trying to fool you for your vote.

Funny, when I was in the Navy and we'd pull into Subic, the first guys off the boat and into the whore houses were the ship's minister and a bunch of religious married guys.

So what are your credentials Bag? Ever serve in the militaary, in a war zone? Ever a cop or firefighter? Ever coach Special Olympics? Ever volunteer in a soup kitchen? Where do yo get your moral high ground? What is your life experience other than watching Fox News?
« Last Edit: December 21, 2015, 12:34:13 PM by OregonRiverRider » Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
Pages: 1 ... 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 1.262 seconds with 22 queries.