Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Barack Obama will win the 2012 electionFollow

#502 Apr 12 2011 at 3:00 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
The reality is that the Kyl was correct


The reality is that he was not correct. Your wishful conjecture isn't the reality that the rest of the world operates in, sorry to say.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#503 Apr 12 2011 at 3:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That is the spin most of the media is desperately putting on this.

Wow, must be nice to have a stock excuse like that without knowing what you're talking about.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#504 Apr 12 2011 at 3:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Quote:
Apparently his office also failed to note that federal funding to PP, by law, cannot go to the abortion procedure. Man, it takes guts to blatantly lie on the floor of the Senate Smiley: lol


A law that is commonly and easily skirted. You're playing the old "well that money is for other stuff" game.


You realize that this argument refers to abortions happening in the same building, right? Since federal funds go to overhead for the building itself, they FUND ABORTIONS! OMG, NO!! It's not like they're buying vaginal vacuums and passing them off as cleaning supplies, dude.


And? So how about they separate the two businesses, so as to make the claim you're making actually true?


Quote:
Quote:
The reality is that the Kyl was correct (if poorly worded). In terms of pregnancy care, well over 90% of what planned parenthood "does" is abortions.

You realize you're making up what Kyl is saying, right? His own office said his figure was not supposed to be taken as fact.


No. Kyl was repeating a figure he'd presumably heard from any of a number of conservative sources. Those sources make this argument in exactly the way I'm making it (the percentage of pregnant women who walk through the doors of planned parenthood who end out getting abortions compared to prenatal or adoption care). Kyl presumably did not know the details of that figure, and certainly should have done a bit of research first (or his staff should have).

But that does not change the facts about where that "more than 90%" figure comes from.

Quote:
As for the services, no, I disagree that "abortion is what planned parenthood does." Everyone I've ever known who's gone to PP went for
A) Condoms
B) Birth Control
C) STI testing


Well, here's just one source speaking about this. And I've heard about this report and the numbers contained within it numerous times btw, this just happens to specifically address Kyl's statement:

Quote:
The PPFA report also shows Planned Parenthood does 340 abortions for every one adoption referral and 47 abortions for every one prenatal care client — both of which exceed the “90 percent” figure Kyl cited in his remarks. The report also shows Planned Parenthood had only 19,796 primary health care clients as opposed to the 332,278 clients who obtained abortions.


Now I'm sure some of the services Planned Parenthood does don't count as providing "primary health care" to a client. The point here is that planned parenthood is not necessary to provide those services to the public. Any organization can do it, and lots of other health clinics and doctors do provide them. Blocking funding to planned parenthood for those services would not prevent people from being able to obtain them. They'd just have to go to a health clinic up the street.


The reason some conservatives feel so strongly about this is because women will go there to get condoms and go there to get birth control and go there to get STI checks. And because they've been going there for those relatively minor things, when they get pregnant, they go there for pregnancy counseling. And the concern is that when that happens they are more likely to be steered into planned parenthoods primary business (providing abortion).


Quote:
Luckily, their own reporting system verifies this, so the facts happen to be on my anecdote's side, not yours


Their own reporting system verifies just how many abortions they perform compared to other major services. Handing out condoms and other birth control and referring people for sti tests and breast exams earns them a bunch of government dollars, but isn't even remotely what their business is primarily about. Again, if one didn't bleed into the other, then why not divide the business into two separate organizations? In the private sector, companies are often required to divorce themselves of certain parts of their business in cases where the conflict of interest is far less direct.


If we have a law which prohibits federal health care dollars from funding abortions, doesn't it represent a conflict of interest for an organization who's primary purpose is to provide abortions to get about 1/3rd of its operating budget from federal health care dollars? Some of which surely bleeds over to their abortion work?

Edited, Apr 12th 2011 2:18pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#505 Apr 12 2011 at 3:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That article (again, I love how any source you dislike is "MEDIA!!" but then you pick the most biased sources possible for your cites... LifeNews?) is based upon misleading stats taken by some creative math and making the conservative rounds.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#506 Apr 12 2011 at 3:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That article (again, I love how any source you dislike is "MEDIA!!" but then you pick the most biased sources possible for your cites... LifeNews?) is based upon misleading stats taken by some creative math and making the conservative rounds.


Nothing in that link counters the numbers about the percentage of pregnant women cared for by planned parenthood who receive abortions compared to those who do not. And while he insists that the numbering of "visits" or "care" isn't exaggerated, he doesn't go into any detail about how they count such things. Frankly, that article is long on fluff and short on facts. Except to repeat the "only 3 percent of our services are abortions" number. Um... Ok. Whatever.


I could link to someone just as knowledgeable as your source about planned parenthood. But of course, since she disagrees with your guy, she must be lying, right? Again though, this is still just quibbling over what a "service" is and how they count it. The pregnancy care numbers are not manufactured and no one is disputing them.

Kyl wasn't wrong, he just worded his statement incorrectly. As you can see from that link, he was clearly referencing this quote:

Quote:
Though 98 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services to pregnant women are abortion, Planned Parenthood and its political allies have sworn up and down that taxpayer dollars do not to pay for abortion.


Should he have been more specific? Absolutely. But to say he "lied" is a bit of a stretch.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#507 Apr 12 2011 at 3:55 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
varusword75 wrote:
locked,

Quote:
Saying he was wrong wasn't the same as lying.


BS...he never had any intention of closing gitmo but that's what good little goose stepping libs like yourself wanted to hear so he said it.
False yet again. That was stopped by the senate. I thought you liked gitmo though? Is your approval of gitmo only tied to the opposite of what Obama wants to do with it?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#508 Apr 12 2011 at 4:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I could link to someone just as knowledgeable as your source about planned parenthood.

Yeah, my link was actually to someone refuting Ms. Johnson's claims. Wouldn't hurt you to read once in a while.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#509 Apr 12 2011 at 6:05 PM Rating: Good
1 post
I don't understand how so many people are seriously mislead about what planned parenthood does. Abortions account for only 3 % of pp's services. The other 97 % is made up of cancer screenings, pregnancy prevention, and other gynecological exams. What do you think would happen to the number of abortions if pp's services were not available to the millions of women who cannot get preventative care anywhere else? It would rise, and it would rise a lot.

And coming from a girl, I can say I know about 50 women who get their birth control for free from pp, and only one woman who has ever even considered getting an abortion from them.
#510 Apr 12 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Gbaji's defense is that Kyl was just inaccurate and made a mistake. Kyl's office admits that Kyl was engaging in hyperbole to make a point, not that Kyl made an error using the wrong set of stats and the wrong phrasing.

The LifeNews articles link back to Planned Parenthood's fact sheet which shows that the overwhelming percentage of its work is in contraception and STD testing/treatment.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#511 Apr 12 2011 at 6:42 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kyl wasn't wrong, he just worded his statement incorrectly.
[...]
But to say he "lied" is a bit of a stretch.
Jon Kyl's office wrote:
His remark was not intended to be a factual statement but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions in taxpayer dollars, does subsidize abortions.
He was wrong, and intentionally at that.

As it turns out, that's what is referred to as a "lie":

lie    
[lahy] 
noun, verb, lied, ly·ing. 
–noun 
1. 
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. 
2. 
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one. 
3. 
an inaccurate or false statement.


So, to recap:
Jon Kyl's office wrote:
His remark was not intended to be a factual statement
The Dictionary wrote:
an inaccurate or false statement
gbaji wrote:
But to say he "lied" is a bit of a stretch.
No, it's not a stretch. Not even close. Not even a slight bending.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#512 Apr 12 2011 at 7:03 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Gbaji's defense is that Kyl was just inaccurate and made a mistake. Kyl's office admits that Kyl was engaging in hyperbole to make a point, not that Kyl made an error using the wrong set of stats and the wrong phrasing.

The LifeNews articles link back to Planned Parenthood's fact sheet which shows that the overwhelming percentage of its work is in contraception and STD testing/treatment.


It's probably two lies...what he said was a lie, and his office's response explaining it is probably a lie too (you know, so they don't look like idiots).
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#513 Apr 13 2011 at 11:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Conservatives are starting to realize that they were taken for a ride on this budget and have little choice now but to either suck it up or be absolutely to blame for shutting down the government. Well, some conservatives. Gbaji probably still thinks this played right into the GOP's hands exactly as they hoped.

Meanwhile, Boehner is asking Wall Street luminaries how close he can drag the debt-cap debate to the deadline and not completely shatter the markets and is getting told to screw off.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 12:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#514varusword75, Posted: Apr 13 2011 at 11:13 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Gbaji,
#515 Apr 13 2011 at 11:32 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Quote:
I'm still unsure why people keep thinking this is so unusual. If *anyone* other than Jon Kyl said those exact words in a speech, none of you would assume it was a lie and not a poorly worded statistic. We do sometimes say poorly worded statistics, right? Do you seriously want me to link to the hundreds of thousands of uses of poorly worded statistics on the internet which refer to the percentage of abortions at Planned Parenthood that aren't lies? Want to take a wild guess what the ratio is there?

I can only respond to what I'm presented. I was presented with two links: A percentage of abortions at Planned Parenthood, and a speech saying some poorly worded statistics. Based on that information and only that information there's no reason to assume that the speech was a lie. The first and obvious assumption to anyone not acting in a biased manner is that it was a poorly worded statistic and not a lie.

You are so blinded by your own bias that you can't see what is really a biased response. I'll ask again that you think about what it means to be biased. You are judging Kyl's words based on your own starting assumptions. You assume he's a liar and so you interpret his words in that context. That's textbook bias. I'm interpreting the words in the context given and with no bias. It's a poorly worded statistic. The correct interpretation should be obvious. To anyone who is actually unbiased that is...


This is not to say that he *wasn't* tossing in a double meaning there. I'm sure he was. However, he's counting on the very bias you seem to think you don't have in order to get that meaning. Get it? I'll ask a simple question: If you knew nothing more about Kyl than the speech referenced above, would you assume that the poorly worded statistic was a lie? I know this is hard, but use your brains and imagine for a moment that someone you've never heard of before in your life made that speech and be honest about what it would mean to you. You'd *never* get a lie. Thus, your assumption is biased. Mine is *not*. Sheesh! If you're going to use words at least use them properly.


Gbaji mad-libs.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 1:35pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#516 Apr 13 2011 at 11:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,921 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Gbaji,

Quote:
Blocking funding to planned parenthood for those services would not prevent people from being able to obtain them. They'd just have to go to a health clinic up the street.


Which means they'd have to take responsibility for their actions. It all comes down to personal responsibility. Democrats simply can't afford to have people thinking about taking care of themselves and making responsible decisions.


I'm really wondering how going to Planned Parenthood is not "personal responsibility"? Same thing with abortion - people say "take responsibility"... isn't getting an abortion doing just that? Not taking responsibility would be lying and saying you got knocked up by God or something.

Another way of looking at it - 97% of PP's rendered services are not abortion-related - 35% are about birth control. How can millions of services specifically aimed at being responsible sexually not be "making responsible decisions?" How about the hefty percent that goes toward STI testing - the same thing. Being irresponsible would be ignoring symptoms or being deluded enough to think "Oh, it can't happen to me." And if those services could NOT be accessed due to price constrains, lack of availability, or social stigmatism (all of which would result from shutting down Planned Parenthood), there's not even an argument about personal responsibility. If it someone wanted to make use of these advantages, without them available it would be useless. It's like giving a person a recipe for food and no access to ingredients, then complaining when they starve.

Also, I love gbaji's claim because it is verbatim from a Fox News segment I saw a couple of days ago- except the news commentators then said you can get pap smears and mammograms from Walgreen's. Smooooooooth reporting there. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#517 Apr 13 2011 at 11:56 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Gbaji,

Quote:
Blocking funding to planned parenthood for those services would not prevent people from being able to obtain them. They'd just have to go to a health clinic up the street.


Which means they'd have to take responsibility for their actions. It all comes down to personal responsibility. Democrats simply can't afford to have people thinking about taking care of themselves and making responsible decisions.
How exactly do you define "PLANNED" Parenthood as irresponsible?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#518 Apr 13 2011 at 11:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
LockeColeMA wrote:
Also, I love gbaji's claim because it is verbatim from a Fox News segment I saw a couple of days ago

Gbaji doesn't get his news from anywhere!

Except conservative think tanks, CNS News and LifeNews judging from the last two days.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#519 Apr 13 2011 at 12:39 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,495 posts
varusword75 wrote:

Men simply can't afford to have women thinking about taking care of themselves and making responsible decisions.

fixed.

I suspect the reactions you hope come from these utterly stupid statements are a turn-on for you. Stop fapping on forum.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#520varusword75, Posted: Apr 13 2011 at 1:59 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#521 Apr 13 2011 at 2:04 PM Rating: Good
******
43,123 posts
varusword75 wrote:
And while most of Planned Parenthoods services may not be abortion related
There we go.
varusword75 wrote:
If they want to go to PP to get a condom go for it. However, My taxes shouldn't be spent extinguishing life.
Those taxes also pay for the many (Whatever this week's buzzword for Wars) that are going on.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 4:06pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#522 Apr 13 2011 at 2:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,921 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
I'm really wondering how going to Planned Parenthood is not "personal responsibility"? Same thing with abortion - people say "take responsibility"... isn't getting an abortion doing just that?


Glad you asked. I find is amazing that you think women who get knocked up should expect to rely on taxpayers money to rectify that mistake. And while most of Planned Parenthoods services may not be abortion related the abortions, by far, cost the most. Wasn't it like 33% of the funds they receive go towards abortion?


You're mixing it up with 0%, I'm afraid, provided you're talking about federal funding (which is the only thing relevant). Remember, no federal funding can go directly to the abortion procedure - the only thing affected is the overhead. A doctor can give our condoms, but he also can perform abortions - and he can be paid by federal funds. And it is 100% legal. The women still need to pay for the abortions - or if PP covers them, they cannot do it with federal funding sources.

As an employee in a job that receives federal funding, I'd assume that PP would have the same strict guidelines we have to follow. Failing to use the correct funding source can result in hundreds of thousands of dollars stripped from our budget - it's a very serious matter.

Quote:
The responsible thing would be for these women not to get knocked up to begin with. If they want to go to PP to get a condom go for it. However, My taxes shouldn't be spent extinguishing life.

And they don't. Your taxes will never buy RU-486 or any of the instruments used in an abortion.
Quote:
Now in slow motion.....getting knocked up (when you can't afford to care for the child) is iresponsible, forcing others to pay for that irresponsible act is wrong.

So what is your answer there? Kill the pregnant woman instead? Accidents happen, and someone will have to pay for them. If the woman is pregnant and wants an abortion, she's taking responsibility for her actions. The other option is having the kid and potentially using social services money from the government - now there's an active use of your tax dollars!

In before gbaji comes in with the idiotic idea of "if it's such a problem, why don't they make a separate organization?" To head it off - tax dollars are spent completely legally and comply with federal rules. There is no problem except for people being upset with those rules. If it's an issue, why not head it off with a law against that type of spending, along the lines of the Hyde amendment (which is what is currently followed, to the T). Such a law has a perfect place, and it's as separate legislation, not an unpopular rider in must-pass budgets.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 4:18pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#523varusword75, Posted: Apr 13 2011 at 2:45 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#524 Apr 13 2011 at 2:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Have DCS rescue the child and then forcibly sterilize the woman.

trollulz
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#525 Apr 13 2011 at 2:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,921 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
So what is your answer there? Kill the pregnant woman instead?


Have DCS rescue the child and then forcibly sterilize the woman.

Yeah, have we mentioned recently that you're twisted? Smiley: nod Oddly enough, you and Margaret Sanger (founder of PP) would have gotten along well on the issue, as she was a proponent of forced sterilization. 'course, she's been dead for several decades now, and her ideas about eugenics have gone with her. You'd be better off living a century ago, methinks.

Quote:
Quote:
If the woman is pregnant and wants an abortion, she's taking responsibility for her actions.

Nope she's forcing the govn to take responsibility for her actions.

When the government doesn't perform nor pay for it? Smiley: confused That's like saying the government is responsible for driving accidents because they pay for highways.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 4:50pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#526 Apr 13 2011 at 3:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:

Another way of looking at it - 97% of PP's rendered services are not abortion-related


And if you just repeat that bogus and useless statistic long enough, maybe it'll stick, right?

It's a meaningless statement. It's like saying that 99% of the work I do every day is breathing, since I can count each breath as a single action, while only counting each task I accomplish during the day as one as well. Add in each beat of my heart and we could conclude that only a tiny fraction of my actions during any given work day actually involves doing "work". Most people reject that as an absurd way of calculating things, but when it's convenient, I suppose you'll follow it to the ends of the earth.

Handing out a pack of condoms to someone isn't even remotely on the same plane as performing an abortion. Yet each is counted equally as a "service" in the statistic you are quoting. You can't possibly think that's a fair accounting. But you're doing so anyway.

I've been very clear where the statistic Kyl was quoting came from. That he misstated it is a minor issue. 97.6% of all pregnant women who come to planned parenthood for pregnancy care end out getting an abortion. Can we please not kid ourselves by thinking that PP is anything other than an abortion provider that happens to also provide other services as well?

If you simply count up numbers of single sale items per day by a gas station, you'd conclude that their gas business is only a tiny fraction of what they do. That's clearly not correct either.


Quote:
35% are about birth control. How can millions of services specifically aimed at being responsible sexually not be "making responsible decisions?" How about the hefty percent that goes toward STI testing - the same thing. Being irresponsible would be ignoring symptoms or being deluded enough to think "Oh, it can't happen to me."


Irrelevant argument (yes, you were responding to Varus, so I forgive you somewhat). The point is that those other services are available via numerous other means. I don't think it's wrong to define Planned Parenthood by what it does that other health care providers don't do (or don't do nearly at the same rate). Don't you agree?

Quote:
And if those services could NOT be accessed due to price constrains, lack of availability, or social stigmatism (all of which would result from shutting down Planned Parenthood), there's not even an argument about personal responsibility.


All of those other services could be accessed exactly the same whether Planned Parenthood receives that money or not. That's what you're not getting. Those services are performed commonly at health care facilities all over the country. The exact same services which would qualify under medicaid if the person walks through Planned Parenthood's door will qualify under medicaid if the person walked through any other health care facilities door.

Are you actually arguing that without Planned Parenthood no one would be able to obtain birth control, or STI tests, or breast exams? Because that's a huge stretch, right? Yet, that's what's suggested by the crying coming from the left over this.

Quote:
If it someone wanted to make use of these advantages, without them available it would be useless. It's like giving a person a recipe for food and no access to ingredients, then complaining when they starve.


Yes. But that's not the case here, so WTF?

Quote:
Also, I love gbaji's claim because it is verbatim from a Fox News segment I saw a couple of days ago- except the news commentators then said you can get pap smears and mammograms from Walgreen's. Smooooooooth reporting there. Smiley: rolleyes


Ah... The "you're just repeating rhetoric" counter. Would you believe that I honestly have not watched a single bit of Fox News coverage of this issue? I haven't even watched the station in probably two weeks. I'm going through my SG-1 DVDs right now (I'm about a third of the way through season 10 right now in fact!). Haven't been watching much of anything on TV other than stuff I DVR for at least a month or so now.

Has it occurred to you that the reason my arguments match those of the conservatives on Fox News is because that's the conclusion any conservative would reach upon doing any kind of research into the subject at all? I've said this many times in the past. You know why I know this is true? Because people on this forum were accusing me of parroting Fox News before I even knew what channel is was on. I was being accused of repeating things said by people I'd never heard of. I only watch Fox News occasionally today because after years of being accused of parroting them, I figured I ought to actually figure out what cable number they're on and see what the hell people are talking about.


Which is why this particular accusation always makes me laugh. When people who are parroting what other say accuse me of doing the same, it always tickles my irony funny bone.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#527 Apr 13 2011 at 3:32 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Vanus,

I'm pretty sure that God would be as against sterilizing women against their will as he is about abortion. And I'm pretty sure God doesn't appreciate being used in political debate, after all, he did create the people who made separation of church and state a law.

On an unrelated note, I'm kind of surprised about how adamant you are defending the Republican party. Are you rich? Because if you aren't then the republicans hate you (but they do appreciate your vote).
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#528 Apr 13 2011 at 3:34 PM Rating: Good
******
43,123 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's like saying that 99% of the work I do every day is breathing, since I can count each breath as a single action, while only counting each task I accomplish during the day as one as well.
You work for BP?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#529 Apr 13 2011 at 3:36 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:


I'm going through my SG-1 DVDs right now (I'm about a third of the way through season 10 right now in fact!). Haven't been watching much of anything on TV other than stuff I DVR for at least a month or so now.


Movie was better (anything with Kurt Russell is better than anything without him).
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#530 Apr 13 2011 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's like saying that 99% of the work I do every day is breathing, since I can count each breath as a single action, while only counting each task I accomplish during the day as one as well.
You work for BP?


Also, if he is counting each breath then it would be 48.5% breathing, 48.5% counting, and 1% getting statistics wrong.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#531 Apr 13 2011 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good
******
43,123 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Movie was better (anything with Kurt Russell is better than anything without him).
First series had Macgyver. Your argument has been invalidated with a rubber-band, a paperclip, and a belt buckle.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#532 Apr 13 2011 at 3:52 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
varusword75 wrote:
forcibly sterilize the woman
That's pretty big government intervention talk. Why is it that you insist the government be physically involved in private citizens reproductive organs, or more generally, why do you hate freedom so much?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#533 Apr 13 2011 at 3:57 PM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,027 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
gbaji wrote:


I'm going through my SG-1 DVDs right now (I'm about a third of the way through season 10 right now in fact!). Haven't been watching much of anything on TV other than stuff I DVR for at least a month or so now.


Movie was better (anything with Kurt Russell is better than anything without him).


This is a lie.
#534 Apr 13 2011 at 4:00 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,069 posts
Turin wrote:
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
gbaji wrote:


I'm going through my SG-1 DVDs right now (I'm about a third of the way through season 10 right now in fact!). Haven't been watching much of anything on TV other than stuff I DVR for at least a month or so now.


Movie was better (anything with Kurt Russell is better than anything without him).


This is a lie.


True, but I don't think Kurt Russell gets enough love in this forum.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#535 Apr 13 2011 at 4:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,921 posts
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:

Another way of looking at it - 97% of PP's rendered services are not abortion-related


And if you just repeat that bogus and useless statistic long enough, maybe it'll stick, right?

It ain't bogus, and that's why it is sticking Smiley: nod What's not is your insistence that the senator did not lie, your blatant attempt to ignore that his own office admitted he was lying, and you huffing and puffing about what classifies as a service or what doesn't.

Quote:
Handing out a pack of condoms to someone isn't even remotely on the same plane as performing an abortion. Yet each is counted equally as a "service" in the statistic you are quoting. You can't possibly think that's a fair accounting. But you're doing so anyway.

Nor are STI checks, birth control prescriptions, pap smears, or cancer screenings, right? Oh, but... but... the condoms! Even discounting condoms - they are less than 6% of the total "services rendered" - you're still on about them being abortions only and a front for other health services?
L
O
L

Quote:
I've been very clear where the statistic Kyl was quoting came from. That he misstated it is a minor issue. 97.6% of all pregnant women who come to planned parenthood for pregnancy care end out getting an abortion. Can we please not kid ourselves by thinking that PP is anything other than an abortion provider that happens to also provide other services as well?

Only one kidding himself is you. Nor even Kyl's office tried to spin like you. YOU'VE been very clear what statistic he meant. 90%... that's close to 97%... that must be what he meant. Not that he was lying... except he was. They admitted it, dude - you just know better than the senator what he meant. Obviously.

Quote:
Has it occurred to you that the reason my arguments match those of the conservatives on Fox News is because that's the conclusion any conservative would reach upon doing any kind of research into the subject at all?


So... what aisle are the stirrups in for the pap smears at Walgreen's again? I can never seem to find them >_<
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#536 Apr 13 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,598 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
So... what aisle are the stirrups in for the pap smears at Walgreen's again? I can never seem to find them >_<


They are in that windowless van in the back parking lot by the dumpsters. You have to know where to look to find it.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#537 Apr 13 2011 at 4:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,921 posts
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
So... what aisle are the stirrups in for the pap smears at Walgreen's again? I can never seem to find them >_<


They are in that windowless van in the back parking lot by the dumpsters. You have to know where to look to find it.


Dammit... the one offering free puppies, or free candy? I can never remember!
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#538 Apr 13 2011 at 4:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Another way of looking at it - 97% of PP's rendered services are not abortion-related
And if you just repeat that bogus and useless statistic long enough, maybe it'll stick, right?

It's a meaningless statement. It's like saying that 99% of the work I do every day is breathing, since I can count each breath as a single action, while only counting each task I accomplish during the day as one as well....

So you're going to say Locke's numbers are "bogus and useless" and refuse to show some real numbers of your own? As stated, your precious little "LifeNews" article linked back to the sheet saying "3%" and I've yet to see a detailed breakdown that says anything different, just some people claiming that it really isn't so. Funny how the numbers you think are worth something are the ones with the least amount of supporting evidence but still the ones that match your ideology the most.
Quote:
I've been very clear where the statistic Kyl was quoting came from.

Does Senator Kyl know that you're making shit up on his behalf? You think he wasn't capable of offering a proper clarification if this was the case?

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 5:56pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#539 Apr 13 2011 at 5:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
It ain't bogus, and that's why it is sticking


It's sticking because every liberal media source and pundit are repeating it over and over and over and over, and you parrot what they say. Like I said, repeating an irrelevant statistic over and over doesn't make it meaningful.

Quote:
YOU'VE been very clear what statistic he meant. 90%... that's close to 97%... that must be what he meant.


He said "over 90%", which last I checked included 97%.

Quote:
Not that he was lying... except he was. They admitted it, dude - you just know better than the senator what he meant. Obviously.


Who's "they"? The liberal pundits and media you parrot who have interpreted this whole thing in a way so as to maximize the hay they can make over it? Imagine that! Falling over themselves to paint a Republican in the worst light possible while ignoring the more relevant issue at hand. I can't believe they'd do such a thing! Oh wait! This is what they do, isn't it?

I've heard that exact phrase "over 90%" many times and from many different sources. That's why I knew exactly what he was referring to when I first heard about what he'd said. Even if he himself did not know the source of the number, it was pretty freaking abundantly clear that's what he statement was meant to refer to. The fact that he and his staff failed to do sufficient checking to make sure their wording was correct was stupid, not because the core point he was making was wrong, but because conservative politicians should know by now that the slightest misstatement will be jumped upon by a liberal media just looking for ways to discredit and attack them.

They should have done more checking and gotten the statement right. That was his mistake (his staff really). And when pressured on it, they should have responded with a more intelligent answer than the one they gave. Honestly, all this says is that his staff should be fired for being freaking idiots. Again though, it does not eliminate the more important point, which is that Planned Parenthood's primary purpose for existence is to provide abortion services. Hence the name "Planned Parenthood".

Is anyone actually arguing otherwise? Absent the abortions, they'd just be any of a number of other health care organizations out there and no one would care about this.


Quote:
So... what aisle are the stirrups in for the pap smears at Walgreen's again? I can never seem to find them >_<


I honestly have no clue what you are talking about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#540 Apr 13 2011 at 5:40 PM Rating: Good
******
43,123 posts
gbaji wrote:
Who's "they"?
TJ Holmes on CNN, while interviewing Judy Tabar. Of course, I can't find his source, other than "his (Jon Kyl's) office" but there is the answer to your question.

Edit: Makes for a good meme.

Edit2: Here's a link.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 7:49pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#541 Apr 13 2011 at 5:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So you're going to say Locke's numbers are "bogus and useless" and refuse to show some real numbers of your own?


WTF? I already did this

Quote:
Though 98 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services to pregnant women are abortion, Planned Parenthood and its political allies have sworn up and down that taxpayer dollars do not to pay for abortion.


Even someone as obtuse as you should be able to see how one might mistakenly repeat this statistic by saying that "Over 90% of what planned parenthood does is abortion". Especially, if you've just heard other people repeating the statement and didn't go back and check the source yourself. It was a staff writing/research error. Nothing more.

Quote:
As stated, your precious little "LifeNews" article linked back to the sheet saying "3%" and I've yet to see a detailed breakdown that says anything different, just some people claiming that it really isn't so.


Sigh. Except that the 3% number is irrelevant to the point being made. The point is that pregnant women go to planned parenthood overwhelming for abortion services. And the same fact sheet bears out the numbers that I quoted earlier:

Quote:
The new document the abortion organization posted shows Planned Parenthood provided prenatal services to merely 7,021 women and referred only 977 women for adoption services. These numbers were a 25 percent drop in prenatal care clients and a whopping 59 percent decline in adoption referrals from the 2,405 adoption referrals in 2008. The abortion business helped only 9,433 prenatal clients in 2008, down substantially from the 11,000 women it provided prenatal care to in 2007 — showing health care given to pregnant woman has fallen substantially over the years.

As a result, Kyl is correct because 97.6 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood are sold abortions while less than 2.4 percent of pregnant women received non-abortion services including adoption and prenatal care. That’s up from 96.5 percent of pregnant women going to Planned Parenthood getting abortions in 2008.



How does that equate in your mind to refusing to show any numbers? You just don't want to talk about the numbers that Kyl was referring to. You want to jump up and down and talk about total "number of services". And as I (and this other article I linked earlier have said, those numbers are really irrelevant for the purpose of determining what "planned parenthood does".


I'll point out again that this is like saying that a gas station doesn't primarily "sell gas", because if we simply count up the number of individual items sold and count them equally, gas sales account for only a tiny percentage of "total sales". Of course, if we look at dollars spent, that number is much higher. And if we look at the reason the station exists, we'd clearly figure out that it's not there to sell cigarettes or gum, but to sell gas. Just as the reason planned parenthood exists is to provide abortion services. Those other things are added after the fact. Some would argue added precisely so that they can make the sorts of "we're necessary for women's health" argument they are making now.

Quote:
Funny how the numbers you think are worth something are the ones with the least amount of supporting evidence but still the ones that match your ideology the most.


What!??? The numbers I'm talking about come from the exact same Planned Parenthood fact sheet as the numbers you're talking about. How can they have less supporting evidence? Once you get past the fact that Kyl misstated, and understand where that number comes from, there is no argument against it. It's absolutely factually true. 97.6% of pregnant women who receive care from Planned Parenthood receive an abortion. That's what Kyl was trying to say.


Which is why the whole 3% number is irrelevant.



Quote:
Quote:
I've been very clear where the statistic Kyl was quoting came from.

Does Senator Kyl know that you're making shit up on his behalf? You think he wasn't capable of offering a proper clarification if this was the case?


Given his staff's incredibly lame answer, obviously not. What do you want me to say here? I have no interest in arguing that Kyl is an articulate and intelligent person who understands every detail of every single thing he is asked to vote on in Congress. My argument is that he didn't do proper research, repeated a statement incorrectly, and made a fool out of himself in the process, but that this does not eliminate or weaken the basic argument he was making: That Planned Parenthoods clear bias in terms of pregnancy care options should make us question subsidizing about 1/3rd of their entire operating budget via federal dollars, given that we're supposed to have laws prohibiting federal funding of abortion. Regardless of how you calculate abortion procedures in relation to a total number of services, abortion services is what planned parenthood is known for and is what brings people in the door and what they get much of their private donations for (another 1/4th of their budget btw). How do you separate those?


This is why my argument earlier in this thread was that Planned Parenthood could easily spin off its non-abortion business and keep separate books. That would end the debate entirely. But unless someone imposes some kind of restriction on planned parenthood itself, this isn't going to happen.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#542 Apr 13 2011 at 5:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Who's "they"?
TJ Holmes on CNN, while interviewing Judy Tabar. Of course, I can't find his source, other than "his (Jon Kyl's) office" but there is the answer to your question.

Edit: Makes for a good meme.

Edit2: Here's a link.


So that link shows a member of Kyl's staff saying that Kyl "lied"? Because if it doesn't, then it's not them "admitting" to him lying, but other people interpreting their statements as an admission. Which is not even remotely the same thing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#543 Apr 13 2011 at 5:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So you're going to say Locke's numbers are "bogus and useless" and refuse to show some real numbers of your own?


WTF? I already did this

So the numbers Locke is citing from the published report are "bogus and useless" but Ms. Johnson's numbers and claims (which are without cite beyond her own word) are gospel to you because... why?

Oh, right. Because they're what you wanted to hear. Ms. Johnson offers no support for her claim that every contraception visit is recorded separately (a claim PP says is false) but you'll say that Locke is using "bogus and useless" numbers because Ms. Johnson claims they're bogus.

Quote:
Given his staff's incredibly lame answer, obviously not. What do you want me to say here?

You could start by admitting that you're just making up an excuse on his behalf because you don't want to admit that he lied, despite his own admission that he was using false numbers to make a point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#544 Apr 13 2011 at 5:57 PM Rating: Good
******
43,123 posts
gbaji wrote:
So that link shows a member of Kyl's staff saying that Kyl "lied"?
The link shows a (n alleged) member of Kyl's staff saying that Kyl's statement was not intended to be factual.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#545 Apr 13 2011 at 6:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Doesn't matter what the person said, Gbaji decided on an even BETTER excuse for them so that's what they REALLY meant!

Don't retreat, instead reload!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#546 Apr 13 2011 at 6:04 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Gbaji is getting you all to argue a strawman.

Abortion is legal. Planned Parenthood's methods are legal. They have no obligation to change their structure or procedure, nor to satisfy gbaji's conservative sensibilities. The percentage makeup of abortions there has no true relevance. It's an argument that already bears with it the implication that abortion is wrong, and so you're defending from a position that he made for you.

Abortions could be 99% of the day-to-day at PP and his point would still be without merit.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#547 Apr 13 2011 at 6:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eske Esquire wrote:
Gbaji is getting you all to argue a strawman.

Yeah, except he's losing :D
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#548 Apr 13 2011 at 6:55 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Gbaji is getting you all to argue a strawman.

Abortion is legal. Planned Parenthood's methods are legal. They have no obligation to change their structure or procedure, nor to satisfy gbaji's conservative sensibilities. The percentage makeup of abortions there has no true relevance. It's an argument that already bears with it the implication that abortion is wrong, and so you're defending from a position that he made for you.

Abortions could be 99% of the day-to-day at PP and his point would still be without merit.


What's even funnier is that exactly 0% of the federal funds given to Planned Parenthood go towards abortion.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#549 Apr 13 2011 at 7:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,132 posts
Quote:
Do they do other things? Sure. They do the occasional breast exam and whatnot, but I don't think anyone is under the misconception that abortion isn't the primary business that planned parenthood engages in.


Cite, please.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#550 Apr 13 2011 at 7:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
And anyway, it's the man that should be sterilized since he was the one wearing the cheap-ass condom that broke.
#551 Apr 13 2011 at 7:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Planned Parenthood gave it to me :(
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 50 All times are in CDT
Allegory, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (48)