Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Indiana cuts off Planned ParenthoodFollow

#152 May 12 2011 at 5:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
Why we have government funded charities at all is completely beyond me. Charity is not the role of government.

Be that as it may, the view of the Republican party towards the one is much more favorable than its view towards the other. Needless to say, it has nothing at all to do with preserving our precious tax dollars from misappropriated use.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#153 May 12 2011 at 5:20 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,069 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Charity is not the role of government.


I think you mean should not be the role of government.


I will now await your grumpy response :)
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#154 May 12 2011 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,155 posts
gbaji wrote:
ChanchanXI wrote:
I think the 40% statistic regarding unwed mothers isn't a tell-all since not all unwed mothers require financial assistance. If you could show the link between unwed mothers and required government assistance, then I may be able to agree with your point.


The rate has increased by a factor of 13 over that period of time. Are you suggesting that an unwed mother is only 1/13th as likely to require government assistance today as she would have back in the 50s? Why? That just seems like wishful thinking to me.


I'm suggesting the figure makes the situation seem worse than it actually is. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the difference between the involvement of women in the work force has doubled since 1950. In addition, the difference in average wage has changed quite dramatically since the 1950s. Adjusted for today's economy, women of the 1950s were making approximately $7,000/yr. That's compared to the $32,000/yr they are actually making, according to information collected in 2006. If you combine those two factors, it starts looking quite close to that 13 fold factor you have suggested. I stand by my claim that the information you provided paints an uneven picture.

gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Additionally, I do not think we are speaking of increasing the amount of birth control and/or sex education as a solution to fix a growing population.


Not a "growing population", but a "growing population in need of government services". Remember when I insisted that we clarify your hypothesis:


Quite right - an important clarification.

gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Let's first recall that hypothesis. You are claiming that it is less expensive to fund an organization which provides birth control than it is to pay for the social services for the "spawn" which would otherwise result. Thus, you are assuming that a dollar spent providing birth control will prevent a dollars worth of social services on child care. More specifically, you are assuming that the money spent on funding for birth control will cause a reduction in the number of children born needing those social services.

Yes, I would agree that is my guess. For sake of debate, I'll agree with your wording and say it's my "claim".


Your assumption is that by funding birth control, we are decreasing the amount of funding we have to pay for social services to support the children which would otherwise be born. Your argument is exactly about using birth control as a means to solve the problem of a growing population of children born poverty. You do remember your own argument, right?


You are parsing my words too closely regarding my quote embedded in the above quote. To say it's my claim has a different connotation than I intend; it seems as though I am championing the assumption as fact when I am, in fact, quite openly stating it is a guess. That is all I meant.


gbaji wrote:
Quote:
The statistics will not be able to distinguish how the outcome would have played out were the birth control/education not already in place. The situation is more along the lines of "Will the rates of birth increase in groups who previously had access to those services once those services are removed?" It's a subtle difference, but an important one when trying to compare against history.


Sure. But as I stated before. If your reason for supporting government funding for birth control on the grounds that it will reduce the cost to government to support the children who would otherwise be born, it's clear that the data simply does not support that reasoning at all. There's no evidence at all that handing out birth control is having any effect on the rate at which children are born into the conditions most likely to result in them needing government assistance. None at all. We assume this because the "obvious" assumption is that birth control helps "control birth", and thus empowers people to avoid that condition.


But it's clear that for whatever reason, it's not working. Can we at least agree therefore that spending money on providing birth control isn't the solution to that problem? I'm not saying that there aren't other reasons for doing it. I'll point out that I'm not arguing against funding birth control. Despite appearances, what I'm arguing against is doing it for the reasons you are claiming. You just stated what I saw as a week/false argument for providing birth control. That's it.


I appreciate the clarification on your reasoning, and I believe I understand the position you're coming from. I think part of the reason you do not see any data on it "working as assumed" though is because you have no frame of reference were it not to be there. We are looking at reality and saying "It's not working! Nothing has changed!" I think that is not an entirely correct way to view the situation when trying to determine if it is preventing additional welfare payments. How could it be determined that its existence did not in fact have the effect of decreasing the rate at which welfare assistance has increased (under these specific circumstances to these specific groups as defined earlier in our discussion)? I think you would be hard pressed to show otherwise simply because we cannot analyze that situation.
#155 May 12 2011 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Charity is not the role of government.


I think you mean should not be the role of government.


I will now await your grumpy response :)

No, I mean is not. I've got a pretty good grasp on the language.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#156 May 12 2011 at 8:06 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Charity is not the role of government.


I think you mean should not be the role of government.


I will now await your grumpy response :)

No, I mean is not. I've got a pretty good grasp on the language.


Just not the concept, right?
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#157 May 12 2011 at 8:14 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
You know, whenever I scan this thread I keep thinking it's about PicklePrince...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#158 May 13 2011 at 12:57 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Kachi wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Charity is not the role of government.


I think you mean should not be the role of government.


I will now await your grumpy response :)

No, I mean is not. I've got a pretty good grasp on the language.


Just not the concept, right?

Nope, I got that down pretty good, too.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#159 May 13 2011 at 3:13 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Where exactly do you draw the line between general welfare and charity? If we were to draw a Venn diagram I think most of us would find considerable overlap.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#160 May 13 2011 at 4:14 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Charity is not the role of government.


I think you mean should not be the role of government.


I will now await your grumpy response :)

No, I mean is not. I've got a pretty good grasp on the language.


If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it. Should not means that they are doing it but shouldn't be.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#161 May 13 2011 at 4:19 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it.
Have you always been this naive?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#162 May 13 2011 at 4:37 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,069 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it.
Have you always been this naive?


Did the definition of "is" change?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#163 May 13 2011 at 6:59 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,270 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it.
Have you always been this naive?


Did the definition of "is" change?
They're saying that the government is overstepping its bounds.
____________________________
Someone on another forum wrote:
Wow, you've got an awesome writing style.! I really dig the narrator's back story, humor, sarcasm, and the plethora of pop culture references. Altogether a refreshingly different RotR journal (not that I don't like the more traditional ones, mind you).

#164 May 13 2011 at 7:07 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Kachi wrote:
Where exactly do you draw the line between general welfare and charity?

A handout is a handout is a handout. Within the normal program guidelines, unemployment insurance, paid for by the employee & the employer, wouldn't be charity. Government contributions to the base program, and extensions beyond the base program, are charity. Food stamps, EBT, WIC, etc., those are all charity. Section 8 housing vouchers, charity.
Kachi wrote:
If we were to draw a Venn diagram I think most of us would find considerable overlap.

So you've identified the problem then.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#165 May 13 2011 at 7:08 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it.
Have you always been this naive?


Did the definition of "is" change?
They're saying that the government is overstepping its bounds.

Yes, I know. So the government is doing something they shouldn't be doing.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#166 May 13 2011 at 7:12 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Charity is not the role of government.
I think you mean should not be the role of government.
I will now await your grumpy response :)
No, I mean is not. I've got a pretty good grasp on the language.
If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it. Should not means that they are doing it but shouldn't be.
No, if it is not the role of government then government should not be performing the role. If it should not be the role of government then government should be performing the role because it is its role.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#167 May 13 2011 at 7:14 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it.
Have you always been this naive?
Did the definition of "is" change?
They're saying that the government is overstepping its bounds.
Yes, I know. So the government is doing something they shouldn't be doing.

You're so close to comprehension. I wish I could understand how it felt to be on the outside looking in.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#168 May 13 2011 at 7:16 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it.
Have you always been this naive?


Did the definition of "is" change?
They're saying that the government is overstepping its bounds.

Yes, I know. So the government is doing something they shouldn't be doing.
You've made it this far, so I'm not sure how you're not making it the rest of the way.

By the way, while Moe and I agree that the government shouldn't be giving to charities, we do define charity differently in that scope.

____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#169 May 13 2011 at 7:18 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
By the way, while Moe and I agree that the government shouldn't be giving to charities, we do define charity differently in that scope.

Yeah, he's Canadian. We both mean about, but he says it aboot.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#170 May 13 2011 at 7:27 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Charity is not the role of government.
I think you mean should not be the role of government.
I will now await your grumpy response :)
No, I mean is not. I've got a pretty good grasp on the language.
If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it. Should not means that they are doing it but shouldn't be.
No, if it is not the role of government then government should not be performing the role. If it should not be the role of government then government should be performing the role because it is its role.

But the government IS performing the role, yes?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#171 May 13 2011 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
"Is performing the role" is not the same as "is their role".
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#172 May 13 2011 at 7:43 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,069 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
"Is performing the role" is not the same as "is their role".

Maybe in some cases, but not in this one. These government "charities" are government policy and this makes them the role of the government.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#173 May 13 2011 at 7:54 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
"Is performing the role" is not the same as "is their role".

Maybe in some cases, but not in this one. These government "charities" are government policy and this makes them the role of the government.

No. Jumping on stage and doing Juliet's lines doesn't make it your role.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#174 May 13 2011 at 8:02 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
"Is performing the role" is not the same as "is their role".

Maybe in some cases, but not in this one. These government "charities" are government policy and this makes them the role of the government.

No. Jumping on stage and doing Juliet's lines doesn't make it your role.

Wait, is government policy the stage or Juliet's lines in this analogy?

Edit: That depends, am I jumping onstage without permission or am I doing it because I was cast as Juliet? These are government approved programs, so it's the latter.

Edited, May 13th 2011 8:29pm by Ailitardif
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#175 May 13 2011 at 4:52 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I wish someone would just expedite the natural death of this semantic quibble by linking the dictionary definition of "role."

What is a role can be subjective, and particularly in a democracy, anyone can claim what is or isn't a role of government. Or you can choose a circular definition that says that if something does it, that is its role. All of you are both right and wrong by your failure to acknowledge that words have more than one meaning.

There. Now you geniuses can discuss why you think a given program should or shouldn't be the role of government.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#176 May 13 2011 at 4:55 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,160 posts
I hope you don't think that's going to stop them.

Nothing can stop them.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#177 May 13 2011 at 5:22 PM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Kachi wrote:
All of you are both right and wrong by your failure to acknowledge that words have more than one meaning.
Moe and I are not wrong. The meaning of the word Moe originally used, never changed. Aili miss used it in the discussion at hand. It would be similar to me saying something along the lines of "to bear gifts" and someone thinking I was talking about gifts for bears.

Edited, May 13th 2011 8:22pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#178 May 13 2011 at 5:26 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,198 posts
gbaji wrote:
Do you think that taxpayer dollars should pay for abortions?


Yes, and in my country, tax dollars DO pay for abortions.

____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#179 May 14 2011 at 7:16 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
I think both sides are "fooling" themselves. While we all might have legitimate arguments for/against PP, I think the core issue in general is abortion. I don't have a problem with the government paying for abortions IFF (If and only if), it is either a rape case or a life or death situation where the woman can't afford it. I do have a problem with the government paying for abortions for people who just got pregnant.

Admittedly, part of that is due to my personal opinion, but is heavily overshadowed by my argument of wasting money on something that is completely preventable, especially with the deficit issue and other areas where money is necessary.

Secondly, proponents argue that PP will reduce pregnancies, etc., but that simply isn't true. For the exceptions of rape, sex is a decision. People decided to have unprotected sex and if they are using contraceptives, then they know the potential results. So, throwing out more contraceptives isn't going to solve the problem, because they are already available and no one is forcing you to have sex. The problem is deeper than that.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#180 May 14 2011 at 8:19 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
If it IS not the role, then the government wouldn't be doing it.
Have you always been this naive?


Did the definition of "is" change?

Yeah, back in the Clinton administration.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#181 May 14 2011 at 8:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
I think both sides are "fooling" themselves. While we all might have legitimate arguments for/against PP, I think the core issue in general is abortion.

Who's fooled? I've said throughout this entire thread that this had nothing to do with some fear of misused tax dollars or the deficit and everything to do with an ideological battle against abortion.

Quote:
I do have a problem with the government paying for abortions for people who just got pregnant.

The government isn't paying for abortions. There are policies in place to check on that. If an individual location is breaking the policy, they should be penalized just like if I misspent a roadway construction grant on an awesome new fish tank or education grant on a nose job or even spent medical funds on a pony. As long as abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country, there's no reason to start screaming and waving our arms around as though this potential misuse of funds differs from any other potential misuse of funds.

Edited, May 14th 2011 9:43am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#182 May 14 2011 at 10:17 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Who's fooled? I've said throughout this entire thread that this had nothing to do with some fear of misused tax dollars or the deficit and everything to do with an ideological battle against abortion.


I was speaking in a general sense.

Jophiel wrote:

The government isn't paying for abortions. There are policies in place to check on that. If an individual location is breaking the policy, they should be penalized just like if I misspent a roadway construction grant on an awesome new fish tank or education grant on a nose job or even spent medical funds on a pony. As long as abortion is a legal medical procedure in this country, there's no reason to start screaming and waving our arms around as though this potential misuse of funds differs from any other potential misuse of funds.


So educate me, as I'm not 100% clear on PP. PP does not provide any abortions with tax payers' money? Furthermore, any abortion done by PP with tax payer money is a violation of a policy where there are policies in effect?

In any case, what about the contraceptives? Are they paid by the tax payers?

What services and products are actually being funded by the government?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#183 May 14 2011 at 10:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
So educate me, as I'm not 100% clear on PP. PP does not provide any abortions with tax payers' money?

Correct. It is a violation of the law for PP to perform abortions with tax funding. PP is required to keep separate records and perform abortions in a separate part of the building, clearly marked. They also keep separate pay records, accounting, etc.

PP's other services are partially paid with tax money either via Medicaid reimbursements or federal grants.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#184 May 14 2011 at 11:21 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
So educate me, as I'm not 100% clear on PP. PP does not provide any abortions with tax payers' money?

Correct. It is a violation of the law for PP to perform abortions with tax funding. PP is required to keep separate records and perform abortions in a separate part of the building, clearly marked. They also keep separate pay records, accounting, etc.

PP's other services are partially paid with tax money either via Medicaid reimbursements or federal grants.


So what's the problem? I'm missing out on any "confusion". From what I've heard from the opponents is that it's "tax payer money". So, basically, they don't know what they are talking about? I don't doubt it as the Republicans clearly made a fool of themselves with Common Sense performing at the White House. It just seems like there might be more to the argument.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#185 May 14 2011 at 11:32 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,157 posts
Almalieque wrote:
So what's the problem?
From what I understand, the problem is that the opponents want every single last penny accounted for. For even if one tax payer penny is being used to light a hallway that leads to a room where an interview takes place that could lead to an abortion, then it isn't legal in their eyes. Which maybe it isn't to the absolute letter of the law, but dear god is it something stupid to fight over.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#186 May 14 2011 at 11:39 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
So what's the problem?
From what I understand, the problem is that the opponents want every single last penny accounted for. For even if one tax payer penny is being used to light a hallway that leads to a room where an interview takes place that could lead to an abortion, then it isn't legal in their eyes. Which maybe it isn't to the absolute letter of the law, but dear god is it something stupid to fight over.


Well, to be fair, you can't rule out the possibility of an organization purposely "misusing" funds under the perception of "women's health". Then again, as stated, there are agencies out there to determine fraud, waste and abuse.

At this point, I would have to see data showing where and how the money is spent. If the money is spent to basically house an abortion clinic, then I can see people's concern. If the money is more spread about where "light bulbs" might be paid for, but construction isn't, then I would say opposition is overreacting.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#187 May 14 2011 at 11:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,278 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
So what's the problem?
From what I understand, the problem is that the opponents want every single last penny accounted for. For even if one tax payer penny is being used to light a hallway that leads to a room where an interview takes place that could lead to an abortion, then it isn't legal in their eyes. Which maybe it isn't to the absolute letter of the law, but dear god is it something stupid to fight over.


And there are quite a few conservatives that really believe that PP is fixing their books and using tax money to pay for abortions.
#188 May 14 2011 at 11:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
So what's the problem?

A desire to impose social restrictions upon the people under the guise of overblown claims of taxpayer money being misused. Oh, and claims made before Congress that "weren't intended to be a factual statement".

You already called it -- it's about abortion. Not about tax money, not about the deficit, it's purely and solely about abortion. If it were about taxes and spending, there's a billion places to look first and get much larger results. If it were about "potential" misuse, you'd see the same standards imposed upon faith-based charities that the GOP demands from Planned Parenthood. It's not about any of those things, it's about the imposition of a social agenda through backdoor means.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#189 May 14 2011 at 11:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
From what I understand, the problem is that the opponents want every single last penny accounted for. For even if one tax payer penny is being used to light a hallway that leads to a room where an interview takes place that could lead to an abortion, then it isn't legal in their eyes. Which maybe it isn't to the absolute letter of the law, but dear god is it something stupid to fight over.

Except that a light bulb in the lobby or whatever is completely within the law and the things that are outside the law are audited to ensure compliance. Light bulbs in the hallway are covered by the restrictions that abortions have to be taking place is a separate section of the building which is covered by separate books. On occasions where it's shown that they violated the law, they should be penalized on a per-location basis in the same manner as any other misused grant spending, not some politically driven witch hunt under the guise of fiscal concern.

Edited, May 14th 2011 12:56pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#190Almalieque, Posted: May 14 2011 at 3:01 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Well, you're being biased towards your own view. As we agree, this is all about abortion, but on both sides. If everything is legally funded without the government, why not just have a total separate building all together or just not have abortions. That would totally eliminate any possibility of assumption of misuse of money. If abortion is such a *small* percentage of PP as proponents say, why would you risk losing the entire program over something that isn't being utilized?
#191 May 14 2011 at 3:34 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Well, you're being biased towards your own view.

It's not biased, you twit. It's the spirit and letter of the law. You want to force extra expenditures out of Planned Parenthood because you're so paranoid about the idea that you might be paying for an abortion somewhere.
#192 May 14 2011 at 3:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Well, you're being biased towards your own view.

You mean the viewpoint that PP is keeping within the bounds of the law while also offering a legal medical procedure? Yeah, I guess I am.

Quote:
If everything is legally funded without the government, why not just have a total separate building all together or just not have abortions.

Because that's not what the law requires. And because abortions are legal and there is no reason why an organization should be extorted over them.

Are you asking why PP doesn't just do whatever a group of politicians who want to destroy them say they should do? Is this like the stupid Birther thing where all these insane people will magically be happy if they just do this one little thing? You actually believe that the next step isn't "Oh sure they SAY that separate building is totally split off but what if they're sending money?? Defund Planned Parenthood!!!"?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#193 May 14 2011 at 6:18 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You mean the viewpoint that PP is keeping within the bounds of the law while also offering a legal medical procedure? Yeah, I guess I am.


No, I mean the view point that PP is being totally innocent where they aren't using ANY sort of money to benefit abortion, contraceptives, etc. That's the exact opposite of the opponents claiming that money IS spent on money to benefit abortion, contraceptives, etc. You aren't acting any better than they are.

The most reasonable way to approach this is to look exactly how the money is spent, not just assume that it is or it isn't just because you think so.

Jophiel wrote:

Because that's not what the law requires. And because abortions are legal and there is no reason why an organization should be extorted over them.

Are you asking why PP doesn't just do whatever a group of politicians who want to destroy them say they should do? Is this like the stupid Birther thing where all these insane people will magically be happy if they just do this one little thing? You actually believe that the next step isn't "Oh sure they SAY that separate building is totally split off but what if they're sending money?? Defund Planned Parenthood!!!"?


The fact that it's legal has absolutely no bearing in this. It does not matter. If they replaced abortions with "breast implants" or "botax", do you think people will not care? I'm not sure if they already do those operations or not, but I wouldn't want any tax payer's money going to those legal procedures and I certainly don't care if an adult decides to get botax or breast implants. I know military servicemen are authorized to get breast implants under Uncle Sam and I don't agree with that either. You just refuse to accept the reality that even though there is a personal agenda, that there are legitimate arguments against it and you are no different than your opposition.

If you're willing to risk your entire organization for a practice that you rarely even do, that tells me your concern isn't with the overall health of women but for that particular practice.

Having two separate buildings makes a HUGE difference. Every organization should have some sort of a treasury report with banking trails. It's much easier to determine if that separate building is having additional illegal funds as opposed to determining if that "electricity" is legally being paid for.

I agree with your complaint about the opposition over exaggerating, but if PP isn't going out of their way to prove their innocence on something that they claim they hardly ever do, you can't deny the smell of something fishy occurring.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#194 May 14 2011 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Almalieque wrote:
No, I mean the view point that PP is being totally innocent where they aren't using ANY sort of money to benefit abortion, contraceptives, etc. That's the exact opposite of the opponents claiming that money IS spent on money to benefit abortion, contraceptives, etc. You aren't acting any better than they are.

Can you please prove to me that pigs cannot fly?

Almalieque wrote:
If you're willing to risk your entire organization for a practice that you rarely even do, that tells me your concern isn't with the overall health of women but for that particular practice.

Having two separate buildings makes a HUGE difference. Every organization should have some sort of a treasury report with banking trails. It's much easier to determine if that separate building is having additional illegal funds as opposed to determining if that "electricity" is legally being paid for.

I agree with your complaint about the opposition over exaggerating, but if PP isn't going out of their way to prove their innocence on something that they claim they hardly ever do, you can't deny the smell of something fishy occurring.

You're so cute when you're naive. Which is constantly.
#195 May 14 2011 at 7:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
You mean the viewpoint that PP is keeping within the bounds of the law while also offering a legal medical procedure? Yeah, I guess I am.


No, I mean the view point that PP is being totally innocent where they aren't using ANY sort of money to benefit abortion, contraceptives, etc. That's the exact opposite of the opponents claiming that money IS spent on money to benefit abortion, contraceptives, etc. You aren't acting any better than they are.


As Joph has already pointed out, they are audited, and there has been no proof of a mis-allocation of funds.

I mean, unless you ascribe to the "guilty until proven innocent" creed, I'm not sure I see how it's biased to believe they are doing anything wrong.
____________________________
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.
#196 May 14 2011 at 7:20 PM Rating: Good
******
43,157 posts
Doesn't matter, its another birth certificate style of conspiracy. Kennedy, Tupac, and Osama are the masterminds behind it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#197 May 14 2011 at 8:10 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Majivo wrote:
You're so cute when you're naive. Which is constantly.
Cute's not the word I'd use.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#198 May 14 2011 at 9:09 PM Rating: Good
****
7,802 posts
Nadenu wrote:
And there are quite a few conservatives that really believe that PP is fixing their books and using tax money to pay for abortions.

Not saying they are, but there are certainly organizations out there that do.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#199 May 14 2011 at 9:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
No, I mean the view point that PP is being totally innocent where they aren't using ANY sort of money to benefit abortion, contraceptives, etc.

Contraceptives aren't the issues here. And, again, they get audited to ensure that they're not spending money on abortions. I have no problem with them being audited.

Quote:
The fact that it's legal has absolutely no bearing in this. It does not matter. If they replaced abortions with "breast implants" or "botax", do you think people will not care?

So if PP didn't offer abortion services but did offer breast implants, you're under the impression that you'd be seeing the same response from the GOP? Heh.

Quote:
If you're willing to risk your entire organization for a practice that you rarely even do, that tells me your concern isn't with the overall health of women but for that particular practice.

Yeah, I'm not sure when, or in what world, "You have to jump through every ridiculous hurdle I set up despite you already following the rules and we'll keep singling you out for special ever-increasingly restrictive treatment and if you object it means you weren't serious anyway" has become a valid debating point.

Quote:
if PP isn't going out of their way to prove their innocence

Unless you're Niobia's imaginary internet lawyer, they shouldn't have to.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#200 May 14 2011 at 11:06 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Hah, I'm not the least bit surprised that Alma picked up gbaji's torch here.



What a fucking idiot.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#201Almalieque, Posted: May 15 2011 at 6:52 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Gbaji? I've stated that both sides are over exaggerating. As a "3rd party" looking in, both sides aren't any different.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 81 All times are in CDT
Belkira, feelz, Kastigir, Kavekk, LordMagius, Mazra, Nadenu, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (73)