Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@whembly: I'm confused. How exactly does reducing funding to PP help combat zika exactly?

It doesn't. How does not voting for a Zika spending bill with reductions in PP spending help Zika? Both sides are playing games and suck balls. A Zika on both their houses.

Send em all to Florida, forced to be on a guided tour with Rick Scott as the guide

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@whembly: I'm confused. How exactly does reducing funding to PP help combat zika exactly?

It doesn't. How does not voting for a Zika spending bill with reductions in PP spending help Zika? Both sides are playing games and suck balls. A Zika on both their houses.

That's a salty brain pretzel you are trying to feed me, Frazz. Maybe the next time Texas needs hurricane disaster relief the dems put a stipulation to also defund oil subsidies.

 d-usa wrote:
From now on I will agree with every favor anyone wants from me, as long as they let me punch their child in the face. When they say no I will blame them for being obstructionists.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@whembly: I'm confused. How exactly does reducing funding to PP help combat zika exactly?

It doesn't. How does not voting for a Zika spending bill with reductions in PP spending help Zika? Both sides are playing games and suck balls. A Zika on both their houses.

Send em all to Florida, forced to be on a guided tour with Rick Scott as the guide

With the stories coming out of Florida they're liable to be attacked by giant alligators standing their ground...

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@whembly: I'm confused. How exactly does reducing funding to PP help combat zika exactly?

Wouldn't make a difference honestly as the other providers in the area can perform the some sorts of things that PP would've done with this fundings.

There's what less than 30 PP clinics in Florida? (just to pick on one state)

That's a feth ton of hospitals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hospitals_in_Florida
Not to mention medical systems/clinics of various types:
https://www.google.com/#q=medical+systems+in+florida

The thing being ignored is that this is a political position. Whereas, obviously some GOP(I haven't found who) congress critter attached this rider during the committee conf of drafting this bill. This was voted on out of conference. Then, it went the vote to bring on the floor to be voted on, the Democrats filibustered it.

Simply stated... Planned Parenthood fundings is a "Sacred Bull" for Democrats. That's why it's being filibustered.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@whembly: I'm confused. How exactly does reducing funding to PP help combat zika exactly?

It doesn't. How does not voting for a Zika spending bill with reductions in PP spending help Zika? Both sides are playing games and suck balls. A Zika on both their houses.

That's a salty brain pretzel you are trying to feed me, Frazz. Maybe the next time Texas needs hurricane disaster relief the dems put a stipulation to also defund oil subsidies.

Sorry its already in the law. now find me an "oil subsidy" and I would agree with you.

EDIT: for the record I would be in favor of a clean bill.

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@whembly: I'm confused. How exactly does reducing funding to PP help combat zika exactly?

Wouldn't make a difference honestly as the other providers in the area can perform the some sorts of things that PP would've done with this fundings.

There's what less than 30 PP clinics in Florida? (just to pick on one state)

That's a feth ton of hospitals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hospitals_in_Florida
Not to mention medical systems/clinics of various types:
https://www.google.com/#q=medical+systems+in+florida

The thing being ignored is that this is a political position. Whereas, obviously some GOP(I haven't found who) congress critter attached this rider during the committee conf of drafting this bill. This was voted on out of conference. Then, it went the vote to bring on the floor to be voted on, the Democrats filibustered it.

Simply stated... Planned Parenthood fundings is a "Sacred Bull" for Democrats. That's why it's being filibustered.

I somehow don't see an answer to the question that was actually asked.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@whembly: I'm confused. How exactly does reducing funding to PP help combat zika exactly?

Wouldn't make a difference honestly as the other providers in the area can perform the some sorts of things that PP would've done with this fundings.

There's what less than 30 PP clinics in Florida? (just to pick on one state)

That's a feth ton of hospitals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hospitals_in_Florida
Not to mention medical systems/clinics of various types:
https://www.google.com/#q=medical+systems+in+florida

The thing being ignored is that this is a political position. Whereas, obviously some GOP(I haven't found who) congress critter attached this rider during the committee conf of drafting this bill. This was voted on out of conference. Then, it went the vote to bring on the floor to be voted on, the Democrats filibustered it.

Simply stated... Planned Parenthood fundings is a "Sacred Bull" for Democrats. That's why it's being filibustered.

I somehow don't see an answer to the question that was actually asked.

See what I underlined above?

That's not an answer, it's simply a statement by you.

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@whembly: I'm confused. How exactly does reducing funding to PP help combat zika exactly?

Wouldn't make a difference honestly as the other providers in the area can perform the some sorts of things that PP would've done with this fundings.

There's what less than 30 PP clinics in Florida? (just to pick on one state)

That's a feth ton of hospitals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hospitals_in_Florida
Not to mention medical systems/clinics of various types:
https://www.google.com/#q=medical+systems+in+florida

The thing being ignored is that this is a political position. Whereas, obviously some GOP(I haven't found who) congress critter attached this rider during the committee conf of drafting this bill. This was voted on out of conference. Then, it went the vote to bring on the floor to be voted on, the Democrats filibustered it.

Simply stated... Planned Parenthood fundings is a "Sacred Bull" for Democrats. That's why it's being filibustered.

I somehow don't see an answer to the question that was actually asked.

See what I underlined above?

So it wouldn't. And by putting in a "sacred bull" that the GOP knows the dems would never allow, they guarantee that the bill wouldn't pass. And they are both playing games? Gotcha. I really wish the entire country could read the last few pages here-methinks the GOP could actually lose the house this fall even with the gerrymandering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's not an answer, it's simply a statement by you.

The answer by omission is there is no justification.

Maybe Hillary can cut the military by 10%, point to all the remaining military bases and soldiers, and say "there are lots of them, this wouldn't make a difference", and then bask in the awesomeness of her well thought out and reasoned argument.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@whembly: I'm confused. How exactly does reducing funding to PP help combat zika exactly?

It doesn't. How does not voting for a Zika spending bill with reductions in PP spending help Zika? Both sides are playing games and suck balls. A Zika on both their houses.

That's a salty brain pretzel you are trying to feed me, Frazz. Maybe the next time Texas needs hurricane disaster relief the dems put a stipulation to also defund oil subsidies.

Sorry its already in the law. now find me an "oil subsidy" and I would agree with you.

EDIT: for the record I would be in favor of a clean bill.

Well, in 2013, we spent 21.6 billion in fossil fuel subsidies. http://priceofoil.org/2014/07/09/cashing-in-on-all-of-the-above-u-s-fossil-fuel-production-subsidies-under-obama/

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's not an answer, it's simply a statement by you.

It is an answer. How can say otherwise?

The bill specifically allocates $40 million for community health centers that are way more plentiful and offer a wider range of care. (don't believe me, see the links I posted previously).

In addition, it calls for $6 million for the National Health Service Corps and $95 million to the Social Services Grant Program that can distribute funds for preventive care to the most at-risk areas.

It is simply not the job of the federal government to fund an organization like Planned Parenthood and now the Democrats blocked a bill because their Planned Parenthood friends didn't get "their cut".

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's not an answer, it's simply a statement by you.

It is an answer. How can say otherwise?

Because the answer "PP is a sacred bull" does not fit the question "How does reducing funding for an organisation which will be helping to combat Zika help to combat Zika?" which is the question which was actually asked. Sorry Whem, that isn't on the board so no points for you.

You are in full politician mode here, Whembly. You typed out a lot of words but failed to answer the actual question at any point.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's not an answer, it's simply a statement by you.

It is an answer. How can say otherwise?

Maybe he's just arguing otherwise?

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's not an answer, it's simply a statement by you.

It is an answer. How can say otherwise?

Because badger bag noddy pranits.

Tell me that isn't an answer.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's not an answer, it's simply a statement by you.

It is an answer. How can say otherwise?

Because the answer "PP is a sacred bull" does not fit the question "How does reducing funding for an organisation which will be helping to combat Zika help to combat Zika?" which is the question which was actually asked.

The other providers can provide the same services.

You are in full politician mode here, Whembly. You typed out a lot of words but failed to answer the actual question at any point.

It is an answer... and yes, it's a political answer.

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's not an answer, it's simply a statement by you.

It is an answer. How can say otherwise?

Because the answer "PP is a sacred bull" does not fit the question "How does reducing funding for an organisation which will be helping to combat Zika help to combat Zika?" which is the question which was actually asked.

The other providers can provide the same services.

You are in full politician mode here, Whembly. You typed out a lot of words but failed to answer the actual question at any point.

It is an answer... and yes, it's a political answer.

I'm sure they can but why would you artificially limit the number of providers who can offer help and therefore increase the strain on each individual provider? That is really dumb policy. And unless these other providers are superior in some way to the PP clinic then giving them the money over the PP clinic doesn't actually do anything to help fight Zika over giving the money to PP. So you have yet again failed to answer the original question which is: "How does reducing funding for an organisation which will be helping to combat Zika help to combat Zika?"

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That's not an answer, it's simply a statement by you.

It is an answer. How can say otherwise?

Because the answer "PP is a sacred bull" does not fit the question "How does reducing funding for an organisation which will be helping to combat Zika help to combat Zika?" which is the question which was actually asked.

The other providers can provide the same services.

You are in full politician mode here, Whembly. You typed out a lot of words but failed to answer the actual question at any point.

It is an answer... and yes, it's a political answer.

I'm sure they can but why would you artificially limit the number of providers who can offer help and therefore increase the strain on each individual provider? That is really dumb policy. And unless these other providers are superior in some way to the PP clinic then giving them the money over the PP clinic doesn't actually do anything to help fight Zika which giving the money to PP wouldn't. So you have yet again failed to answer the original question which is: "How does reducing funding for an organisation which will be helping to combat Zika help to combat Zika?"

Again... it is simply not the job of the federal government to fund an organization like Planned Parenthood. We have a plethora of other providers who can do the same thing.

That is an answer.

I can't help it if you don't it.

He actually did answer it. He said it doesn't. Then he spent a long time trying to justify how not helping was justifiable because politics.

The stupid thing is that the government isn't "funding" PP anymore than they are "funding" whembly's job.

 whembly wrote:

Again... it is simply not the job of the federal government to fund an organization like Planned Parenthood. We have a plethora of other providers who can do the same thing.

Why is it not the job of the federal government to fund a not-for-profit organisation which offers comprehensive sexual health care? If others are offering the same service and it is okay to fund them then why is not okay to fund Planned Parenthood?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
He actually did answer it. He said it doesn't. Then he spent a long time trying to justify how not helping was justifiable because politics.

No. That's not it.

 whembly wrote:

Federal tax money should not go to abortion providers.

So State and municipal money should?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Again... it is simply not the job of the federal government to fund an organization like Planned Parenthood. We have a plethora of other providers who can do the same thing.

Why is it not the job of the federal government to fund a not-for-profit organisation which offers comprehensive sexual health care? If others are offering the same service and it is okay to fund them then why is not okay to fund Planned Parenthood?

Because I believe federal tax dollars should not be sent to the nation's largest abortion providers.

This latest bill, the committee crafted the health-care block-grant funding and provided guidance on who could receive the funding... PP was not listed as a potential recipient, and Democrats threw a hissy fit and filibustered.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Federal tax money should not go to abortion providers.

So State and municipal money should?

If enough folks in State/municpal supports that... then, sure.

I disagree with it, but being a 10th Amendment/State's Rights supporter, I support their right to do so.

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
He actually did answer it. He said it doesn't. Then he spent a long time trying to justify how not helping was justifiable because politics.

No. That's not it.

You said the underlined portion was the answer to the question. The underlined portion was "it wouldn't make a difference". That is it. Or else you didn't really answer the question.

Its funny how often the whole "Federal Funding of Abortion" is parroted as a boogeyman, yet the Hyde Amendment exists

They cant receive money for abortion, but they're well within qualification for funds to help fight the spread of ZIka.

You know full well the GOP would be watching how those funds are spent like a hawk if money was given to PP.

Its an issue because the GOP is making it an issue, and are trying to shift the blame for nothing getting done yet again.

He's just arguing and giving political answers, so honestly this whole conversation existing is our fault.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
Its funny how often the whole "Federal Funding of Abortion" is parroted as a boogeyman, yet the Hyde Amendment exists

They cant receive money for abortion, but they're well within qualification for funds to help fight the spread of ZIka.

You know full well the GOP would be watching how those funds are spent like a hawk if money was given to PP.

Its an issue because the GOP is making it an issue, and are trying to shift the blame for nothing getting done yet again.

When you understand the fungible qualities of money... then you'll see the Hyde Amendment is largely for show.

Again...one party has part of their identity that government is bad so they do whatever they can to make sure it is...

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:
I am wondering more and more if it is too late to promote a third party Walken-Busey Ticket. If we are going to do crazy, we might as well make it the most entertaining thing ever. On second thought, this is a great idea because Walken and Busey are infinitely better and more qualified candidates than either Clinton or Trump. Not to mention more intelligent.

I don't know. I think Trump would just escalate against your new Cray Cray Party.

So what you're saying is, I should bring popcorn?

Most definitely.

As to the comments that the Republicans being obstructionists....they are. As are and have been the Democrats. Both parties have been doing this kind of thing for a long time. Both parties do it on everything regardless of how important or unimportant it is, and the only persons/entities who ever really and truly profit are the lobbyists. To say or think otherwise is just silly. Not saying it is right, but accusing one party of it while ignoring the fact that the other party does it too on equally serious matters is disingenuous. Again, I do not think what the republicans did is right, but lets be honest, the democrats are just as guilty for helping create this environment as well.