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.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I mean besides the fact that it is already illegal for federal money to support abortions, and the fact that abortions are a tiny part of Planned Parenthood's functions, and they provide contraception and education to those less fortunate.
1) understand that money, by definition, is fungible. 2) the vast bulk of PP's revenue *is* abortion, as huge part of their business. 3) the Senate just release their report on PP and the Fetal Tissue procurement business. The AP breaks down breaks down the amount of federal funding PP receives: Planned Parenthood’s latest annual report shows that of more than $1.1 billion in yearly revenue, around half — $554 million — comes from government grants and reimbursements. It provides no breakdown.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Planned Parenthood receives about $450 million annually in federal funds, mostly $390 million in reimbursements from the Medicaid program for low-income people.
If they really want less abortions they would make a plan to provide free contraception to people,
Who's going to pay for it? Just have congress pass a law so that it can be debated and funded on it's own.
and practical health education in schools.
Of course.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/05 19:34:37
Magister wrote: It's not really a strawman is it though? It'd be perfectly agreeable for a large number of people to stop paying for a military (for instance).
After all, shooting or bombing people is a murder, right?
No. The Constitution makes it a responsibility of the to defend the nation and gives them the authority to raise armed forces to do so.
Nice try though.
I'm not convinced invading other countries is a legitimate way to 'defend the nation'. I've found the part the mentions declaring war, raising armies and militias, but nowhere does it say you can actually kill people?
It also doesn't mention who has to pay for them...
i am happy to be corrected in my reading of this however!
Also, if it's a restrictive rather than permissive document, then unless it explicitly says you can do something, you can't?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/05 19:34:32
Keep in mind that only about 3% of the services rendered by PP are abortions.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Because abortions isn't "healthcare" in today's climate (outside of true cases where a pregnancy can kill you). It's mostly an elective procedure for unwanted pregnancies.
Many surgeries are not to fix life threatening situation but to increase quality of life. A person can live for a long time on dialysis, for example. It's a crap life but hey, kidney failure isn't life threatening when you're hooked up to a machine to clean your blood 3 days a week.
Or lets say you've got a bone spur in your foot which makes it incredibly painful to walk. Sure you can't walk but it won't kill you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/05 19:39:34
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Vaktathi wrote: Keep in mind that only about 3% of the services rendered by PP are abortions.
That's extremely misleading as it suppose that all services are counted equally... unless, you believe PP makes just as much revenue from a pap smear test as the abortion procedure they provide? Is that it?
Anyways... The Washington Post gives that statement a Three Pinocchio.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why should abortion be treated any differently to any other form of healthcare and denied government funding?
Rastafarians believe that organ donation is wrong due to their belief that the body should be whole. So should organ donation therefore be denied government funding?
Fun fact, find the power that permits the US federal government the power to mandate or provide
healthcare...
Find the power that explicitly forbids them from doing so?
Not needed. The constitution grants the Fed Gov't specific powers. It also says powers NOT granted remain with the states. It is a restrictive document, not a permissive one.
It's started out as a permissive document, then people wanted to add restrictive rules to it, and now it's all jacked up. That was one of the better arguments against the Bill of Rights, but it fell on deaf ears.
Magister wrote: It's not really a strawman is it though? It'd be perfectly agreeable for a large number of people to stop paying for a military (for instance).
After all, shooting or bombing people is a murder, right?
No. The Constitution makes it a responsibility of the to defend the nation and gives them the authority to raise armed forces to do so.
Nice try though.
I'm not convinced invading other countries is a legitimate way to 'defend the nation'. I've found the part the mentions declaring war, raising armies and militias, but nowhere does it say you can actually kill people?
It also doesn't mention who has to pay for them...
i am happy to be corrected in my reading of this however!
Also, if it's a restrictive rather than permissive document, then unless it explicitly says you can do something, you can't?
Magister wrote: It's not really a strawman is it though? It'd be perfectly agreeable for a large number of people to stop paying for a military (for instance).
After all, shooting or bombing people is a murder, right?
No. The Constitution makes it a responsibility of the to defend the nation and gives them the authority to raise armed forces to do so.
Nice try though.
I'm not convinced invading other countries is a legitimate way to 'defend the nation'. I've found the part the mentions declaring war, raising armies and militias, but nowhere does it say you can actually kill people?
It also doesn't mention who has to pay for them...
i am happy to be corrected in my reading of this however!
Also, if it's a restrictive rather than permissive document, then unless it explicitly says you can do something, you can't?
War is killing and destroying, the Founders were pretty fething familiar with war and its associated destructiveness.
The document gives the Feds the power to raise funds to pay for it. The amendments specifically give the Feds the power to impose an income tax. So, yeah, you're being purposely ignorant, and you're clearly smarter than that.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Can't wait to see how this plays out. A very conservative-leaning paper, WSJ, reported Wednesday evening that Trump and his transition team were working on a plan to restructure the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA because Trump believes they are biased against him. But incoming White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Thursday that reports President-elect Donald Trump is working on plans to restructure the intelligence community are "100 percent false."
Now somebody is lying here. If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on the WSJ reporting as being accurate and that our thin-skinned, exaggerator-in-chief is feeling picked on and wants to do something about it. How does this not weaken our country when an individual vendetta seeks to override the apolitical, independence of the Intelligence Services?
Co'tor Shas wrote: I mean besides the fact that it is already illegal for federal money to support abortions, and the fact that abortions are a tiny part of Planned Parenthood's functions, and they provide contraception and education to those less fortunate.
1) understand that money, by definition, is fungible.
2) the vast bulk of PP's revenue *is* abortion, as huge part of their business.
3) the Senate just release their report on PP and the Fetal Tissue procurement business. The AP breaks down breaks down the amount of federal funding PP receives:
Planned Parenthood’s latest annual report shows that of more than $1.1 billion in yearly revenue, around half — $554 million — comes from government grants and reimbursements. It provides no breakdown.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Planned Parenthood receives about $450 million annually in federal funds, mostly $390 million in reimbursements from the Medicaid program for low-income people.
If they really want less abortions they would make a plan to provide free contraception to people,
Who's going to pay for it? Just have congress pass a law so that it can be debated and funded on it's own.
Vaktathi wrote: Keep in mind that only about 3% of the services rendered by PP are abortions.
That's extremely misleading as it suppose that all services are counted equally... unless, you believe PP makes just as much revenue from a pap smear test as the abortion procedure they provide? Is that it?
Anyways... The Washington Post gives that statement a Three Pinocchio.
sure, hence why I noted "services" and not "expenditures", primarily to point out that they do a whole lot more than just abortions.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Magister wrote: It's not really a strawman is it though? It'd be perfectly agreeable for a large number of people to stop paying for a military (for instance).
After all, shooting or bombing people is a murder, right?
No. The Constitution makes it a responsibility of the to defend the nation and gives them the authority to raise armed forces to do so.
Nice try though.
I'm not convinced invading other countries is a legitimate way to 'defend the nation'. I've found the part the mentions declaring war, raising armies and militias, but nowhere does it say you can actually kill people?
It also doesn't mention who has to pay for them...
i am happy to be corrected in my reading of this however!
Also, if it's a restrictive rather than permissive document, then unless it explicitly says you can do something, you can't?
War is killing and destroying, the Founders were pretty fething familiar with war and its associated destructiveness.
The document gives the Feds the power to raise funds to pay for it. The amendments specifically give the Feds the power to impose an income tax. So, yeah, you're being purposely ignorant, and you're clearly smarter than that.
I wasn't intending to cause offence and I apologise if I did so. However I am genuinely curious; as there have been and still are different interpretations of what the constitution actually allows.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I mean besides the fact that it is already illegal for federal money to support abortions, and the fact that abortions are a tiny part of Planned Parenthood's functions, and they provide contraception and education to those less fortunate.
1) understand that money, by definition, is fungible.
2) the vast bulk of PP's revenue *is* abortion, as huge part of their business.
3) the Senate just release their report on PP and the Fetal Tissue procurement business. The AP breaks down breaks down the amount of federal funding PP receives:
Planned Parenthood’s latest annual report shows that of more than $1.1 billion in yearly revenue, around half — $554 million — comes from government grants and reimbursements. It provides no breakdown.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Planned Parenthood receives about $450 million annually in federal funds, mostly $390 million in reimbursements from the Medicaid program for low-income people.
If they really want less abortions they would make a plan to provide free contraception to people,
Who's going to pay for it? Just have congress pass a law so that it can be debated and funded on it's own.
The largest source of revenue for Planned Parenthood is government funding.
While it's true that federal funds can’t be used for abortions, PP does not separate its federal, state and non-governments funds in its annual reports. There are NO itemized report to ascertain how to distinguish the money trail.
So, stop regurgitation PP propaganda and acknowledge for once that something isn't right here.
Vaktathi wrote: Keep in mind that only about 3% of the services rendered by PP are abortions.
That's extremely misleading as it suppose that all services are counted equally... unless, you believe PP makes just as much revenue from a pap smear test as the abortion procedure they provide? Is that it?
Anyways... The Washington Post gives that statement a Three Pinocchio.
sure, hence why I noted "services" and not "expenditures", primarily to point out that they do a whole lot more than just abortions.
I don't think I implied otherwise... only that abortion services (and evidently the tissue procurements) is a huge revenue stream for PP.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/05 19:50:35
Magister wrote: It's not really a strawman is it though? It'd be perfectly agreeable for a large number of people to stop paying for a military (for instance).
After all, shooting or bombing people is a murder, right?
No. The Constitution makes it a responsibility of the to defend the nation and gives them the authority to raise armed forces to do so.
Nice try though.
I'm not convinced invading other countries is a legitimate way to 'defend the nation'. I've found the part the mentions declaring war, raising armies and militias, but nowhere does it say you can actually kill people?
It also doesn't mention who has to pay for them...
i am happy to be corrected in my reading of this however!
Also, if it's a restrictive rather than permissive document, then unless it explicitly says you can do something, you can't?
You've got that backwards buddy...
The Articles are permissive, they give the powers to the respective branches of the government and state what they can do. The argument against the Bill of Rights was that they were not needed because nothing on the Constitution gave the government the power to make a Church, regulate firearms, search your home, etc. The Bill of Rights mixed a restrictive set of rules into the permissive rules, and subsequent amendments have been a mix of "government can" and "government can't". So now both "show where it says we can" and "show where it says we can't" are valid and conflicting points.
Magister wrote: It's not really a strawman is it though? It'd be perfectly agreeable for a large number of people to stop paying for a military (for instance).
After all, shooting or bombing people is a murder, right?
No. The Constitution makes it a responsibility of the to defend the nation and gives them the authority to raise armed forces to do so.
Nice try though.
I'm not convinced invading other countries is a legitimate way to 'defend the nation'. I've found the part the mentions declaring war, raising armies and militias, but nowhere does it say you can actually kill people?
It also doesn't mention who has to pay for them...
i am happy to be corrected in my reading of this however!
Also, if it's a restrictive rather than permissive document, then unless it explicitly says you can do something, you can't?
You've got that backwards buddy...
The Articles are permissive, they give the powers to the respective branches of the government and state what they can do. The argument against the Bill of Rights was that they were not needed because nothing on the Constitution gave the government the power to make a Church, regulate firearms, search your home, etc. The Bill of Rights mixed a restrictive set of rules into the permissive rules, and subsequent amendments have been a mix of "government can" and "government can't". So now both "show where it says we can" and "show where it says we can't" are valid and conflicting points.
...okay. I stand corrected. (i get the whole permissive/restrictive things garbled up all the time... 40k rules can be taxing at times. )
Didnt multiple states, deep conservative abortion provider restricting states like Texas and NC and the south have trials and investigations into the very thing Whembly is parroting and found that PP did nothing wrong?
But hey, just like his boy Trump, he'll only listen to sources that prove the narrative he already believes to be true.
At this point, wouldnt it be in the threads best interest to put him on their ignore lists and stop replying to him?
WrentheFaceless wrote: Didnt multiple states, deep conservative abortion provider restricting states like Texas and NC and the south have trials and investigations into the very thing Whembly is parroting and found that PP did nothing wrong?
Many are still ongoing as these cases tend to fight a long time in the court system.
• Despite the clear legislative history of the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act, the executive branch across multiple administrations has failed to enforce the law’s safeguards.
• Since 2010, three companies - Advanced Bioscience Resources, Inc.; StemExpress, LLC; and Novogenix Laboratories, LLC (Novogenix has since gone out of business) - have paid affiliates of Planned Parenthood Federation of America to acquire aborted fetuses, and then sold the fetal tissue to their respective customers at substantially higher prices than their documented costs.
• The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) initially had a policy in place to ensure its affiliates were complying with the law, but the affiliates failed to follow its fetal tissue reimbursement policy. When PPFA learned in 2011 of this situation, PPFA cancelled the policy rather than exercise oversight to bring the affiliates back into compliance. Thus, PPFA not only turned a blind eye to the affiliates’ violations of its fetal tissue policy, but also altered its own oversight procedures enabling those affiliates’ practices to continue unimpeded.
• The cost analyses provided by affiliates of Planned Parenthood Federation of America lack sufficient documentation and rely on unreasonably broad and vague claims of costs for “the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control or storage of” fetal tissue. Planned Parenthood attorneys acknowledge that the affiliates had failed to follow procedures put in place to ensure compliance with the law. In addition, the cost analyses were only performed long after the fact and at the insistence of the committee.
The full report details the long history of the controversy surrounding human fetal tissue research and the bipartisan legislative approach taken to resolve the issue at the time, as well as the subsequent lack of enforcement. As the report explains, “Support for the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act was premised on the idea that the ban on buying or selling fetal tissue would be a safeguard against the development for a market for human fetuses. Tragically, the executive branch has either failed or simply refused to enforce that safeguard. As a result, contrary to the intent of the law, companies have charged thousands of dollars for specimens removed from a single aborted fetus; they have claimed the fees they charged only recovered acceptable costs when they had not, in fact, conducted any analysis of their costs when setting the fees; and their post hoc accounting rationalizations invoked indirect and tenuously-related costs in an attempt to justify their fees.”
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why should abortion be treated any differently to any other form of healthcare and denied government funding?
Rastafarians believe that organ donation is wrong due to their belief that the body should be whole. So should organ donation therefore be denied government funding?
Fun fact, find the power that permits the US federal government the power to mandate or provide
healthcare...
Find the power that explicitly forbids them from doing so?
Is said the US. Under the US federal system all powers were held at the People or state level if not specifically granted to the federal government.*
*repealed in two key cases: Lee vs. Grant, and FDR vs. SCOTUS.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
WrentheFaceless wrote: Didnt multiple states, deep conservative abortion provider restricting states like Texas and NC and the south have trials and investigations into the very thing Whembly is parroting and found that PP did nothing wrong?
But hey, just like his boy Trump, he'll only listen to sources that prove the narrative he already believes to be true.
At this point, wouldnt it be in the threads best interest to put him on their ignore lists and stop replying to him?
Whembly, there is no way that, at the prices talked about in those videos (regardless of whether they were genuine), Planned Parenthood could ever make a profit from those fetal tissue samples due to the requirements for storage and transport of them. If they did not follow the regulations governing moving and storing that kind of stuff, they would have been sued by the people who received the samples.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/05 20:25:02
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Didnt multiple states, deep conservative abortion provider restricting states like Texas and NC and the south have trials and investigations into the very thing Whembly is parroting and found that PP did nothing wrong?
Many are still ongoing as these cases tend to fight a long time in the court system.
• Despite the clear legislative history of the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act, the executive branch across multiple administrations has failed to enforce the law’s safeguards.
• Since 2010, three companies - Advanced Bioscience Resources, Inc.; StemExpress, LLC; and Novogenix Laboratories, LLC (Novogenix has since gone out of business) - have paid affiliates of Planned Parenthood Federation of America to acquire aborted fetuses, and then sold the fetal tissue to their respective customers at substantially higher prices than their documented costs.
• The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) initially had a policy in place to ensure its affiliates were complying with the law, but the affiliates failed to follow its fetal tissue reimbursement policy. When PPFA learned in 2011 of this situation, PPFA cancelled the policy rather than exercise oversight to bring the affiliates back into compliance. Thus, PPFA not only turned a blind eye to the affiliates’ violations of its fetal tissue policy, but also altered its own oversight procedures enabling those affiliates’ practices to continue unimpeded.
• The cost analyses provided by affiliates of Planned Parenthood Federation of America lack sufficient documentation and rely on unreasonably broad and vague claims of costs for “the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control or storage of” fetal tissue. Planned Parenthood attorneys acknowledge that the affiliates had failed to follow procedures put in place to ensure compliance with the law. In addition, the cost analyses were only performed long after the fact and at the insistence of the committee.
The full report details the long history of the controversy surrounding human fetal tissue research and the bipartisan legislative approach taken to resolve the issue at the time, as well as the subsequent lack of enforcement. As the report explains, “Support for the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act was premised on the idea that the ban on buying or selling fetal tissue would be a safeguard against the development for a market for human fetuses. Tragically, the executive branch has either failed or simply refused to enforce that safeguard. As a result, contrary to the intent of the law, companies have charged thousands of dollars for specimens removed from a single aborted fetus; they have claimed the fees they charged only recovered acceptable costs when they had not, in fact, conducted any analysis of their costs when setting the fees; and their post hoc accounting rationalizations invoked indirect and tenuously-related costs in an attempt to justify their fees.”
Officials in 12 states initiated investigations into claims made by the videos, but none found Planned Parenthood clinics to have sold tissue for profit as alleged by CMP and other anti-abortion groups. An investigation by the United States House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee found no evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. A select committee, the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce Select Investigative Panel on Planned Parenthood, was formed to further investigate Planned Parenthood.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/05 20:24:15
Just because one is hopelessly foolish politically doesn't mean one is that way on all subjects. To put someone on ignore they would have to be a loss in nearly all threads they post and not just one. There is also the amusing 'train wreck' element to it as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/05 20:24:13
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Didnt multiple states, deep conservative abortion provider restricting states like Texas and NC and the south have trials and investigations into the very thing Whembly is parroting and found that PP did nothing wrong?
But hey, just like his boy Trump, he'll only listen to sources that prove the narrative he already believes to be true.
At this point, wouldnt it be in the threads best interest to put him on their ignore lists and stop replying to him?
...Coalfire's analysis of recorded media files contained on the flash drive indicates that the video records are authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing. This conclusion is supported by the consistency of the video file date and time stamps, the video timecode, as well as the folder and file naming scheme. The uniformity between the footage from the cameras from the two Investigators also support the evidence that the video recordings are authentic.
With regard to the "Full Footage" YouTube videos relwased by the Organization, edits made to these videos were applied to eliminate non-pertinent footage, including "commuting", 'waiting', "adjusting recording equipment," "meals," or "restroom breaks," lacking pertinent conversation. Any discrepancies in the chronology of the time timecodes are consistent with the intentional removal of this non-pertinent footage as described in this report. ...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/05 20:30:20
WrentheFaceless wrote: Didnt multiple states, deep conservative abortion provider restricting states like Texas and NC and the south have trials and investigations into the very thing Whembly is parroting and found that PP did nothing wrong?
But hey, just like his boy Trump, he'll only listen to sources that prove the narrative he already believes to be true.
At this point, wouldnt it be in the threads best interest to put him on their ignore lists and stop replying to him?
...Coalfire's analysis of recorded media files contained on the flash drive indicates that the video records are authentic and show no evidence of manipulation or editing. This conclusion is supported by the consistency of the video file date and time stamps, the video timecode, as well as the folder and file naming scheme. The uniformity between the footage from the cameras from the two Investigators also support the evidence that the video recordings are authentic.
With regard to the "Full Footage" YouTube videos relwased by the Organization, edits made to these videos were applied to eliminate non-pertinent footage, including "commuting", 'waiting', "adjusting recording equipment," "meals," or "restroom breaks," lacking pertinent conversation. Any discrepancies in the chronology of the time timecodes are consistent with the intentional removal of this non-pertinent footage as described in this report. ...
Yeah, except again:
Officials in 12 states initiated investigations into claims made by the videos, but none found Planned Parenthood clinics to have sold tissue for profit as alleged by CMP and other anti-abortion groups. An investigation by the United States House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee found no evidence of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood. A select committee, the United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce Select Investigative Panel on Planned Parenthood, was formed to further investigate Planned Parenthood.
So either A) the videos were faked in way that did not have to deal with video tampering (staged actors, etc.) or B) the allegations and evidence have not been enough to convict PP. Either way, PP hasn't been charged. CMP was indicted, but the charges were dropped.
You can't claim PP is selling fetuses unless you have evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/05 20:56:42
A Town Called Malus wrote: Why should abortion be treated any differently to any other form of healthcare and denied government funding?
Because abortions isn't "healthcare" in today's climate (outside of true cases where a pregnancy can kill you). It's mostly an elective procedure for unwanted pregnancies.
FWIW: I'd be happy if we were like much of the European countries with strict limit at 12 weeks with counseling & waiting periods.
But hey, we can't be like Europe for some reason.
I guess we should also ban confederate flags?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
)
3000
4000 
~1.5k
