I have no idea why xDaunt keep saying the War against Women is imaginary. He keeps saying this, and I keep giving him information upon information against him. I guess he's found a way to block it out of his head. It must be nice living in la la land.
And I didn't even mention mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds.
xDaunt blocks things like this out of his head because the only way for a purely conservative standpoint like his to be coherent in any way is for him to ignore a large amount of facts.
The difference between PP and churches is that PP gets funding from the state, churches just simply don't pay taxes.
The funding for what PP does comes from the state. the funding for what the church's do for faith based charities and other stuff comes from the people inside the church.
This would be like if the oil companies and the farm unions paid politicians to protect the funding though subsidies they get though the ... oh wait.
On October 22 2012 12:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper.
other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure.
and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory?
because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position.
HAHAHA!!
I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer!
Wow, just wow!
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack.
Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer.
Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective.
Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions.
On October 22 2012 12:45 BlueBird. wrote: Call me biased JonnyBNoHo, since me and my gf both use Planned Parenthood for our sexual health and services they offer(std tests, contraception , cancer screenings), but wanting to defund planned parenthood is ridiculous. Yes given time and extra resources you could recreate the safe environment that they create for those that need it, in a different place, that different place would just PP 2.0, so what the hell was the point ?
Because PP uses their clout to promote political agendas and political candidates. That's why I don't like them.
This doesn't bother me at all. Planned Parenthood is defending themselves, thats fine with me, since I enjoy their services and use them.
And yes you can get prostate screenings at planned parenthood, they might not be free, their prices depends on your financial situation and your states funding etc.
You really think that makes it OK? Imagine if the Heritage Foundation was kept afloat with Federal funding. Obama declared he wanted to cut that funding. Would it then be ok for them to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on pro-Romney ads? It's ludicrous. federal money shouldn't be used for advertising partisan opinions.
i assume you will be getting on a similar high horse about churches that side with either candidate?
I'm not aware of any churches that get federal funding, and I would strongly oppose any that did.
On October 22 2012 12:26 turdburgler wrote: [quote]
other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure.
and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory?
because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position.
HAHAHA!!
I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer!
Wow, just wow!
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack.
Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer.
Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective.
Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions.
pissing on 47% of the population though...
lololol
On October 22 2012 13:31 BluePanther wrote:
On October 22 2012 13:26 BlueBird. wrote:
On October 22 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2012 12:45 BlueBird. wrote: Call me biased JonnyBNoHo, since me and my gf both use Planned Parenthood for our sexual health and services they offer(std tests, contraception , cancer screenings), but wanting to defund planned parenthood is ridiculous. Yes given time and extra resources you could recreate the safe environment that they create for those that need it, in a different place, that different place would just PP 2.0, so what the hell was the point ?
Because PP uses their clout to promote political agendas and political candidates. That's why I don't like them.
This doesn't bother me at all. Planned Parenthood is defending themselves, thats fine with me, since I enjoy their services and use them.
And yes you can get prostate screenings at planned parenthood, they might not be free, their prices depends on your financial situation and your states funding etc.
You really think that makes it OK? Imagine if the Heritage Foundation was kept afloat with Federal funding. Obama declared he wanted to cut that funding. Would it then be ok for them to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on pro-Romney ads? It's ludicrous. federal money shouldn't be used for advertising partisan opinions.
i assume you will be getting on a similar high horse about churches that side with either candidate?
I'm not aware of any churches that get federal funding, and I would strongly oppose any that did.
would you oppose faith based organizations getting federal funding?
I mean to be fair it is kinda the same when the red cross gets funding and the salvation army gets funding. just check your local detox facility and see who pays for and runs it. you might be surprised.
On October 22 2012 12:26 turdburgler wrote: [quote]
other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure.
and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory?
because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position.
HAHAHA!!
I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer!
Wow, just wow!
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack.
Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer.
Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective.
Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions.
pissing on 47% of the population though...
lololol
On October 22 2012 13:31 BluePanther wrote:
On October 22 2012 13:26 BlueBird. wrote:
On October 22 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2012 12:45 BlueBird. wrote: Call me biased JonnyBNoHo, since me and my gf both use Planned Parenthood for our sexual health and services they offer(std tests, contraception , cancer screenings), but wanting to defund planned parenthood is ridiculous. Yes given time and extra resources you could recreate the safe environment that they create for those that need it, in a different place, that different place would just PP 2.0, so what the hell was the point ?
Because PP uses their clout to promote political agendas and political candidates. That's why I don't like them.
This doesn't bother me at all. Planned Parenthood is defending themselves, thats fine with me, since I enjoy their services and use them.
And yes you can get prostate screenings at planned parenthood, they might not be free, their prices depends on your financial situation and your states funding etc.
You really think that makes it OK? Imagine if the Heritage Foundation was kept afloat with Federal funding. Obama declared he wanted to cut that funding. Would it then be ok for them to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on pro-Romney ads? It's ludicrous. federal money shouldn't be used for advertising partisan opinions.
i assume you will be getting on a similar high horse about churches that side with either candidate?
I'm not aware of any churches that get federal funding, and I would strongly oppose any that did.
Back in the Bush era he actually crafted multiple executive orders that pretty much do give various faith-based initiatives (most of which are run by churches) federal funding while exempting them from federal requirements.
On October 22 2012 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] HAHAHA!!
I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer!
Wow, just wow!
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack.
Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer.
Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective.
Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions.
pissing on 47% of the population though...
lololol
On October 22 2012 13:31 BluePanther wrote:
On October 22 2012 13:26 BlueBird. wrote:
On October 22 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2012 12:45 BlueBird. wrote: Call me biased JonnyBNoHo, since me and my gf both use Planned Parenthood for our sexual health and services they offer(std tests, contraception , cancer screenings), but wanting to defund planned parenthood is ridiculous. Yes given time and extra resources you could recreate the safe environment that they create for those that need it, in a different place, that different place would just PP 2.0, so what the hell was the point ?
Because PP uses their clout to promote political agendas and political candidates. That's why I don't like them.
This doesn't bother me at all. Planned Parenthood is defending themselves, thats fine with me, since I enjoy their services and use them.
And yes you can get prostate screenings at planned parenthood, they might not be free, their prices depends on your financial situation and your states funding etc.
You really think that makes it OK? Imagine if the Heritage Foundation was kept afloat with Federal funding. Obama declared he wanted to cut that funding. Would it then be ok for them to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on pro-Romney ads? It's ludicrous. federal money shouldn't be used for advertising partisan opinions.
i assume you will be getting on a similar high horse about churches that side with either candidate?
I'm not aware of any churches that get federal funding, and I would strongly oppose any that did.
would you oppose faith based organizations getting federal funding?
I mean to be fair it is kinda the same when the red cross gets funding and the salvation army gets funding. just check your local detox facility and see who pays for and runs it. you might be surprised.
Do they run political ads like PP? If so then IMO they should lose their federal funding.
On October 22 2012 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] HAHAHA!!
I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer!
Wow, just wow!
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack.
Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer.
Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective.
Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions.
pissing on 47% of the population though...
lololol
On October 22 2012 13:31 BluePanther wrote:
On October 22 2012 13:26 BlueBird. wrote:
On October 22 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2012 12:45 BlueBird. wrote: Call me biased JonnyBNoHo, since me and my gf both use Planned Parenthood for our sexual health and services they offer(std tests, contraception , cancer screenings), but wanting to defund planned parenthood is ridiculous. Yes given time and extra resources you could recreate the safe environment that they create for those that need it, in a different place, that different place would just PP 2.0, so what the hell was the point ?
Because PP uses their clout to promote political agendas and political candidates. That's why I don't like them.
This doesn't bother me at all. Planned Parenthood is defending themselves, thats fine with me, since I enjoy their services and use them.
And yes you can get prostate screenings at planned parenthood, they might not be free, their prices depends on your financial situation and your states funding etc.
You really think that makes it OK? Imagine if the Heritage Foundation was kept afloat with Federal funding. Obama declared he wanted to cut that funding. Would it then be ok for them to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on pro-Romney ads? It's ludicrous. federal money shouldn't be used for advertising partisan opinions.
i assume you will be getting on a similar high horse about churches that side with either candidate?
I'm not aware of any churches that get federal funding, and I would strongly oppose any that did.
would you oppose faith based organizations getting federal funding?
I mean to be fair it is kinda the same when the red cross gets funding and the salvation army gets funding. just check your local detox facility and see who pays for and runs it. you might be surprised.
If it's used for the extension of faith, yes, I would oppose it. Although I think Red Cross and Salvation Army are far less contentious issues than abortion.
I have no idea why xDaunt keep saying the War against Women is imaginary. He keeps saying this, and I keep giving him information upon information against him. I guess he's found a way to block it out of his head. It must be nice living in la la land.
And I didn't even mention mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds.
I already addressed almost all of this stuff in a "big response to the alleged war on women" post a while back. Quite frankly, I'm tired of repeating myself. It's all bullshit. It's all imagined. It inevitably boils down who is going to pay for a woman to get her snatch checked. I treat this issue with disdain because it is less than interesting and it gets far too much airtime politically.
On October 22 2012 12:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote: [quote]
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack.
Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer.
Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective.
Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions.
pissing on 47% of the population though...
lololol
On October 22 2012 13:31 BluePanther wrote:
On October 22 2012 13:26 BlueBird. wrote:
On October 22 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2012 12:45 BlueBird. wrote: Call me biased JonnyBNoHo, since me and my gf both use Planned Parenthood for our sexual health and services they offer(std tests, contraception , cancer screenings), but wanting to defund planned parenthood is ridiculous. Yes given time and extra resources you could recreate the safe environment that they create for those that need it, in a different place, that different place would just PP 2.0, so what the hell was the point ?
Because PP uses their clout to promote political agendas and political candidates. That's why I don't like them.
This doesn't bother me at all. Planned Parenthood is defending themselves, thats fine with me, since I enjoy their services and use them.
And yes you can get prostate screenings at planned parenthood, they might not be free, their prices depends on your financial situation and your states funding etc.
You really think that makes it OK? Imagine if the Heritage Foundation was kept afloat with Federal funding. Obama declared he wanted to cut that funding. Would it then be ok for them to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on pro-Romney ads? It's ludicrous. federal money shouldn't be used for advertising partisan opinions.
i assume you will be getting on a similar high horse about churches that side with either candidate?
I'm not aware of any churches that get federal funding, and I would strongly oppose any that did.
would you oppose faith based organizations getting federal funding?
I mean to be fair it is kinda the same when the red cross gets funding and the salvation army gets funding. just check your local detox facility and see who pays for and runs it. you might be surprised.
Do they run political ads like PP? If so then IMO they should lose their federal funding.
Can you find a political ad from Planned Parenthood and not the separate entity called the Planned Parenthood Action Fund?
On October 22 2012 12:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper.
other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure.
and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory?
because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position.
HAHAHA!!
I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer!
Wow, just wow!
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack.
Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer.
Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective.
Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions.
Speculative? Do you know the cost of these kinds of services in hospitals at the moment? Chucking them some money (which would be spread out amongst multiple times more clinics) is not going to make them as efficient.
And I don't care if they've "dug their own grave," as I don't give a single damn about political repercussions. The argument at hand is on whether this funding should continue or not and why. I mean, jeezes, it was freaking Nixon who introduced federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Surely the Republicans at the time saw merit in its services.
In any case, this whole argument is insane. THIS IS A GOOD THING GUYS. People are getting the help they need! Rejoice! Smile! If you fear you're going to contract testicular cancer, you can rest assured because Planned Parenthood will be here to save the day one of your balls!
I have no idea why xDaunt keep saying the War against Women is imaginary. He keeps saying this, and I keep giving him information upon information against him. I guess he's found a way to block it out of his head. It must be nice living in la la land.
And I didn't even mention mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds.
xDaunt blocks things like this out of his head because the only way for a purely conservative standpoint like his to be coherent in any way is for him to ignore a large amount of facts.
exactly. 23 million unemployed and 46 million on food stamps and mitt is going to wave a magic wand and fix everything by getting rid of pp and abortion. amazing
I think we should regulate contentious issues like abortion, gay marriage, weed, et al at the county level, allow communities to establish their own normative codes and avoid conflict on these issues between urban and rural areas and let each of them do as they see fit.
But then we would have to focus on actually important things in national politics, so maybe not.
I have no idea why xDaunt keep saying the War against Women is imaginary. He keeps saying this, and I keep giving him information upon information against him. I guess he's found a way to block it out of his head. It must be nice living in la la land.
And I didn't even mention mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds.
xDaunt blocks things like this out of his head because the only way for a purely conservative standpoint like his to be coherent in any way is for him to ignore a large amount of facts.
exactly. 23 million unemployed and 46 million on food stamps and mitt is going to wave a magic wand and fix everything by getting rid of pp and abortion. amazing
You could fix the 46 million number by taking away that money
On October 22 2012 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote]
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack.
Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer.
Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective.
Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions.
pissing on 47% of the population though...
lololol
On October 22 2012 13:31 BluePanther wrote:
On October 22 2012 13:26 BlueBird. wrote:
On October 22 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2012 12:45 BlueBird. wrote: Call me biased JonnyBNoHo, since me and my gf both use Planned Parenthood for our sexual health and services they offer(std tests, contraception , cancer screenings), but wanting to defund planned parenthood is ridiculous. Yes given time and extra resources you could recreate the safe environment that they create for those that need it, in a different place, that different place would just PP 2.0, so what the hell was the point ?
Because PP uses their clout to promote political agendas and political candidates. That's why I don't like them.
This doesn't bother me at all. Planned Parenthood is defending themselves, thats fine with me, since I enjoy their services and use them.
And yes you can get prostate screenings at planned parenthood, they might not be free, their prices depends on your financial situation and your states funding etc.
You really think that makes it OK? Imagine if the Heritage Foundation was kept afloat with Federal funding. Obama declared he wanted to cut that funding. Would it then be ok for them to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on pro-Romney ads? It's ludicrous. federal money shouldn't be used for advertising partisan opinions.
i assume you will be getting on a similar high horse about churches that side with either candidate?
I'm not aware of any churches that get federal funding, and I would strongly oppose any that did.
would you oppose faith based organizations getting federal funding?
I mean to be fair it is kinda the same when the red cross gets funding and the salvation army gets funding. just check your local detox facility and see who pays for and runs it. you might be surprised.
Do they run political ads like PP? If so then IMO they should lose their federal funding.
Can you find a political ad from Planned Parenthood and not the separate entity called the Planned Parenthood Action Fund?
No, and I never said they used federal money (directly) to run the ads.
But money is fungible and the clout PP has comes in part from the federal funding they get.
On October 22 2012 14:07 sam!zdat wrote: I think we should regulate contentious issues like abortion, gay marriage, weed, et al at the county level, allow communities to establish their own normative codes and avoid conflict on these issues between urban and rural areas and let each of them do as they see fit.
But then we would have to focus on actually important things in national politics, so maybe not.
The "War on Women" ™ is shameless fear mongoring and the Dems know it, well most of them anyway, apparently a lot of people in this thread don't.
You do realize there was a Republican President with a Republican majorities in both houses of Congress for 6 years (2000-2006) and abortion is still legal, women can still buy contraceptives, all the other crap they are saying will happen didn't happen.
Apparently being against the government giving women stuff for free just for the hell of it is now anti-woman. Quite a neat little political ploy the Dems tried, but the thing is I don't think it's a winner. All the women stupid enough to be duped by such are already firmly in the Democratic camp.
These social issues are just used to inflame emtions and get people not thinking and just blindly supporting your side, be it abortion, or gay marriage, etc. Both parties do this crap.
On October 22 2012 12:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote: [quote]
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack.
Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer.
Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective.
Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions.
pissing on 47% of the population though...
lololol
On October 22 2012 13:31 BluePanther wrote:
On October 22 2012 13:26 BlueBird. wrote:
On October 22 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 22 2012 12:45 BlueBird. wrote: Call me biased JonnyBNoHo, since me and my gf both use Planned Parenthood for our sexual health and services they offer(std tests, contraception , cancer screenings), but wanting to defund planned parenthood is ridiculous. Yes given time and extra resources you could recreate the safe environment that they create for those that need it, in a different place, that different place would just PP 2.0, so what the hell was the point ?
Because PP uses their clout to promote political agendas and political candidates. That's why I don't like them.
This doesn't bother me at all. Planned Parenthood is defending themselves, thats fine with me, since I enjoy their services and use them.
And yes you can get prostate screenings at planned parenthood, they might not be free, their prices depends on your financial situation and your states funding etc.
You really think that makes it OK? Imagine if the Heritage Foundation was kept afloat with Federal funding. Obama declared he wanted to cut that funding. Would it then be ok for them to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on pro-Romney ads? It's ludicrous. federal money shouldn't be used for advertising partisan opinions.
i assume you will be getting on a similar high horse about churches that side with either candidate?
I'm not aware of any churches that get federal funding, and I would strongly oppose any that did.
would you oppose faith based organizations getting federal funding?
I mean to be fair it is kinda the same when the red cross gets funding and the salvation army gets funding. just check your local detox facility and see who pays for and runs it. you might be surprised.
Do they run political ads like PP? If so then IMO they should lose their federal funding.
Can you find a political ad from Planned Parenthood and not the separate entity called the Planned Parenthood Action Fund?
No, and I never said they used federal money (directly) to run the ads.
But money is fungible and the clout PP has comes in part from the federal funding they get.
Actually it's probably drawn from an entirely separate wing of donations explicitly for political action (the budget details are legally confidential as they should be), but keep on believing that!
On October 22 2012 12:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Or anybody. That's like saying if Walmart went away I couldn't buy toilet paper.
other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure.
and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory?
because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position.
HAHAHA!!
I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer!
Wow, just wow!
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that.
What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else.
Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack.
Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer.
Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective.
Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions.
Speculative? Do you know the cost of these kinds of services in hospitals at the moment? Chucking them some money (which would be spread out amongst multiple times more clinics) is not going to make them as efficient.
And I don't care if they've "dug their own grave," as I don't give a single damn about political repercussions. The argument at hand is on whether this funding should continue or not and why. I mean, jeezes, it was freaking Nixon who introduced federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Surely the Republicans at the time saw merit in its services.
In any case, this whole argument is insane. THIS IS A GOOD THING GUYS. People are getting the help they need! Rejoice! Smile! If you fear you're going to contract testicular cancer, you can rest assured because Planned Parenthood will be here to save the day one of your balls!
change that. some people are getting some of the care they need but until our govt gives every american every test and service and care we can the march forward must continue. i dont get why aca started 2014 instead of right away, it's almost like obama wanted to give all the opponents a reason to vote him out
I have no idea why xDaunt keep saying the War against Women is imaginary. He keeps saying this, and I keep giving him information upon information against him. I guess he's found a way to block it out of his head. It must be nice living in la la land.
And I didn't even mention mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds.
xDaunt blocks things like this out of his head because the only way for a purely conservative standpoint like his to be coherent in any way is for him to ignore a large amount of facts.
exactly. 23 million unemployed and 46 million on food stamps and mitt is going to wave a magic wand and fix everything by getting rid of pp and abortion. amazing
You could fix the 46 million number by taking away that money
and then what? just let them starve? when was the last time you were hungry? some of you people really amaze me. I can't think how you say these things if you really mean them
On October 22 2012 13:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack.
Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer.
Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective.
Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions.
pissing on 47% of the population though...
lololol
On October 22 2012 13:31 BluePanther wrote:
On October 22 2012 13:26 BlueBird. wrote:
On October 22 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] Because PP uses their clout to promote political agendas and political candidates. That's why I don't like them.
This doesn't bother me at all. Planned Parenthood is defending themselves, thats fine with me, since I enjoy their services and use them.
And yes you can get prostate screenings at planned parenthood, they might not be free, their prices depends on your financial situation and your states funding etc.
You really think that makes it OK? Imagine if the Heritage Foundation was kept afloat with Federal funding. Obama declared he wanted to cut that funding. Would it then be ok for them to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on pro-Romney ads? It's ludicrous. federal money shouldn't be used for advertising partisan opinions.
i assume you will be getting on a similar high horse about churches that side with either candidate?
I'm not aware of any churches that get federal funding, and I would strongly oppose any that did.
would you oppose faith based organizations getting federal funding?
I mean to be fair it is kinda the same when the red cross gets funding and the salvation army gets funding. just check your local detox facility and see who pays for and runs it. you might be surprised.
Do they run political ads like PP? If so then IMO they should lose their federal funding.
Can you find a political ad from Planned Parenthood and not the separate entity called the Planned Parenthood Action Fund?
No, and I never said they used federal money (directly) to run the ads.
But money is fungible and the clout PP has comes in part from the federal funding they get.
Actually it's probably drawn from an entirely separate wing of donations explicitly for political action (the budget details are legally confidential as they should be), but keep on believing that!
Yes it does come from separate donations... that's what I said...
You can still do things like split overhead and salaries / benefits with a little creative accounting. And if PP was smaller (due to less federal funding) they wouldn't likely get as much attention (and funding!) for their action fund.
Or heck, maybe if federal funding was cut they'd get a swell of donations just to stick it to the Republicans and be set for life.
EPT
