PDA

View Full Version : Planned Parenthood Spent More Than $1 Million Electing Democrats Last Cycle



megimoo
04-08-2011, 09:39 PM
Here's something to keep in mind as Democrats risk a government shutdown in order to preserve federal subsidies of Planned Parenthood. From the Center for Responsive Politics:

In 2010, Planned Parenthood and a California affiliate together spent more than $700,000 on federal lobbying efforts, a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of federal lobbying records finds. By comparison, all other organizations that primarily advocate for abortion rights collectively spent $247,280 on federal lobbying efforts during the same period, according to the Center's research.
SNIP
Planned Parenthood also recorded $905,796 in independent expenditures during the 2010 cycle -- money spent in support of, or in opposition to, federal political candidates, largely through advertisements. The top beneficiaries of this money were Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/planned-parenthood-spent-more-1-million-electing-democrats-last-c

Novaheart
04-08-2011, 10:08 PM
Here's something to keep in mind as Democrats risk a government shutdown in order to preserve federal subsidies of Planned Parenthood. From the Center for Responsive Politics:

In 2010, Planned Parenthood and a California affiliate together spent more than $700,000 on federal lobbying efforts, a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of federal lobbying records finds. By comparison, all other organizations that primarily advocate for abortion rights collectively spent $247,280 on federal lobbying efforts during the same period, according to the Center's research.
SNIP
Planned Parenthood also recorded $905,796 in independent expenditures during the 2010 cycle -- money spent in support of, or in opposition to, federal political candidates, largely through advertisements. The top beneficiaries of this money were Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/04/planned-parenthood-spent-more-1-million-electing-democrats-last-c

You're such an idiot.

Rockntractor
04-08-2011, 10:11 PM
You're such an idiot.

No, we are the idiots, they used taxpayer money to elect the democrats.

Novaheart
04-08-2011, 10:17 PM
No, we are the idiots, they used taxpayer money to elect the democrats.

Show me.

Rockntractor
04-08-2011, 10:19 PM
Show me.
Taxpayers fund planned parenthood and they fund democrat candidates.

Novaheart
04-08-2011, 10:25 PM
Taxpayers fund planned parenthood and they fund democrat candidates.

Different color money, I'll bet you.

Rockntractor
04-08-2011, 10:29 PM
Different color money, I'll bet you.

It doesn't matter if it's the identical paper, it still came from their funds and we gave them over 300 million last year.

Novaheart
04-08-2011, 10:37 PM
It doesn't matter if it's the identical paper, it still came from their funds and we gave them over 300 million last year.

Actually it does matter, and I would expect you to know that. The wording of the article should have let you know that they were trying to mislead you. The article makes a passing hint, so they can defend themselves if called a liar, but they are clearly referring to two different doors on the building, one of which is a health services provider and the other of which is a political action committee. The health services provider gets federal funds, the PAC gets donation for political advocacy. In DC parlance, that's called "different color money".

megimoo
04-09-2011, 02:41 AM
Actually it does matter, and I would expect you to know that. The wording of the article should have let you know that they were trying to mislead you. The article makes a passing hint, so they can defend themselves if called a liar, but they are clearly referring to two different doors on the building, one of which is a health services provider and the other of which is a political action committee. The health services provider gets federal funds, the PAC gets donation for political advocacy. In DC parlance, that's called "different color money".

Different colored money my butt.The largest part of their health services are abortions .They cover up cases of statutory rape and incest as long as the money keeps coming in .

Tell me that planned parenthood doesn't 'mix and hide' their political funding .Their money laundering methods are par excellence.They make most of their money from killing innocent baby's and the Liberal Progressives have a vested interest in keeping them going .Without the abortion lobby their political base would fall apart .

FlaGator
04-09-2011, 08:52 AM
Actually it does matter, and I would expect you to know that. The wording of the article should have let you know that they were trying to mislead you. The article makes a passing hint, so they can defend themselves if called a liar, but they are clearly referring to two different doors on the building, one of which is a health services provider and the other of which is a political action committee. The health services provider gets federal funds, the PAC gets donation for political advocacy. In DC parlance, that's called "different color money".

Money from one source frees them up to use money from another. It's a shell game. Cash received from the government allowed them to use cash from another source for political activism.

noonwitch
04-11-2011, 08:50 AM
Different colored money my butt.The largest part of their health services are abortions .They cover up cases of statutory rape and incest as long as the money keeps coming in .

Tell me that planned parenthood doesn't 'mix and hide' their political funding .Their money laundering methods are par excellence.They make most of their money from killing innocent baby's and the Liberal Progressives have a vested interest in keeping them going .Without the abortion lobby their political base would fall apart .



Here's the thing about the allegations that they cover up incest and statutory rape-you don't know. Just because an undercover reporter with an agenda called Planned Parenthood and tried to set them up-it was an undercover reporter who was over age, so in reality, nothing got covered up. It's not real until a real teenager goes in and the situation is not reported to the authorities. Last I checked, Lila Rose is over 18 years old.

The reality is that if Planned Parenthood does report cases of incest and/or statutory rape to the police or to CPS, those reports are confidential. The public does not have the right to know who made the reports. There may be written reports, especially if they are made to CPS, but those are confidential records.

txradioguy
04-11-2011, 09:05 AM
Here's the thing about the allegations that they cover up incest and statutory rape-you don't know. Just because an undercover reporter with an agenda called Planned Parenthood and tried to set them up-it was an undercover reporter who was over age, so in reality, nothing got covered up. It's not real until a real teenager goes in and the situation is not reported to the authorities. Last I checked, Lila Rose is over 18 years old.

The reality is that if Planned Parenthood does report cases of incest and/or statutory rape to the police or to CPS, those reports are confidential. The public does not have the right to know who made the reports. There may be written reports, especially if they are made to CPS, but those are confidential records.

But you can't say for sure it doesn't happen. Hell these places in some states don't even inform the parents if an underage teen even comes in for an abortion...what makes you think you can tell us with a straight face thay honestly report cases of rape or incest?

linda22003
04-11-2011, 09:08 AM
Taxpayers fund planned parenthood and they fund democrat candidates.

So why did funding go up each year of the Bush administration? Hmmmm.

FlaGator
04-11-2011, 09:57 AM
So why did funding go up each year of the Bush administration? Hmmmm.

You are assuming that political decisions have to make sense.

Odysseus
04-11-2011, 10:02 AM
Different color money, I'll bet you.
Really? The money that I get paid is green, the money that I pay in taxes is green, and the money that I spend on everything that we consume is green. What color of money does Planned Parenthood spend?

What you are trying to obscure is that money is fungible, meaning that there is no difference between the money that they get from private contributions and the money that they get from the government. If we, the taxpayers, give them $1 million, and they receive $1 million private donations, then turn around and spend $1 million on political campaigns and another on operating expenses, then we have subsidized their political advocacy, and if that advocacy solely benefits one party, then we have effectively funneled taxpayer dollars to the DNC.

Novaheart
04-11-2011, 11:42 AM
What you are trying to obscure is that money is fungible, meaning that there is no difference between the money that they get from private contributions and the money that they get from the government.

That may be how you see it, but it's not the way our law and custom treat things. Because our various laws treat money differently depending upon use, we divide it up behind fictional barriers. So the money that Planned Parenthood gets for teaching woman how to not get pregnant is kept apart from the money they use for abortion or political campaigning, so that whiny titty babies don't go off on a tear because their tenth of a cent they paid in taxes that went to Planned Parenthood got used to murder chiddrin.

txradioguy
04-11-2011, 11:51 AM
What color of money does Planned Parenthood spend?

Blood red?

Odysseus
04-11-2011, 12:12 PM
That may be how you see it, but it's not the way our law and custom treat things. Because our various laws treat money differently depending upon use, we divide it up behind fictional barriers. So the money that Planned Parenthood gets for teaching woman how to not get pregnant is kept apart from the money they use for abortion or political campaigning, so that whiny titty babies don't go off on a tear because their tenth of a cent they paid in taxes that went to Planned Parenthood got used to murder chiddrin.
It didn't get used to murder children. It got used to buy politicians. It's called political corruption. The fact that the law is written to allow this fig leaf of legitimacy to funneling taxpayer dollars to one political party through an allegedly non-partisan health organization is a glaring example of what is wrong with Washington.

Blood red?

Nice. :D

NJCardFan
04-11-2011, 12:15 PM
Money from one source frees them up to use money from another. It's a shell game. Cash received from the government allowed them to use cash from another source for political activism.
Isn't this called laundering?

FlaGator
04-11-2011, 12:17 PM
That may be how you see it, but it's not the way our law and custom treat things. Because our various laws treat money differently depending upon use, we divide it up behind fictional barriers. So the money that Planned Parenthood gets for teaching woman how to not get pregnant is kept apart from the money they use for abortion or political campaigning, so that whiny titty babies don't go off on a tear because their tenth of a cent they paid in taxes that went to Planned Parenthood got used to murder chiddrin.

Again you ignore the fact that money from one source frees up money from other sources. If the government weren't subsidizing Planned Parenthood, PP they would be forced to use the money that they spend on political campaigning and on lobbying for health services for women, which is what they are suppose to be spending the money on anyways.

Novaheart
04-11-2011, 12:51 PM
Again you ignore the fact that money from one source frees up money from other sources. If the government weren't subsidizing Planned Parenthood, PP they would be forced to use the money that they spend on political campaigning and on lobbying for health services for women, which is what they are suppose to be spending the money on anyways.

I'm not ignoring it. You're applying a hot dog stand mentality to a corporation, and I fully understand why you are doing that, I do it myself when corporations pay no taxes and claim that they haven't made any money once they have paid themselves handsomely. I do that when someone claims to be a non profit, with employees who make $250,000 per year. But the reality is that these things are not judged by personal opinion, and the standards have to be across the board.


But I have also witnessed how very serious the people who run things can be about remaining compliant.

noonwitch
04-11-2011, 01:43 PM
But you can't say for sure it doesn't happen. Hell these places in some states don't even inform the parents if an underage teen even comes in for an abortion...what makes you think you can tell us with a straight face thay honestly report cases of rape or incest?


1. If it can't be proven that PP is failing to report cases of incest and statutory rape, then why is the allegation continuing to be made by the antiabortion side? Oh, yeah, these are the people who are still trying to claim that abortion causes breast cancer, even though it's been proven that there is no link.

2. Some states don't require parental consent for abortions. Michigan requires either the consent of the parent or a judicial bypass. I don't think there are many states left without the consent law-maybe NY, CA, WI and/or MN. We had it starting in 1990, when it was on the ballot. I believe the Webster case is the USSC case that allows for some limitations on abortion to be imposed by the states.

What makes me think that they actually report cases is that I am one of the people who actually gets to read those confidential reports of child abuse from doctors. The reports get made. Whether the police or CPS have enough evidence to prosecute a perp or remove a youth from a home is a separate matter.

Odysseus
04-11-2011, 03:42 PM
I'm not ignoring it. You're applying a hot dog stand mentality to a corporation, and I fully understand why you are doing that, I do it myself when corporations pay no taxes and claim that they haven't made any money once they have paid themselves handsomely. I do that when someone claims to be a non profit, with employees who make $250,000 per year. But the reality is that these things are not judged by personal opinion, and the standards have to be across the board.


But I have also witnessed how very serious the people who run things can be about remaining compliant.

You do realize that there is no such thing as a tax on corporations? When you tax a company that provides a good or service, they add it to the cost of their product. So-called corporate taxes are taxes on consumers that are collected by the corporations at the point of purchase.

More economic illiteracy dispelled. My day is complete.

Novaheart
04-11-2011, 03:50 PM
You do realize that there is no such thing as a tax on corporations? When you tax a company that provides a good or service, they add it to the cost of their product. So-called corporate taxes are taxes on consumers that are collected by the corporations at the point of purchase.

More economic illiteracy dispelled. My day is complete.

Try to stay on topic. The topic is different color money. If you are in the military, then you must be familiar with this term.

Novaheart
04-11-2011, 04:03 PM
You do realize that there is no such thing as a tax on corporations? When you tax a company that provides a good or service, they add it to the cost of their product. So-called corporate taxes are taxes on consumers that are collected by the corporations at the point of purchase.



michele bachmann

wilbur
04-11-2011, 04:12 PM
If this weren't PP or some other organization which advertises for democrats (ie, the guys who generally arent calling them criminals and murders, or otherwise being as openly hostile as its possible to be), none of you would give a rats ass.

This is only *bad* because its PP, and no other reason.

Novaheart
04-11-2011, 04:16 PM
If this weren't PP or some other organization which advertises for democrats (ie, the guys who generally arent calling the criminals and murders), none of you would give a rats ass.

This is only *bad* because its PP, and no other reason.

They also don't care if churches use tax free donations/income inappropriately.

wilbur
04-11-2011, 04:17 PM
They also don't care if churches use tax free donations/income inappropriately.

Obviously that's completely different!


...not...

FlaGator
04-11-2011, 04:19 PM
If this weren't PP or some other organization which advertises for democrats (ie, the guys who generally arent calling the criminals and murders), none of you would give a rats ass.

This is only *bad* because its PP, and no other reason.

Your right. If they weren't killing babies I couldn't give a rat's ass what they did with there money. And your point is?

This is an organization who has as one of it's purposes to assist in the killing of human offspring, therefore I am opposed to it receiving any tax money that may facilitate this purpose.

FlaGator
04-11-2011, 04:23 PM
I'm not ignoring it. You're applying a hot dog stand mentality to a corporation, and I fully understand why you are doing that, I do it myself when corporations pay no taxes and claim that they haven't made any money once they have paid themselves handsomely. I do that when someone claims to be a non profit, with employees who make $250,000 per year. But the reality is that these things are not judged by personal opinion, and the standards have to be across the board.


But I have also witnessed how very serious the people who run things can be about remaining compliant.

Whether this is a "hotdog stand" mentality or not, it doesn't not change the fact that money given from one source frees up money from another source. Say the government tells plan Planned Parenthood that they can't spend tax dollars on abortions. So they spend it on something else and money that went to that something else is spent on abortions... thus a shell game.

wilbur
04-11-2011, 04:42 PM
Your right. If they weren't killing babies I couldn't give a rat's ass what they did with there money. And your point is?

This is an organization who has as one of it's purposes to assist in the killing of human offspring, therefore I am opposed to it receiving any tax money that may facilitate this purpose.

Tax money doesn't go to fund abortions, it goes to other forms of counseling and medical services for women - which account for the vast, vast majority of the services that PP provides.

FlaGator
04-11-2011, 04:46 PM
Tax money doesn't go to fund abortions, it goes to other forms of counseling and medical services for women - which account for the vast, vast majority of the services that PP provides.


See post above about the internal workings of groups who receive money.

Since abortions are such a small portion of women services then I guess PP won't have any issues with eliminating the service in order to protect funding for the rest of their services like providing the pimps of underage girls information on how to get contraceptives and medical care for their stable. Very important work...

wilbur
04-11-2011, 04:56 PM
See post above about the internal workings of groups who receive money.

I have, and its silly. If they handle all the accounting legitimately its absolutely fine, the concerns are separated.

Again, this sort of thing is only a "shell-game" because its PP. I'd have a hard time believing that this sort of policy whereby the feds dictate what services that organizations provide with private dollars as long as they receive fed funding wouldnt affect all kinds of organizations in a really bad and chilling way, across the entire spectrum, if applied consistently... but nobody here has any interest in applying it consistently, I'm sure.



Since abortions are such a small portion of women services then I guess PP won't have any issues with eliminating the service in order to protect funding for the rest of their services like providing the pimps of underage girls information on how to get contraceptives and medical care for their stable. Very important work...

The other option is that they just say "to hell with you" and keep doing what they are doing.

And of course, did you ever stop to think for a second that the myriad of services that PP provides other than abortion, actually help reduce the number of abortions that women have?

CueSi
04-11-2011, 04:58 PM
Tax money doesn't go to fund abortions, it goes to other forms of counseling and medical services for women - which account for the vast, vast majority of the services that PP provides.

I'd believe this if they were willing to sever one from the other.

~QC

FlaGator
04-11-2011, 05:03 PM
They also don't care if churches use tax free donations/income inappropriately.

How would you define inappropriate?

FlaGator
04-11-2011, 05:08 PM
I have, and its silly. If they handle all the accounting legitimately its absolutely fine, the concerns are separated.

Again, this sort of thing is only a "shell-game" because its PP. I'd have a hard time believing that this sort of policy whereby the feds dictate what services that organizations provide with private dollars as long as they receive fed funding wouldnt affect all kinds of organizations in a really bad and chilling way, across the entire spectrum, if applied consistently... but nobody here has any interest in applying it consistently, I'm sure.



The other option is that they just say "to hell with you" and keep doing what they are doing.

And of course, did you ever stop to think for a second that the myriad of services that PP provides other than abortion, actually help reduce the number of abortions that women have?

That is acceptable to me. Did you ever think that if they considered those other services more important than abortions they would stop doing abortions in order to receive the funding?

Now if they would rather do abortions than accept tax payer money then it shows you where their priorities are. That would definitely show that it is about abortions and not the other services.

wilbur
04-11-2011, 05:17 PM
That is acceptable to me. Did you ever think that if they considered those other services more important than abortions they would stop doing abortions in order to receive the funding?

Now if they would rather do abortions than accept tax payer money then it shows you where their priorities are. That would definitely show that it is about abortions and not the other services.

Doubtful, since its unlikely the republican witch-hut would end with that... that sort of victory would simply embolden them to go further.

FlaGator
04-11-2011, 05:24 PM
Doubtful, since its unlikely the republican witch-hut would end with that... that sort of victory would simply embolden them to go further.

Now you are speculating with no factual basis to support your speculation, but that's ok... I've come to expect it.

wilbur
04-11-2011, 05:36 PM
Now you are speculating with no factual basis to support your speculation, but that's ok... I've come to expect it.

Its no less speculative than your conjecture that using the carrot of federal tax dollars (for what amounts to extortion) will "reveal their true intentions"... as if the idea that there is some shadowy conspiracy at PP to promote the practice abortion was worth a moments consideration.

But I have every reason to suspect my "speculation" is on target. The GOP won't relent in their battles against PP/abortion. Its unlikely that after such an affront, PP will be any more supportive of republicans.. they'd have every reason to be far less supportive, and will continue to fund democrats. So republicans will have every reason to continue the assault.

In the end though, I'd bet the maneuver would simply result in the creation of another independent non-profit, that simply supplies abortions with private money. PP would then just send their clients to that "independent" organization for offsite abortions.

Then of course, the republicans won't stop the fed/fund carrot and stick game until PP is prohibited from saying, mouthing or even spelling the word "abortion" to its clients, at the threat of losing funding.

FlaGator
04-11-2011, 05:49 PM
Its no less speculative than your conjecture that using the carrot of federal tax dollars (for what amounts to extortion) will "reveal their true intentions"... as if the idea that there is some shadowy conspiracy at PP to promote the practice abortion was worth a moments consideration.

But I have every reason to suspect my "speculation" is on target. The GOP won't relent in their battles against PP/abortion. Its unlikely that after such an affront, PP will be any more supportive of republicans.. they'd have every reason to be far less supportive, and will continue to fund democrats. So republicans will have every reason to continue the assault.

In the end though, I'd bet the maneuver would simply result in the creation of another independent non-profit, that simply supplies abortions with private money. PP would then just send their clients to that "independent" organization for offsite abortions.

Then of course, the republicans won't stop the fed/fund carrot and stick game until PP is prohibited from saying, mouthing or even spelling the word "abortion" to its clients, at the threat of losing funding.

My statement was not speculation, it is simply a logical deduction based on your own statements. If, as you stated, abortion is such a small service when compared to all the other services that they offer then to risk funding for those other services in order to keep providing the abortion service means that the abortion service is either a larger part of the services they offer or it is so important to them that they would rather risk losing the money than stop performing abortions. Can you show me where my thinking is wrong?

Also, can you cite a previous republican witch hunt that would give some basis to your speculation?

Odysseus
04-11-2011, 05:58 PM
Try to stay on topic. The topic is different color money. If you are in the military, then you must be familiar with this term.
I am. But the color of money within the DOD makes a difference, because we don't use it to buy politicians. When you give taxpayer dollars to private groups, and they turn around and use that money to purchase influence and promote one party over another, you have corrupted the political process. It creates conflicts of interest for the politicians involved, turns the recipient agency into a mechanism whose primary focus is milking the tax base.

michele bachmann
What about her?

If this weren't PP or some other organization which advertises for democrats (ie, the guys who generally arent calling them criminals and murders, or otherwise being as openly hostile as its possible to be), none of you would give a rats ass.

This is only *bad* because its PP, and no other reason.

No, it would be bad if the right did it, too. This goes back to Ody's first law of government, which states that the power that you give to politicians or groups that you like will inevitably end up in the hands of politicians or groups that you don't like. This is why you keep as much power out of the hands of government as possible. The federal government should not be channeling money into private groups that then turn around and use that money to try to influence the federal government to give them more money. That goes for churches, unions, corporations, you name it.

wilbur
04-11-2011, 07:24 PM
My statement was not speculation, it is simply a logical deduction based on your own statements. If, as you stated, abortion is such a small service when compared to all the other services that they offer then to risk fundin those other services in order to keep providing the abortion service means that the abortion service is either a larger part of the services they offer or it is so important to them that they would rather risk losing the money than stop performing abortions. Can you show me where my thinking is wrong?


Logical deductions are necessary conclusions derived from some premises. But its quite possible that they DO consider abortion a lower priority, secondary service relative to their other services, WHILE ALSO believing its in the best interest of their organization and/or the people they serve, that they not compromise on the abortion services in the face of political threats. Your deduction is invalid (though it really wanst deduction - it was speculative induction - ie, a probabalistic argument)... in other words, of the same nature as my own argument. But I think I have better reasons to believe mine, over yours.

But perhaps PP does place a high importance on abortion. So what? Why is that even relevant? The "between the lines" part of your speculation is an insinuation that PP provides other services merely to keep up appearences, in order to accomplish their real mission: aborting babies. .

But that wreaks of conspiratorial nonsense. I'd wager that PP *does* find abortion rather integral to their mission - along with many other services that conservative christians and republicans might regard as contributing to sexual immorality and various social ills. So there's every reason to think PP will not see the end of republican angst, even if they caved on abortion.

Your well seems pre-poisoned regarding PP apparently in large part, based on the anecdotal videos released by that group who performs the sting operations. Needless to say, judgements based upon those sorts of anecdotes are hasty and unjustifiable.



Also, can you cite a previous republican witch hunt that would give some basis to your speculation?

The pattern of incrementalism in the ongoing, long-term Republican strategy on abortion and other sexual health issues is obvious.. from the bills continually being raised in various states that attempt to define life at conception, restrict and/or limit abortions, or require women to undergo ultrasounds, etc... its everywhere, all the time, and for each step they get, they push for another, and another. PP has been a major thorn in their side for a long time for at least 3 reasons - abortion, democratic support, and other sexual morality issues.

If PP stopped providing abortion, only one of those issues goes away, though admittedly, it is a major one.

wilbur
04-11-2011, 09:00 PM
No, it would be bad if the right did it, too. This goes back to Ody's first law of government, which states that the power that you give to politicians or groups that you like will inevitably end up in the hands of politicians or groups that you don't like. This is why you keep as much power out of the hands of government as possible. The federal government should not be channeling money into private groups that then turn around and use that money to try to influence the federal government to give them more money. That goes for churches, unions, corporations, you name it.

Actually, I don't really disagree with any of that, I don't think - however, in the absence of some across-the-board policy to address these financial conflicts of interest, singling out PP is an obvious move to knock a democrat game piece off the board - not an honest attempt to address these sorts of financial issues.

Others have suggested as well, that PP funding was simply meant to be a bargaining chip in budget negotiations.... which is probably true.

FlaGator
04-11-2011, 10:02 PM
wilbur, in all seriousness, I just can't fathom why Planned Parenthood would risk the other services (I think we both agree that they are vital and important ones) in order to facilitate abortion as something other than a last ditch option. I wouldn't like much either but I could understand their need to keep open this service. Unfortunately they treat abortion as birth control and that is my problem with federal funding being used to support it. If a woman chooses to have an abortion for the sole reason that she just doesn't want the baby then she should be required to pay for it herself.

Is that really such a bad expectation?

wilbur
04-11-2011, 10:26 PM
Dude, the deduction made is easy and your response with your typical overly wordy suffrage does not negate the accuracy of the point I made nor does it fool any one in to believing that another conclusion could be drawn that would as accurately explain the facts. If you can draw another conclusion for why they would they risk funding of the other services they offer in order to continue to perform abortions then lay it out for everyone who is reading this. I for one would love to read what you have concluded about their actions.

Deductions deal with *necessary* conclusions, and are valid or not purely based on argument form. They are refuted by the mere *logical* possibility that your conclusion could be false, whether that possibility is probable or not. You want to use all the words of formal logic to make your arguments sound rigorous, but don't really don't seem to understand what any of it means. If you want to do it right, then you should be putting your arguments in a valid deductive form, with clearly stated premises and conclusions.

Do it, and we'll see if your argument is deductively valid.... and if its deductively valid, we'll then examine whether the premises are actually true.


As is usual for you, you have been given a chance to cite specific examples, in this case concerning other instances of where republicans used the slippery slope approach to legislation, and have chosen not to do so. What can we deduce about that?

Meh - quite frankly, its absurd on its face to act as if republican political strategy towards abortion *hasnt* been one of ongoing, persistent incrementalism... many will even happily proclaim it. I pointed to general examples (some of which I know we've discussed) like legislations requring ultrasounds before abortions, defining life at conception, or the continual effort to stack the supreme court to take out roe by way of judicial activism... but I'm not going to troll Google for you. News of most of these efforts make it to the types of pro-life supporting sites that you read, so I know you know about them when they come around.

Odysseus
04-11-2011, 11:01 PM
Actually, I don't really disagree with any of that, I don't think - however, in the absence of some across-the-board policy to address these financial conflicts of interest, singling out PP is an obvious move to knock a democrat game piece off the board - not an honest attempt to address these sorts of financial issues.

Others have suggested as well, that PP funding was simply meant to be a bargaining chip in budget negotiations.... which is probably true.

The left plays the game better than we do, because they are in favor of expansive government, and therefore are more likely to use it to fund their allies. Planned Parenthood is a major player for the left, as are public employee unions, the trial lawyers' bar and pretty much everyone else whose living is made by sucking down tax dollars and funneling them to the DNC. Knocking any of them off the board would be a win for the constitutional order, not just one party.

wilbur
04-11-2011, 11:03 PM
wilbur, in all seriousness, I just can't fathom why Planned Parenthood would risk the other services (I think we both agree that they are vital and important ones) in order to facilitate abortion as something other than a last ditch option. I wouldn't like much either but I could understand their need to keep open this service. Unfortunately they treat abortion as birth control and that is my problem with federal funding being used to support it. If a woman chooses to have an abortion for the sole reason that she just doesn't want the baby then she should be required to pay for it herself.

Is that really such a bad expectation?


That's the current reality.... she does pay for it herself, or from privately raised funds. I have no doubt that giving federal funds to PP relieves much of the burden in allocating funding for other non-federally assisted services, but but the distinction still does exist, even though the right wants to erase it. PP still has to go out independently and actually secure those funds from people willing to donate money, which may be used for abortion.

The reality is that those people who donate funds which are used for abortions, would probably be willing to do so in the absence of government funding for other services. Conversely, the government would also obviously be willing to fund PP, even if they didn't provide abortions (since the funds arent used for that anyways).

And you know, I seem to remember Christian hospitals, at each and every turn where some piece of regulation or legislation may have required them to violate their conscience, either by performing abortions, merely availing patients to the option and/or referring patients to offsite facilities should they request information, have threatened to shut down, ceasing all services to *all* patients - closing up shop. Are we to assume that preserving all other forms of life, are less important than preserving the life of a fetus? Maybe they feel that a world where the government can impose such restrictions upon personal conscience, by dangling the carrot of federal funding (or threatening to pull it away) is a bad one, and threatens their greater mission... maybe PP might adopt a similarly reasonable principle, in light of such moralistic federal impositions.

wilbur
04-11-2011, 11:15 PM
The left plays the game better than we do, because they are in favor of expansive government, and therefore are more likely to use it to fund their allies. Planned Parenthood is a major player for the left, as are public employee unions, the trial lawyers' bar and pretty much everyone else whose living is made by sucking down tax dollars and funneling them to the DNC. Knocking any of them off the board would be a win for the constitutional order, not just one party.

I don't know about that... maybe the left does actively pay out money to interests more so than conservatives, but conservatives provide similar financial incentives to powerful interests in the form of tax breaks, reduced fees, deregulation, etc.

Rockntractor
04-11-2011, 11:20 PM
I don't know about that... maybe the left does actively pay out money to interests more so than conservatives, but conservatives provide similar financial incentives to powerful interests in the form of tax breaks, reduced fees, deregulation, etc.

Would Planned Parenthood be a "powerful interest" or is that reserved for institutions you oppose?

Novaheart
04-12-2011, 12:13 AM
I am. But the color of money within the DOD makes a difference, because we don't use it to buy politicians. When you give taxpayer dollars to private groups, and they turn around and use that money to purchase influence and promote one party over another, you have corrupted the political process. It creates conflicts of interest for the politicians involved, turns the recipient agency into a mechanism whose primary focus is milking the tax base.



Jesus Christ, you do go on some simpleminded shit. The different color money refers to designated funds in the budget or off budget items. You can't use money specifically allotted for one purpose for another purpose.

The money donated to Planned Parenthood for political campaigns is restricted and the money they get for services is also restricted. I can't make it any simpler than that for you.

txradioguy
04-12-2011, 12:34 AM
Tax money doesn't go to fund abortions, it goes to other forms of counseling

Gee rubliw what kind of counseling do you think goes on at a PP office?

It's certainly not "how to decorate your new infants bedroom". :rolleyes:



and medical services for women

Other than abortion and providing the pill what services do they actually provide that you can't get at any regular health clinic?

txradioguy
04-12-2011, 12:40 AM
I don't know about that... maybe the left does actively pay out money to interests more so than conservatives, but conservatives provide similar financial incentives to powerful interests in the form of tax breaks, reduced fees, deregulation, etc.

By powerful intrests you mean employees and their employers?

Yeah I can see why the left hates that. Through all of what you mentioned above it gives employers more money to pay and hire new employees which in turn takes more people off unemployment and puts money in their bank accounts...which then in turn aloows them to financially afford children if they so choose...which means *gasp*...they don't need the PP Eugenics factory to get rid of an "unwanted pregnancy".


I can see why the left despises Conservative financial ideas.

:rolleyes:

Rockntractor
04-12-2011, 12:43 AM
By powerful intrests you mean employees and their employers?

Yeah I can see why the left hates that. Through all of what you mentioned above it gives employers more money to pay and hire new employees which in turn takes more people off unemployment and puts money in their bank accounts...which then in turn aloows them to financially afford children if they so choose...which means *gasp*...they don't need the PP Eugenics factory to get rid of an "unwanted pregnancy".


I can see why the left despises Conservative financial ideas.

:rolleyes:

We need to start calling planned Parenthood 'big abortion'.

wilbur
04-12-2011, 08:22 AM
Gee rubliw what kind of counseling do you think goes on at a PP office?

It's certainly not "how to decorate your new infants bedroom". :rolleyes:

I'm quite certain you don't have a clue as to what they do.



Other than abortion and providing the pill what services do they actually provide that you can't get at any regular health clinic?

None, that I know of... but how bout those Christian hospitals... obviously their services are redundant and unnecessary since they don't really provide many services that regular hospitals don't provide... hell, might as well just shut them down!

FlaGator
04-12-2011, 08:33 AM
That's the current reality.... she does pay for it herself, or from privately raised funds. I have no doubt that giving federal funds to PP relieves much of the burden in allocating funding for other non-federally assisted services, but but the distinction still does exist, even though the right wants to erase it. PP still has to go out independently and actually secure those funds from people willing to donate money, which may be used for abortion.

The reality is that those people who donate funds which are used for abortions, would probably be willing to do so in the absence of government funding for other services. Conversely, the government would also obviously be willing to fund PP, even if they didn't provide abortions (since the funds arent used for that anyways).

And you know, I seem to remember Christian hospitals, at each and every turn where some piece of regulation or legislation may have required them to violate their conscience, either by performing abortions, merely availing patients to the option and/or referring patients to offsite facilities should they request information, have threatened to shut down, ceasing all services to *all* patients - closing up shop. Are we to assume that preserving all other forms of life, are less important than preserving the life of a fetus? Maybe they feel that a world where the government can impose such restrictions upon personal conscience, by dangling the carrot of federal funding (or threatening to pull it away) is a bad one, and threatens their greater mission... maybe PP might adopt a similarly reasonable principle, in light of such moralistic federal impositions.

I am not sure why you have connected Christian based hospitals with Planned Parenthood. You're comparing private hospitals with publicly funded clinics. And what does a moral decision not to do something that is completely unrelated to federal funding have to do with a organization that chooses to provide a service that may or may not be contingent upon federal funds. If I recall correctly the Catholic hospitals were willing to forgo any federal funding they received in order to do what they believe to be right. This is not so with Planned Parenthood. They want their cake and the funds to eat it too.

FlaGator
04-12-2011, 08:34 AM
Jesus Christ, you do go on some simpleminded shit. The different color money refers to designated funds in the budget or off budget items. You can't use money specifically allotted for one purpose for another purpose.

The money donated to Planned Parenthood for political campaigns is restricted and the money they get for services is also restricted. I can't make it any simpler than that for you.


Can you point me to the no peeing part of a public swimming pool.

txradioguy
04-12-2011, 08:35 AM
I'm quite certain you don't have a clue as to what they do.

From your non-answer answer I'm pretty sure I have a better idea than you do.

Because in typical leftist fasion you don't know why you support an organization like Planned Parenthood...you just do becuase..because..well because you're told it's the right thing to do by other leftists.




None, that I know of...

Aaaand you just proved my point above. Thanks.


but how bout those Christian hospitals... obviously their services are redundant and unnecessary since they don't really provide many services that regular hospitals don't provide... hell, might as well just shut them down!


Red herring. Strawman argument. Whatever you want to call it. That's a lame attempt to shift the focus.

Typical.

txradioguy
04-12-2011, 08:43 AM
I am not sure why you have connected Christian based hospitals with Planned Parenthood. You're comparing private hospitals with publicly funded clinics. And what does a moral decision not to do something that is completely unrelated to federal funding have to do with a organization that chooses to provide a service that may or may not be contingent upon federal funds. If I recall correctly the Catholic hospitals were willing to forgo any federal funding they received in order to do what they believe to be right. This is not so with Planned Parenthood. They want their cake and the funds to eat it too.

He's comparing apples and oranges in an effort to move the goal posts AND combining a little good old fashioned Leftist religion bashing in there as well.

He's run out of arguments on this issue and he's now attempting the typical Lefty move to get out of the corner he's in.

megimoo
04-12-2011, 09:08 AM
We need to start calling planned Parenthood 'big abortion'.
http://blip.tv/file/3372786

megimoo
04-12-2011, 09:16 AM
We need to start calling planned Parenthood 'big abortion'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCc9lhlUFaw&feature=related

wilbur
04-12-2011, 09:43 AM
From your non-answer answer I'm pretty sure I have a better idea than you do.

Because in typical leftist fasion you don't know why you support an organization like Planned Parenthood...you just do becuase..because..well because you're told it's the right thing to do by other leftists.

Aaaand you just proved my point above. Thanks.


Red herring. Strawman argument. Whatever you want to call it. That's a lame attempt to shift the focus.

Typical.


I love how you guys like to school me on the "basics of arguments", even when you didn't actually provide an argument.... You posed a question, and left whatever point we were supposed to draw from it, mysterious and unmentioned.


Other than abortion and providing the pill what services do they actually provide that you can't get at any regular health clinic?

Perhaps, before you start accusing me of shifting goal posts, and the like, you might actually want to tell me where you've set them in the first place.

So lets hear it... PP does provide services that other clinics also provide. So what? Why is this relevant. Clearly state your argument.

wilbur
04-12-2011, 09:55 AM
I am not sure why you have connected Christian based hospitals with Planned Parenthood. You're comparing private hospitals with publicly funded clinics. And what does a moral decision not to do something that is completely unrelated to federal funding have to do with a organization that chooses to provide a service that may or may not be contingent upon federal funds. If I recall correctly the Catholic hospitals were willing to forgo any federal funding they received in order to do what they believe to be right. This is not so with Planned Parenthood. They want their cake and the funds to eat it too.

I bring them up because the situations are analogous. Remember FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act)?

Christian hospitals were suggesting a possible imminent shutdown, in response to that bill.

http://www.lifenews.com/2008/11/11/nat-4568/



Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago spoke up about the threats to Catholic health care under the bill.

“It could mean discontinuing obstetrics in our hospitals, and we may need to consider taking the drastic step of closing our Catholic hospitals entirely,” Paprocki said. “It would not be sufficient to withdraw our sponsorship or to sell them to someone who would perform abortions. That would be a morally unacceptable cooperation in evil.”

“I do not think I’m being alarmist in considering such drastic steps,” he said. “We need to respond in a morally appropriate, responsible fashion.”

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/25/does-foca-mean-an-end-to-catholic-health-care/



The bishops are not bluffing when they say they’d turn out the lights rather than comply. Nor is Auxiliary Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis exaggerating, I don’t think, in vowing that “any one of us would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow—to die tomorrow—to bring about the end of abortion.”

Odysseus
04-12-2011, 10:56 AM
I don't know about that... maybe the left does actively pay out money to interests more so than conservatives, but conservatives provide similar financial incentives to powerful interests in the form of tax breaks, reduced fees, deregulation, etc.

Hardly the same. A tax break is an increase in the amount of your own money, money that you've earned, that the government deigns to allow you to keep. Reductions in user fees for government property are pretty much evenly distributed (the entertainment industry gets some of the most spectacular deals on that score for filming permissions). Deregulation is government reducing how much it interferes in your business. It's a huge stretch to claim that being left alone and allowed to keep what you earn is the same as having the force of government extract tax dollars from people and then funnel it into one political party through a thinly disguised laundering operation.

txradioguy
04-12-2011, 12:29 PM
I love how you guys like to school me on the "basics of arguments", even when you didn't actually provide an argument.... You posed a question, and left whatever point we were supposed to draw from it, mysterious and unmentioned.



Perhaps, before you start accusing me of shifting goal posts, and the like, you might actually want to tell me where you've set them in the first place.

So lets hear it... PP does provide services that other clinics also provide. So what? Why is this relevant. Clearly state your argument.


http://www.chaobell.net/newgallery/d/2110-1/14xl63c.jpg

txradioguy
04-12-2011, 12:33 PM
I love how you guys like to school me on the "basics of arguments", even when you didn't actually provide an argument.... You posed a question, and left whatever point we were supposed to draw from it, mysterious and unmentioned.



Perhaps, before you start accusing me of shifting goal posts, and the like, you might actually want to tell me where you've set them in the first place.

So lets hear it... PP does provide services that other clinics also provide. So what? Why is this relevant. Clearly state your argument.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=397788&postcount=51

You made the statements moron.

Defend your own words.

It's not my job to do it for you. It's relevant because YOU made it relevant.

Novaheart
04-12-2011, 12:37 PM
Hardly the same. A tax break is an increase in the amount of your own money, money that you've earned, that the government deigns to allow you to keep. Reductions in user fees for government property are pretty much evenly distributed (the entertainment industry gets some of the most spectacular deals on that score for filming permissions). Deregulation is government reducing how much it interferes in your business. It's a huge stretch to claim that being left alone and allowed to keep what you earn is the same as having the force of government extract tax dollars from people and then funnel it into one political party through a thinly disguised laundering operation.

If income tax were eliminated and no other tax imposed in its stead, how long do you think it would be before you got another raise within your grade and step?

wilbur
04-12-2011, 12:53 PM
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=397788&postcount=51

You made the statements moron.

Defend your own words.

It's not my job to do it for you. It's relevant because YOU made it relevant.

At this point I simply have no clue WTF you are even talking about.

The mutually agreed upon fact: PP provides many services that other types of health clinics also supply.

Again, I ask - so what?!

CueSi
04-12-2011, 12:56 PM
I just want to know.. is it possible for PP to sever the auxiliary services from their abortion providing services? I know they do that in their clinics already . But would it be possible to have Planned Parenthood Women's Services/ Planned Parenthood Pregnancy Termination ? Probably with that, we'd really get to see where the lions share of the cash went.

~QC

txradioguy
04-12-2011, 01:03 PM
At this point I simply have no clue WTF you are even talking about.

Of course you don't.
:rolleyes:



The mutually agreed upon fact: PP provides many services that other types of health clinics also supply.

Again, I ask - so what?!

Nope that was NOT a "mutually agreed upon fact" you dolt.

I asked you to provide some kind of list of "other health care services" Planned Parenthood provides besides the Pill and Abortions.

And that is when you started acting like a n00b in an ESL class.

wilbur
04-12-2011, 01:14 PM
Of course you don't.
:rolleyes:




Nope that was NOT a "mutually agreed upon fact" you dolt.

I asked you to provide some kind of list of "other health care services" Planned Parenthood provides besides the Pill and Abortions.

And that is when you started acting like a n00b in an ESL class.

Haha, you didn't ask that at all... you asked which services they provide THAT AREN'T PROVIDED BY OTHER HEALTH CLINICS - I said I didn't know of any.



Other than abortion and providing the pill what services do they actually provide that you can't get at any regular health clinic?


Ok, so what you *really* want, despite the wrongly worded question, are some examples of their other services (which account for most the work they do). Here's several:

http://www.tressugar.com/List-Services-Planned-Parenthood-Offers-Besides-Abortion-14083611



Pap Smears: Can't afford a cervical cancer screening? Planned Parenthood has your back.

Pregnancy Testing and Services: The organization helps women who are pregnant or are thinking about becoming pregnant get prenatal care.

Diabetes Screening: Depending on location, you can get general health care services like diabetes screening, flu vaccines, or anemia testing at Planned Parenthood.

Breast Cancer Screening: The organization provides valuable breast exams and helps women find services they might need.

STD Testing, Treatment, and Prevention: Planned Parenthood provides free condoms, HPV vaccines, and STD testing and treatment.

Male Infertility Screening and Referral: The organization offers a variety of male sexual health services, like infertility screening, testicular cancer screening, and erectile dysfunction services. Are the congressmen aware of this?

Menopause Help: It might not make headlines like abortion services, but Planned Parenthood's health centers offer midlife services to help women deal with menopause.

txradioguy
04-12-2011, 01:15 PM
Planned Parenthood receives millions in taxpayer subsidies and spends hundreds of thousands on lobbying and campaigning. In February, OpenSecrets.org reported that Planned Parenthood's political action committee "donated more than $148,000 to federal candidates--almost all Democrats--during the 2010 election cycle" and "spent more than $443,000 overall." Planned Parenthood made an additional $905,796 in "independent expenditures" during the 2010 cycle--exercising its right to free speech pursuant to last year's Citizens United decision.

The biggest beneficiaries of Planned Parenthood money, according to OpenSecrets.org, were Sens. Patty Murray of Washington and Barbara Boxer of California. According to the Hill, both were also among "a defiant group of Senate women," all Democrats, who "said Friday they'll oppose any spending bill that would affect reproductive health funding":

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/02/planned-parenthood-poised-to-fight.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704662604576256702271734850.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

wilbur
04-12-2011, 01:18 PM
Planned Parenthood receives millions in taxpayer subsidies and spends hundreds of thousands on lobbying and campaigning. In February, OpenSecrets.org reported that Planned Parenthood's political action committee "donated more than $148,000 to federal candidates--almost all Democrats--during the 2010 election cycle" and "spent more than $443,000 overall." Planned Parenthood made an additional $905,796 in "independent expenditures" during the 2010 cycle--exercising its right to free speech pursuant to last year's Citizens United decision.

The biggest beneficiaries of Planned Parenthood money, according to OpenSecrets.org, were Sens. Patty Murray of Washington and Barbara Boxer of California. According to the Hill, both were also among "a defiant group of Senate women," all Democrats, who "said Friday they'll oppose any spending bill that would affect reproductive health funding":

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/02/planned-parenthood-poised-to-fight.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704662604576256702271734850.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

Yes, thank you for essentially repeating the OP

Odysseus
04-12-2011, 01:34 PM
If income tax were eliminated and no other tax imposed in its stead, how long do you think it would be before you got another raise within your grade and step?
Did I propose that all taxes be eliminated? I said that tax reductions are not the same as money laundering in order to disguise government handing taxpayer funds to a political party.

Nobody this side of the most crazed anarchist argues that we can function without any form of government. Even libertarians acknowledge that there are some legitimate functions that must be done by government. That having been said, any form of government has to be funded. Taxes are one means of doing so, and are probably the best way, because the relationship between taxpayers and representative government provides an expectation of services in return for taxes. Governments that have sources of revenue other than taxes (such as those states that have nationalized their natural resources, especially oil) have no need of taxes, and therefore have no need to respond to those that they govern. They don't see the need to maintain functioning economies, and become corrupt and inefficient, and see the population as a nuisance to be controlled, rather than citizens to be consulted.


I just want to know.. is it possible for PP to sever the auxiliary services from their abortion providing services? I know they do that in their clinics already . But would it be possible to have Planned Parenthood Women's Services/ Planned Parenthood Pregnancy Termination ? Probably with that, we'd really get to see where the lions share of the cash went.

~QC
Probably not. The issue is not that PP gets federal money, it's that it receives federal money and contributes to federal political campaigns. If I provide a controversial service and the government subsidizess my service, then I have a vested interest in maintaining that flow of funding. The funds received free up other funds, which I can then use to apply political pressure in order to ensure that the funding continues. Politicians who receive the largess of such groups have a vested interest in perpetuating their funding, rather than in oversight of the group.

CueSi
04-12-2011, 02:21 PM
Probably not. The issue is not that PP gets federal money, it's that it receives federal money and contributes to federal political campaigns. If I provide a controversial service and the government subsidizess my service, then I have a vested interest in maintaining that flow of funding. The funds received free up other funds, which I can then use to apply political pressure in order to ensure that the funding continues. Politicians who receive the largess of such groups have a vested interest in perpetuating their funding, rather than in oversight of the group.

But if the abortion services were severed and separated, wouldn't serve all sides better? The Feds could then choose to provide those auxiliary services (or press on providing abortion), the Dems would lose the "You don't care about women!" card and make the debate clearer and less emotional, and GOPers that truly do care about auxiliary services could fight for them, and target the abortion funding and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

~QC

Odysseus
04-12-2011, 02:52 PM
But if the abortion services were severed and separated, wouldn't serve all sides better? The Feds could then choose to provide those auxiliary services (or press on providing abortion), the Dems would lose the "You don't care about women!" card and make the debate clearer and less emotional, and GOPers that truly do care about auxiliary services could fight for them, and target the abortion funding and not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

~QC

The separation of the services wouldn't change the fact that the parent organization was still receiving federal funds and using that money (or other money freed up by receipt of that infusion of federal cash) to fund one party against the other in partisan elections. It doesn't matter if the separate service runs Tiddlywinks tournements, it's the fact of laundering campaign funds that is the issue. The transmission of taxpayer dollars to an organization, any organization, that turns around and funnels those dollars to a political party which then returns the favor with more funding, is an inherently corrupt dance.

Novaheart
04-12-2011, 07:14 PM
Did I propose that all taxes be eliminated? I said that tax reductions are not the same as money laundering in order to disguise government handing taxpayer funds to a political party.


Money laundering? Sometimes I thunk you have the iq of a cheeseburger.