Then when asked by CNN which orifice Kyl pulled this 'fact' from his office responded with:
"His remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, a organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions."
(04-12-2011 10:27 AM)GrayBeard Wrote: Whether it is 10% or 90% does it really matter? Should the government really be involved in Planned Parenthood?
If no federal money goes for abortions, what is the problem? THey offer more services than just abortions. They offer health screenings and other services mainly for poor women. Why do you hate the poor?
(04-12-2011 10:27 AM)GrayBeard Wrote: Whether it is 10% or 90% does it really matter? Should the government really be involved in Planned Parenthood?
If no federal money goes for abortions, what is the problem? THey offer more services than just abortions. They offer health screenings and other services mainly for poor women. Why do you hate the poor?
I personally don't have a problem with it... but other than tax deductions for charity, I'd REALLY like to see the government out of our bedrooms entirely. It's the mere opening of the door that gives those on the far right "standing" in the argument. Take away the financial support and the far right can't really say anything about what they do with their donations. That's my same position with many issues.
As for hating the poor... I suspect most of the POOR hate it as well. Hate the situation, not the people in it.
(This post was last modified: 04-12-2011 01:04 PM by Hambone10.)
(04-12-2011 08:32 AM)DrTorch Wrote: Ok, so what percentage of PP's activities are abortions?
(Oh no, another example of how you don't do any research!)
3% according to their figures.
But I believe that roughly 38% of their income comes from abortion services.
Now what does that have to do with Kyl making **** up.
The answer is obvious: I don't know what Kyl is making up until I know the facts. Duh. This isn't really hard to figure out.
Yes, we all know Torchy. You believe every word he says because he is a republican just like you. Kind of like that "Obama said labia" nonsense because it was put in some rightwing rag. You really need professional help Torchy.
Btw, even the righties on here could only put it at 9-10%.
(04-12-2011 01:05 PM)RobertN Wrote: Btw, even the righties on here could only put it at 9-10%.
So if planned parenthood decided to give out bibles to the people who came in, and it was only 10% of what they did, would you still support Federal funding for it?
This is the danger of being involved in personal decisions
But Hambone, they can't use federal funds for abortions. It is against the law. Do you honestly think their auditors would not notice this and prominently display it in their annual report?
(04-12-2011 02:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: But Hambone, they can't use federal funds for abortions. It is against the law. Do you honestly think their auditors would not notice this and prominently display it in their annual report?
So as long as they don't use federal funds for the bibles you're cool with it? What about if it was a food pantry that recieved government funding, but also gave out handguns at reduced cost. Sure none of the federal money would go to the handguns, but is that still cool with you?
The left is opposed to federal money to faith based organizations because there might be a prayer at a soup kitchen. Even though no federal dollars were spent on the prayer, they see the money spent on turkey and gravy as government endorsement of religion.
(04-12-2011 02:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: But Hambone, they can't use federal funds for abortions. It is against the law. Do you honestly think their auditors would not notice this and prominently display it in their annual report?
Others have effectively responded to this. I never implied they didn't segregate their funds. I merely presented a similar alternative proposal that the left would generally not support... and made the same assumption that federal funds weren't going to the specific questionable act.
If you want to open up an abortion clinic and fund it with private donations... I can't take you to court because what you are doing is legal and my liberties are not being infringed. If my funds are involved in your company, even if they don't go directly to bibles or abortions, I have "legal standing" in what happens there. If federal funds weren't involved, would the Senate be talking about abortion funding?
No taxation without representation. The beliefs of pro-lifers are being represented because they are being taxed to support the organization. Take away the tax funding, and you take away the particular representation. I'm not saying they won't still protest the building, but the government won't have a "dog" in the fight.
(04-12-2011 01:05 PM)RobertN Wrote: Btw, even the righties on here could only put it at 9-10%.
So if planned parenthood decided to give out bibles to the people who came in, and it was only 10% of what they did, would you still support Federal funding for it?
This is the danger of being involved in personal decisions
No. If they wanted to hand them out out of the donations they recieve, I can't complain.
(04-12-2011 10:27 AM)GrayBeard Wrote: Whether it is 10% or 90% does it really matter? Should the government really be involved in Planned Parenthood?
If no federal money goes for abortions, what is the problem? THey offer more services than just abortions. They offer health screenings and other services mainly for poor women. Why do you hate the poor?
I personally don't have a problem with it... but other than tax deductions for charity, I'd REALLY like to see the government out of our bedrooms entirely. It's the mere opening of the door that gives those on the far right "standing" in the argument. Take away the financial support and the far right can't really say anything about what they do with their donations. That's my same position with many issues.
As for hating the poor... I suspect most of the POOR hate it as well. Hate the situation, not the people in it.
So, the Ryan White Act should be repealed, or allowed to expire. The gov't shouldn't providing funding to test for HPV, Syphilis, HIV, Hep A/B/C... or another assortment of maladies or diseases, let alone make the taxpayers foot the bill for treatment of said individuals?
Your making some poor assumptions...for me anyway. Even though I am on the left, I have no problems with the second amendment or gun ownership and I love the Bible and have no problem with it being pushed or taught as long as it is from a separate fund not receiving government money.
(04-12-2011 01:05 PM)RobertN Wrote: Btw, even the righties on here could only put it at 9-10%.
So if planned parenthood decided to give out bibles to the people who came in, and it was only 10% of what they did, would you still support Federal funding for it?
This is the danger of being involved in personal decisions
No. If they wanted to hand them out out of the donations they recieve, I can't complain.
But you do, Robert... and you know it. Or would you support federal funds for churches, so long as those funds didn't go to worship?
(04-13-2011 06:58 AM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:
(04-12-2011 01:03 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:
(04-12-2011 12:59 PM)RobertN Wrote:
(04-12-2011 10:27 AM)GrayBeard Wrote: Whether it is 10% or 90% does it really matter? Should the government really be involved in Planned Parenthood?
If no federal money goes for abortions, what is the problem? THey offer more services than just abortions. They offer health screenings and other services mainly for poor women. Why do you hate the poor?
I personally don't have a problem with it... but other than tax deductions for charity, I'd REALLY like to see the government out of our bedrooms entirely. It's the mere opening of the door that gives those on the far right "standing" in the argument. Take away the financial support and the far right can't really say anything about what they do with their donations. That's my same position with many issues.
As for hating the poor... I suspect most of the POOR hate it as well. Hate the situation, not the people in it.
So, the Ryan White Act should be repealed, or allowed to expire. The gov't shouldn't providing funding to test for HPV, Syphilis, HIV, Hep A/B/C... or another assortment of maladies or diseases, let alone make the taxpayers foot the bill for treatment of said individuals?
what does any of this have to do with the discussion? Troll
(04-13-2011 07:14 AM)Redwingtom Wrote: Your making some poor assumptions...for me anyway. Even though I am on the left, I have no problems with the second amendment or gun ownership and I love the Bible and have no problem with it being pushed or taught as long as it is from a separate fund not receiving government money.
I assume you're speaking to me. I'd say those comments are true for the vast majority on BOTH sides of the aisle... that isn't the problem. The PROBLEM is (as always) the 10% on either extreme. The solution for eliminating those on the right is not to argue with them, but to take away their legal standing. Either end federal funding, or make planned parenthood a separate entity from the "abortion clinic" which you fund with private donations. You won't stop them from screaming, but at least you'll stop them from having influence in the government on those issues
