(07-08-2025 12:11 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote: (07-08-2025 11:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [quote='ThreeifbyLightning' pid='20213236' dateline='1751990887']
Easier solution -- do you think it is proper for a government to discriminate on participation in an open program and against entities based solely on their political viewpoint? Easy to answer as yes or no question. One side says you agree with the 1st amendment and political views, and the other side says you do not.
So -- yes or no?
If yes, who makes the decision on what political viewpoints should be protected, and what should be targeted?
Quote:So, put your money where you mouth is if you really believe the asinine drivel coming from your fingers.
Maybe you put your money where your mouth is and answer my very simple question above. It really is a simple question. It might go to the core of who each you and I are.
No. 1: I will not. Your question is inherently flawed. It's like asking the man do you prefer to beat your wife in the morning or in the evening.
Its a basic question.
Here I will repeat: "do you think it is proper for a government to discriminate on participation in an open program and against entities based solely on their political viewpoint?"
My answer -- no, its not proper. It is a violation of the 1st amendment.
Quite the tough question to dodge there, my friend. Lolz.
Quote:An ideologically motivated question leads to a false assumption and a flawed outcome based on presumption rather than facts. Your presentation of your question is not factually based or relevant.
Lolz. It has everything to do with the case. In fact, that is what the complaint is wholly about. Good grief. "Not factually based" -- you dont even have clue what the lawsuit is about? Double lolz.
Quote:So, no I'm not going to answer a question that is laced with innuendo and lack of objectivity.
Innuendo? Maybe read the facts in the complaint, and the complaint itself. Triple lolz.
Quote:The right question is can Congress add or remove single entities by name in a discretionary funding decisions and and the answer is unequivocally yes.
Subject to the restrictions in numerous lines of.... well...... 1st amendment cases. I guess that slipped your mind in the 'unequivocally' statement.
Quote:Moreover, the discretion and use of federal tax payer funding for any reimbursement program is not a 1st amendment/free speech issue.
Uhh......... yes it very well can be. The simple rule: the government cannot solely or primarily deny inclusion in a generally open government program absed on political viewpoint. Kind of black letter law, good sir.
Quote:No. 2: Your second question is even worse and defeats your own arguments. If you subscribe to the notion that PP was only cut for political viewpoint reasons,
They were cut because they provided abortions. In the flipping wording of the law.
Quote:you're acknowledging that PP was only funded for political reasons in the first place.
They were paid under Medicare to deliver Medicare eligible medical services. I dont know where you come up with that logic snaggle and fact snaggle above.
They were paid under Medicare to deliver Medicare eligible services just like several million other medical providers are still paid.
the only difference between those still being paid for services and PP is that PP overall does have a political viewpoint. And specifically, they are being targeted for supplying the wholly legal medical service of providing abortions. Which again boils down to them being discriminated based on a political issue.
Quote:What political viewpoint deserve taxpayer funding?
Unlike you, Ill answer your question. A political viewpoint should never be a deciding point for the government to promote, or deny, or restrict, a widely provided service by a provider, for which that provider is paid.
Quote:If PP and you believe it is only being cut for its views then why is the taxpayer money being used to fund political activism in the first place? That should never happen.
In your view, should an individual doctor who is the chair of the county 'Right to Life' program be individually barred from receiving Medicare funds in the course of providing medical service to patients? My answer is no.
The problem is you wash and wave your hands to transmorgrify 'taxpayer funds' above.
If I provide services to a government, those monies dispensed to me cease being 'taxpayer money'. In fact, they are monies for a product or service. Those monies become *my* money free of strings. I can do whatever the fk I wish with those monies in terms of political viewpoint.
When PP provides services to 3rd parties, they are paid through the Government for the provision of those services. Period. A provider who receives such money for services can do whatever the hell they want those monies re: political expression.
A government supplies monies for services in an open and widely available program to render those services, has no fing business determining who to deny, promote, or restrict that funding for service to with regard to political viewpoint. End. Of. Story. Morally and legally. Black letter law in fact.
Again, if a medical services group decided to be pro-immigration enforcement activists, their political views cannot have any determination for eligibility to receive, or not receive, Medicare funds for the services they provide. Just like those that are pro-abortion, or who happen to share many positions on medicial issues with progressives and/or liberals.
Quote:Lastly, it's clear you know you're wrong or you would take the bet. You just want to argue on behalf if your liberal ideology.
If being pro 1st amendment, anti- political viewpoint targeting by the government, anti- Bill of Attainder is to you 'liberal ideology', then so be it. Ill take that 7 days a week and three times on Thursday, mind you.
Kind of hate to denote what that tags you as, so I wont.
I will tell you that I think you are being wholly shallow in broad painting my political persuasion as 'liberal'. Very shallow.
/
[NEWS] Obama Judge Blocks Trump’s BBB Provision Barring Funding For Planned Parenthood
