(04-13-2011 12:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(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

Nope...I was responding to CountryRedHawk.

But PP already separates the two. They have to by law! And as a public charity they are audited regularly and their annual reports and tax returns are public record. BTW - Don't they charge for most abortions anyway?

(04-13-2011 01:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But PP already separates the two. They have to by law! And as a public charity they are audited regularly and their annual reports and tax returns are public record. BTW - Don't they charge for most abortions anyway?

Absolutely... you're hearing me, but not listening to me. By keeping them under one umbrella, despite the "legal" and "accounting" records, they keep the debate open. Why? It's like when the people who work for AT&T who come fix your physical line tell you that they are different from the company that actually runs the wires in your home, not to mention AT&T long distance company and the local service and the internet and the wireless are all different legal entities, but they still send you a consolidated bill and you can't pay your local, but not long distance bills to stop them from turning one off but not the others... and can all be reached at 1 800 call att.

Is Congress REALLY debating funding for pre-natal vitamins and the like for pregnant women? No. They're talking about abortion, which Congress doesn't directly fund, but only "indirectly" by funding groups who do both. Take that away and the debate is over without changing ANY of the accounting realities or availability for women.

Understand. However, you use the term Congress when I don't think I hear many, if any, Democrats saying the two should be separate.

But the main problem in all this goes back to the original post in that you have people like Kyl who apparently have no idea what PP even does...of worse...might actually be lying to further a partisan political agenda. Either way, it's sad.

(04-13-2011 03:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Understand. However, you use the term Congress when I don't think I hear many, if any, Democrats saying the two should be separate.

But the main problem in all this goes back to the original post in that you have people like Kyl who apparently have no idea what PP even does...of worse...might actually be lying to further a partisan political agenda. Either way, it's sad.

Well THAT is ABSOLUTELY true.... which is why, despite generally PERSONALLY agreeing with many of the "moral" issues of the right, I want the government out of our lives... including marriage, abortion etc etc. If you take the power away from these creeps, they can't grandstand as much and do as much damage

I don't really care what PP does. MOST of what they do I generally support, and what I don't support, I don't need to use

They don't need public funds and nothing would be cut if they lost those funds.

(04-13-2011 03:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Understand. However, you use the term Congress when I don't think I hear many, if any, Democrats saying the two should be separate.

I neglected to add this... actually, I don't think I understood what you were saying the first time I read it... but either way...

Dems don't want them seperated because itd presence riles up the minority on the right and keeps the majority of the right walking the fine line of supporting the pro-life position without wanting to legislate it...

on the contrary, the minority on the left would prefer to merge PP (and everything else) into the government rather than further splinter commerce

The reason I suggest marginalizing the far right is because 80% of us agree on a purpose for planned parenthood with relatively minor differences... We could arguably go the opposite direction marginalizing the far left and defund PP altogether... but I think that is less comfortable for some in the middle afraid of looking like they want to kill babies.

It's unfortunate that politics isn't about pleasing 80% of the population, but instead, about pleasing 100% of either end, and enough of the middle to get you to 51%

It's not trolling when you specifically stated that you wanted the government to stop funding all of it.... But thanks for name callin'! You have a blessed day, as my mom would say!

(04-14-2011 04:10 AM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  It's not trolling when you specifically stated that you wanted the government to stop funding all of it.... But thanks for name callin'! You have a blessed day, as my mom would say!

If you don't know the difference between pregnancy and Hep C, I can't help you. Hint... I can't catch pregnancy from you

If you want to get pregnant or sleep with goats, then go ahead. Not my or the governments business. If you are sick, it IS my and the government's business... regardless of how you contracted it.