Do they pay taxes? Seems like they shouldn't be taking tax dollars and then spending on this.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/...ng-romney/

I'm sure UCF will be outraged about this too.

(05-31-2012 08:44 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Do they pay taxes? Seems like they shouldn't be taking tax dollars and then spending on this.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/...ng-romney/

I'm sure UCF will be outraged about this too.

I'm honestly surprised they are not attacking the Bill going through congress which would put more stiff penalties on sex selective Abortion... Because to pro choice folks opposing abortion is a war on women but killing women in the womb is a God given right...

(05-31-2012 08:44 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Do they pay taxes? Seems like they shouldn't be taking tax dollars and then spending on this.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/...ng-romney/

I'm sure UCF will be outraged about this too.

Actually I don't care for the using of PAC's in almost every situation, though I know pragmatically it really can't be stopped. It is technically a different organization that PPFA though, and I'm sure the funding must be separate, which is enough to stop any ability to rescind government funds from PPFA.

Still, not thrilled about it.

(05-31-2012 10:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 08:44 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Do they pay taxes? Seems like they shouldn't be taking tax dollars and then spending on this.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/...ng-romney/

I'm sure UCF will be outraged about this too.

Actually I don't care for the using of PAC's in almost every situation, though I know pragmatically it really can't be stopped. It is technically a different organization that PPFA though, and I'm sure the funding must be separate, which is enough to stop any ability to rescind government funds from PPFA.

Still, not thrilled about it.

I'm not thrilled about having to "Choose" English when trying to get someone on an automated answering service. This is abhorrent.

(05-31-2012 03:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 10:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 08:44 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Do they pay taxes? Seems like they shouldn't be taking tax dollars and then spending on this.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/...ng-romney/

I'm sure UCF will be outraged about this too.

Actually I don't care for the using of PAC's in almost every situation, though I know pragmatically it really can't be stopped. It is technically a different organization that PPFA though, and I'm sure the funding must be separate, which is enough to stop any ability to rescind government funds from PPFA.

Still, not thrilled about it.

I'm not thrilled about having to "Choose" English when trying to get someone on an automated answering service. This is abhorrent.

That's the free market baby.

Unless of course you want to start enacting legislation to regulate which languages a business must recognize for no other reason than saving you from having to hit a button on your phone, which to me would be the perfect definition of 'needless regulation'.

(05-31-2012 03:47 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 03:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 10:20 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 08:44 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Do they pay taxes? Seems like they shouldn't be taking tax dollars and then spending on this.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/...ng-romney/

I'm sure UCF will be outraged about this too.

Actually I don't care for the using of PAC's in almost every situation, though I know pragmatically it really can't be stopped. It is technically a different organization that PPFA though, and I'm sure the funding must be separate, which is enough to stop any ability to rescind government funds from PPFA.

Still, not thrilled about it.

I'm not thrilled about having to "Choose" English when trying to get someone on an automated answering service. This is abhorrent.

That's the free market baby.

Unless of course you want to start enacting legislation to regulate which languages a business must recognize for no other reason than saving you from having to hit a button on your phone, which to me would be the perfect definition of 'needless regulation'.

I was making a point that's clearly escaped you.

Then make your point.

(05-31-2012 03:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Then make your point.

An organization that receives Federal funds and is a non-profit (I think they're non profit) releasing an attack ad is abhorrent and they should loose their status and funding...and yes I feel that way about Churches too.

(05-31-2012 03:51 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 03:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Then make your point.

An organization that receives Federal funds and is a non-profit (I think they're non profit) releasing an attack ad is abhorrent and they should loose their status and funding...and yes I feel that way about Churches too.

The problem here is, it'd be like the government trying to regulate what the catholic league does; they can't due to the fact that members of the catholic church can't be limited to who they donate to and who they support politically. Churches can't use their pulpit to promote political parties, lest they lose their tax exempt status (federal support) but the funds of their members can be used to promote whatever political ends they wish.

As long as the money coming from the government is in no way intermingled with the funds used in PPAF, it can't really be legislated against. Though I don't think it's a smart move for PPFA in general.

(05-31-2012 04:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 03:51 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 03:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Then make your point.

An organization that receives Federal funds and is a non-profit (I think they're non profit) releasing an attack ad is abhorrent and they should loose their status and funding...and yes I feel that way about Churches too.

The problem here is, it'd be like the government trying to regulate what the catholic league does; they can't due to the fact that members of the catholic church can't be limited to who they donate to and who they support politically. Churches can't use their pulpit to promote political parties, lest they lose their tax exempt status (federal support) but the funds of their members can be used to promote whatever political ends they wish.

As long as the money coming from the government is in no way intermingled with the funds used in PPAF, it can't really be legislated against. Though I don't think it's a smart move for PPFA in general.

Ok...there are some issues with this post.

1. Planned Parenthood are the ones releasing the ad...not a secretary that works there so I don't even know what you're talking about here.

2. Churches, or people for that matter, keeping more of what they are donated or EARN isn't federal support. Support is what Obama did with Solyndra and Chrysler. There is a difference in keeping more and receiving.

(05-31-2012 04:06 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 04:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 03:51 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 03:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Then make your point.

An organization that receives Federal funds and is a non-profit (I think they're non profit) releasing an attack ad is abhorrent and they should loose their status and funding...and yes I feel that way about Churches too.

The problem here is, it'd be like the government trying to regulate what the catholic league does; they can't due to the fact that members of the catholic church can't be limited to who they donate to and who they support politically. Churches can't use their pulpit to promote political parties, lest they lose their tax exempt status (federal support) but the funds of their members can be used to promote whatever political ends they wish.

As long as the money coming from the government is in no way intermingled with the funds used in PPAF, it can't really be legislated against. Though I don't think it's a smart move for PPFA in general.

Ok...there are some issues with this post.

1. Planned Parenthood are the ones releasing the ad...not a secretary that works there so I don't even know what you're talking about here.

2. Churches, or people for that matter, keeping more of what they are donated or EARN isn't federal support. Support is what Obama did with Solyndra and Chrysler. There is a difference in keeping more and receiving.

1. PPFA (what you're calling Planned Parenthood) is different than PPAF, they're quite similar to the Catholic League and the Catholic Church in that manner. PPFA receives government funds to give out free/cheap reproductive health screenings, PPAF is an organization formed to promote PPFA's agenda politically.

2. No, there isn't any difference between gaining tax benefits and receiving money. They're both benefits granted by the government under specific guidelines. This has been pretty well established at all levels of the court system, and lets be honest, you know it's true.

(05-31-2012 04:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 04:06 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 04:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 03:51 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 03:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Then make your point.

An organization that receives Federal funds and is a non-profit (I think they're non profit) releasing an attack ad is abhorrent and they should loose their status and funding...and yes I feel that way about Churches too.

The problem here is, it'd be like the government trying to regulate what the catholic league does; they can't due to the fact that members of the catholic church can't be limited to who they donate to and who they support politically. Churches can't use their pulpit to promote political parties, lest they lose their tax exempt status (federal support) but the funds of their members can be used to promote whatever political ends they wish.

As long as the money coming from the government is in no way intermingled with the funds used in PPAF, it can't really be legislated against. Though I don't think it's a smart move for PPFA in general.

Ok...there are some issues with this post.

1. Planned Parenthood are the ones releasing the ad...not a secretary that works there so I don't even know what you're talking about here.

2. Churches, or people for that matter, keeping more of what they are donated or EARN isn't federal support. Support is what Obama did with Solyndra and Chrysler. There is a difference in keeping more and receiving.

1. PPFA (what you're calling Planned Parenthood) is different than PPAF, they're quite similar to the Catholic League and the Catholic Church in that manner.

2. No, there isn't any difference between gaining tax benefits and receiving money. They're both benefits granted by the government under specific guidelines. This has been pretty well established at all levels of the court system, and lets be honest, you know it's true.

1. Its the same thing. Just admit that its wrong and we can move on.

2. I disagree. You're saying that everything I earn is the governments and I'm lucky to be privileged enough to keep some of it and so are churches. I don't think "Federal Funding" is the same as a tax benefit and any organization that receives ANY FEDERAL OR STATE FUNDING OR TAX BENEFIT should be so blatantly partisan and release attack ads EVER. If they do then they should loose their funding and tax status...which are DIFFERENT things.

(05-31-2012 04:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 03:51 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 03:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Then make your point.

An organization that receives Federal funds and is a non-profit (I think they're non profit) releasing an attack ad is abhorrent and they should loose their status and funding...and yes I feel that way about Churches too.

The problem here is, it'd be like the government trying to regulate what the catholic league does;

Except that it's not at all like that.

If PP needs gov't money so much then they don't have cash to put out political ads.

This is far more akin to gov't employee unions buying ads. Which is another travesty, and should be made illegal.

Quote:As long as the money coming from the government is in no way intermingled with the funds used in PPAF, it can't really be legislated against. Though I don't think it's a smart move for PPFA in general.

That's just a strawman, no one called it illegal. The point is this is completely unethical, and should be illegal.

Quote:1. Its the same thing. Just admit that its wrong and we can move on.

But, it's not the same thing, and it's something that would be impossible to legislate against without infringing upon the first amendment rights of those donating to PPAF.

Quote:2. I disagree. You're saying that everything I earn is the governments and I'm lucky to be privileged enough to keep some of it and so are churches. I don't think "Federal Funding" is the same as a tax benefit and any organization that receives ANY FEDERAL OR STATE FUNDING OR TAX BENEFIT should be so blatantly partisan and release attack ads EVER. If they do then they should loose their funding and tax status...which are DIFFERENT things.

Well, the second part of this statement is basically a restatement of your first, but as for the initial part; it is the same. Legally it's treated the same, and I'm sorry you don't feel that way but it is legally the same thing. It shows the same on the books, and the end result is the same, therefore it's treated the same legally.

Quote:Except that it's not at all like that.

If PP needs gov't money so much then they don't have cash to put out political ads.

This is far more akin to gov't employee unions buying ads. Which is another travesty, and should be made illegal.

How is that not an accurate comparison? And while I suppose you could argue that Gov't employee unions could be legislated against buying ads, that would only be able to apply if membership in the union is required (which I'm against). If it's a voluntary union, then you can't legislate that as it would infringe upon the members 1st amendment rights.

Quote:That's just a strawman, no one called it illegal. The point is this is completely unethical, and should be illegal.

That in no way was a strawman, and again, you can't legislate against it without entirely crapping on every PPAF supporters 1st amendment rights. As long as the funds are separate, there's nothing that can be done which wouldn't be a massive infringement upon american citizens freedom of speech. I've already said I don't care for the ads, and question their efficacy, but the greater evil would be to allow the government into legislating who does or does not get their 1st amendment rights.

(05-31-2012 04:45 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:1. Its the same thing. Just admit that its wrong and we can move on.

But, it's not the same thing, and it's something that would be impossible to legislate against without infringing upon the first amendment rights of those donating to PPAF.

Quote:2. I disagree. You're saying that everything I earn is the governments and I'm lucky to be privileged enough to keep some of it and so are churches. I don't think "Federal Funding" is the same as a tax benefit and any organization that receives ANY FEDERAL OR STATE FUNDING OR TAX BENEFIT should be so blatantly partisan and release attack ads EVER. If they do then they should loose their funding and tax status...which are DIFFERENT things.

Well, the second part of this statement is basically a restatement of your first, but as for the initial part; it is the same. Legally it's treated the same, and I'm sorry you don't feel that way but it is legally the same thing. It shows the same on the books, and the end result is the same, therefore it's treated the same legally.

Quote:Except that it's not at all like that.

If PP needs gov't money so much then they don't have cash to put out political ads.

This is far more akin to gov't employee unions buying ads. Which is another travesty, and should be made illegal.

How is that not an accurate comparison? And while I suppose you could argue that Gov't employee unions could be legislated against buying ads, that would only be able to apply if membership in the union is required (which I'm against). If it's a voluntary union, then you can't legislate that as it would infringe upon the members 1st amendment rights.

Quote:That's just a strawman, no one called it illegal. The point is this is completely unethical, and should be illegal.

That in no way was a strawman, and again, you can't legislate against it without entirely crapping on every PPAF supporters 1st amendment rights. As long as the funds are separate, there's nothing that can be done which wouldn't be a massive infringement upon american citizens freedom of speech. I've already said I don't care for the ads, and question their efficacy, but the greater evil would be to allow the government into legislating who does or does not get their 1st amendment rights.

The supporters aren't placing the ads...THE ORGANIZATION IS. This isn't that hard. What you're saying is that churches can run political ads because they would be exercising the 1st amendment rights of their members.

Quote:The supporters aren't placing the ads...THE ORGANIZATION IS. This isn't that hard. What you're saying is that churches can run political ads because they would be exercising the 1st amendment rights of their members.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to explain this to you, but the organization that is running those ads is *NOT* Planned Parenthood Foundation of America which receives federal funding for the services it renders, it's Planned Parenthood Action Fund. It is along the lines of the Catholic League, which promotes the Catholic Church in ways which they themselves couldn't legally do so as they are not receiving government benefits.

And you cannot legislate who can or cannot donate to Planned Parenthood ACTION FUND, or limit their message, because that would infringe upon the donors 1st amendment rights to free speech.

(05-31-2012 04:54 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:The supporters aren't placing the ads...THE ORGANIZATION IS. This isn't that hard. What you're saying is that churches can run political ads because they would be exercising the 1st amendment rights of their members.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to explain this to you, but the organization that is running those ads is *NOT* Planned Parenthood Foundation of America which receives federal funding for the services it renders, it's Planned Parenthood Action Fund. It is along the lines of the Catholic League, which promotes the Catholic Church in ways which they themselves couldn't legally do so as they are not receiving government benefits.

And you cannot legislate who can or cannot donate to Planned Parenthood ACTION FUND, or limit their message, because that would infringe upon the donors 1st amendment rights to free speech.

I know what it is and you're splitting hairs. Maybe I should start the Jesus Christ Church of America Action Fund, gain tax exempt status, obtain federal funding and run ads attacking Islam and its leader in America. Barrack Obama. By your standard that would be a-okay. By mine its not. I guess low standards are a classic hallmark of liberalism.

(05-31-2012 05:02 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 04:54 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:The supporters aren't placing the ads...THE ORGANIZATION IS. This isn't that hard. What you're saying is that churches can run political ads because they would be exercising the 1st amendment rights of their members.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to explain this to you, but the organization that is running those ads is *NOT* Planned Parenthood Foundation of America which receives federal funding for the services it renders, it's Planned Parenthood Action Fund. It is along the lines of the Catholic League, which promotes the Catholic Church in ways which they themselves couldn't legally do so as they are not receiving government benefits.

And you cannot legislate who can or cannot donate to Planned Parenthood ACTION FUND, or limit their message, because that would infringe upon the donors 1st amendment rights to free speech.

I know what it is and you're splitting hairs. Maybe I should start the Jesus Christ Church of America Action Fund, gain tax exempt status, obtain federal funding and run ads attacking Islam and its leader in America. Barrack Obama. By your standard that would be a-okay. By mine its not. I guess low standards are a classic hallmark of liberalism.

I'm not splitting hairs, I'm stating the realities of the situation while you're coming up with absurd scenarios, that aren't even possible (you can't gain tax exempt status when you're running political ads as I've stated what must be 15 times now)