Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Planned Parenthood exposed (Page 11)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15   
Author Topic: Planned Parenthood exposed
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Fetal tissue is a waste product of a medical procedure, any marginal return on it is profit.
What's baffling to me is that you clearly have heard the term "direct variable cost," but then go on to suggest that they're fictional -- invented by creative accountants -- and not wholly unavoidable costs like, say, storage and shipping.

From an accounting perspective, categorizing any return on fetal tissue as profit before factoring in direct costs associated with that cost object would be highly improper.

Because you misunderstand the accounting. Fetal tissue is a waste product of an abortion, it is generated without any cost, and will be generated no matter what.

The variable cost attribution comes from the process of preparing and shipping it, and the allocation of other costs comes from the legal, but inappropriate and misleading, attribution of overhead to the "product."

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
You're confusing revenue and profit. It's revenue, certainly, but it's only profit if it cannot be properly correlated to covering such costs; that's core to what profit is- net revenue in excess of costs of production. You can only get to calling it "profit" by conflating it with revenue and actively ignoring associated marginal costs, especially when the the ultimate bill is, as very explicitly stated many times over, assessed directly based on the marginal costs of providing the service.

I'm not confusing anything. I've already pointed out repeatedly the correct accounting treatment and the legality involved. It's still an accounting farce, and there is still no cost that they are required to incur.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The legal, but inappropriate and misleading, attribution of overhead to the "product"
Do you believe that all direct costs are misleading, or only ones related to the reclamation of waste products?

I ask because my wife is actually a researcher who is making nitrogen fertilizer from wastewater, and the cost of their product and their service is derived explicitly from the direct costs; wastewater is, like fetal tissue, basically free. Are you saying that the costs inextricable from the production and transportation of that fertilizer are inappropriate and misleading?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I ask because my wife is actually a researcher who is making nitrogen fertilizer from wastewater, and the cost of their product and their service is derived explicitly from the direct costs; wastewater is, like fetal tissue, basically free. Are you saying that the costs inextricable from the production and transportation of that fertilizer are inappropriate and misleading?

Overhead is by definition not a direct cost, do you understand what overhead is?

I've actually walked through why variable costs (which is what you are referring to with respect to your wife) are what should be used as the comparison. The issue with the allocation of overhead is that it can - legally - be used to cover any gap between the "price" paid and variable costs. The point of dispute on variable costs has always been about whether they have to incurred and billed back, or if they could be paid directly by the third party (thereby cleansing the tissue donation of any economic taint).

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The point of dispute on variable costs has always been about whether they have to incurred and billed back, or if they could be paid directly by the third party (thereby cleansing the tissue donation of any economic taint).
Ah. When you say "always," you mean "always by me, in this thread." But now I understand your argument.

And, of course, it's a ridiculous argument, unless your absolute first priority is to make sure that no money at all is left over at the end of a given transaction. Which is sort of a stupid priority, IMO.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you want to say the only question that has to do with the legality/illegality is a "ridiculous argument" feel free. Donating the tissues is totally legal, selling them for profit is not.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom didn't write anything about overhead.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except you're not actually posing a question. Because the question "are they charging a fair price for shipping" is unequivocally and unquestionably "yes." Every single investigation into that question comes up with a "yes."

What you are saying is that they can make the question moot by requiring people who want fetal tissue to jump through ridiculous and expensive hoops in an attempt to satisfy Republicans who aren't going to allow themselves to be satisfied in the first place. Which is stupid.

-------

Kate, all I can figure is that Seriati thinks that PP is spreading its general operating costs and facility expenses across what they're charging for fetal tissue shipments. He is actually a little fixated on the possibility, despite the fact that everything I've seen suggests otherwise.

[ September 22, 2015, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What a tremendous waste of time and effort. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with whether a profit is being made or not. It is an attack on abortion. Planned Parenthood has always been a primary target of the Prolife crowd. The reason the GOP is raising such a stink about profit is because a number of them voted to make the donation of tissue legal and don't want that focused on by their constituents.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
You're confusing revenue and profit. It's revenue, certainly, but it's only profit if it cannot be properly correlated to covering such costs; that's core to what profit is- net revenue in excess of costs of production. You can only get to calling it "profit" by conflating it with revenue and actively ignoring associated marginal costs, especially when the the ultimate bill is, as very explicitly stated many times over, assessed directly based on the marginal costs of providing the service.

I'm not confusing anything. I've already pointed out repeatedly the correct accounting treatment and the legality involved. It's still an accounting farce, and there is still no cost that they are required to incur.
There are costs that they cannot help but to incur because the inherent to the process of preserving and handling the tissue instead of disposing of it. And there are costs that it's logistically far more reasonable for them to incur, such as hiring a transport service when needed. And this is reflected in the law itself which makes it clear that recouping such costs are reasonable, since the law makers writing it realized that these were practical allowances to make and that it would represent an undue burden to just thought he useless and far more costly hoop[s that you've proposed they should do just for the sake of fantasies of accounting.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:

Kate, all I can figure is that Seriati thinks that PP is spreading its general operating costs and facility expenses across what they're charging for fetal tissue shipments. He is actually a little fixated on the possibility, despite the fact that everything I've seen suggests otherwise.

How can they do that and buy all the Lamborghinis? Is a Lamborghini an overhead cost?

[ September 22, 2015, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The variable cost attribution comes from the process of preparing and shipping it, and the allocation of other costs comes from the legal, but inappropriate and misleading, attribution of overhead to the "product."
There would be nothing inappropriate or misleading about that, and what's more, if there are costs that it covers, then it's not profit. Profit is only revenue in excess of all relevant costs. If they're only coving marginal costs and not accounting for some fraction of static costs, then they're providing the service at a loss.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
What a tremendous waste of time and effort. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with whether a profit is being made or not. It is an attack on abortion. Planned Parenthood has always been a primary target of the Prolife crowd. The reason the GOP is raising such a stink about profit is because a number of them voted to make the donation of tissue legal and don't want that focused on by their constituents.

Of course it is. It exists to that Carly Fiorina et al can shout about non-existent videos and congress critters can proclaim their votes to defund PP.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And so that Marco Rubio can talk about how women are "pushed" into having abortions so Planned Parenthood can sell the fetuses.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How can they do that and buy all the Lamborghinis? Is a Lamborghini an overhead cost?
I did a little checking. If the full $75 goes into the Lamborghini slush fund they would only need between 1650 and 3500 tissue sales to get one. I assume that more than one person at PP has set their sights on that prize, so just multiple the number of abortions by whatever total number of L's you think have blinded them with its lights.
quote:
Of course it is. It exists to that Carly Fiorina et al can shout about non-existent videos and congress critters can proclaim their votes to defund PP.
When Carly was challenged on TV yesterday about whether she saw the alleged film or was only told by someone else that they had seen it, she insisted that she herself had watched it. She also said she would not talk about it any further to someone who hadn't also seen it for themselves. She's better at the game than I gave her credit for...
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Tom didn't write anything about overhead.

quote:
Kate, all I can figure is that Seriati thinks that PP is spreading its general operating costs and facility expenses across what they're charging for fetal tissue shipments. He is actually a little fixated on the possibility, despite the fact that everything I've seen suggests otherwise.
He responded to me when I was talking about overhead.

In fairness, I didn't "fixate" on the subject until you all challenged really basic statements that I made early on in the thread.
quote:
Except you're not actually posing a question. Because the question "are they charging a fair price for shipping" is unequivocally and unquestionably "yes." Every single investigation into that question comes up with a "yes."
We've been talking about this for a while, that was not evident when I first raised this issue. And in fact is only available information because some people did in fact investigate - which is what I said was warranted. It's also something that could easily have been addressed - to my satisfaction - by some rather easy disclosures by PP a long time ago.
quote:
What you are saying is that they can make the question moot by requiring people who want fetal tissue to jump through ridiculous and expensive hoops in an attempt to satisfy Republicans who aren't going to allow themselves to be satisfied in the first place. Which is stupid.
I didn't say that at all. I said if it's illegal to sell fetal tissue but not to donate it you have to have a mechanism to tell the two situations apart. It could be regulatory or it could be criminal. In either case, the state has an obligation to act on the base of tips and/or yellow or red flags.

You could always change the law and let them sell the tissues for profit, or create a safe harbor for the amount of the transactions.
quote:
There would be nothing inappropriate or misleading about that, and what's more, if there are costs that it covers, then it's not profit. Profit is only revenue in excess of all relevant costs. If they're only coving marginal costs and not accounting for some fraction of static costs, then they're providing the service at a loss.
That's not the case for a waste product, but you're mixing up service and product to get to this answer. As an accounting matter, anything more than the direct variable costs connected to a disposition of a waste product provides extra revenue to an organization that it is solely an accounting matter as to whether its labeled as profit or something else. Dollars are fungible.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
Of course it is. It exists to that Carly Fiorina et al can shout about non-existent videos and congress critters can proclaim their votes to defund PP.
When Carly was challenged on TV yesterday about whether she saw the alleged film or was only told by someone else that they had seen it, she insisted that she herself had watched it. She also said she would not talk about it any further to someone who hadn't also seen it for themselves. She's better at the game than I gave her credit for...
That really made me laugh.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's an update on Carly's abortion video:
quote:
The video that Carly Fiorina graphically described at the last Republican presidential debate, depicting a moving fetus on a table following an apparent abortion, was released online in its entirety Tuesday morning, according to Gregg Cunningham, the founder of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, who collected the footage.

Cunningham, an anti-abortion activist, declined to identify the date, location or authors of the video in an interview with TIME Monday night, saying his group makes agreements of confidentiality in an effort to acquire images of abortions. He also made no claim that the images shown in the video had anything to do with Planned Parenthood, the organization that Fiorina and others have targeted for federal defunding. “I am neither confirming or denying the affiliation of the clinic who did this abortion,” Cunningham said.

During the debate on Sept. 16, Fiorina denounced the images on videos that had been produced by a separate group, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). “As regards [to] Planned Parenthood, anyone who has watched this videotape, I dare Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to watch these tapes,” she said. “Watch a fully formed fetus on the table, its heart beating, its legs kicking while someone says we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain.”

No video released by the Center for Medical Progress showed the image Fiorina described, but one of the CMP videos does include a brief edited clip from the video Cunningham released on Tuesday, showing a fetus on a stainless steel background with its leg moving.

David Daleiden, who created the Center for Medical Progress videos, edited in the Cunningham footage to illustrate a story that he had been told on camera of a medical technician witnessing an abortion that resulted in an extracted fetus with moving legs and beating heart.

To recap, Carly's claims are bull****, but I am sure she won't back down.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If nothing else, Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated that by far the most successful tactic they have is emphatically repeating a lie.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Politifact has checked Ben Carson on 10 recent claims. The score:
quote:
We’ve fact-checked Carson, a newcomer to the political scene, 10 times so far: one Pants on Fire, four Falses, three Mostly Falses, zero Mostly Trues and zero Trues.
Frankly, he's about the same is almost all of the others.

[ September 30, 2015, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wasn't going to bother, but your latest assertions rubbed me the wrong way. Accusing Republicans of lieing, when it's been widely reported that the videos were not in fact heavily edit or manipulated, and that means that the real liars were on the side claiming they were. So do you all intend to pretend that the big ole lie you guys kept citing was immaterial?
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
when it's been widely reported that the videos were not in fact heavily edit or manipulated
It's been widely reported by dishonest media. The videos were heavily edited, the scenes described were not in the original videos released that were the topic of conversation at the time, and the scenes described are not actually of Planned Parenthood clinics. There is, in other words, nothing honest about them -- and Fiorina not only knows this, but knows she screwed up by confusing one video for another in her original speech. She also realizes that dishonest foot soldiers will go to bat for her if she just refuses to admit error, by saying that it's "widely reported" that up is down and black is white.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, the people who perpetrated the videos of the supposed aborted fetus have admitted that it was a stillborn (miscarried) fetus and that it was not filmed at a Planned Parenthood Center. It was done to suggest how it would look if it were an aborted fetus that was still alive. Carly's comment that she heard them talking about how to keep it alive long enough to harvest the brain is not on the tape. The lies are too sordid to recount in full, but here is the group that collected and released the video admitting that it isn't what Carly says it is, and here is David Delieden admitting that the fetus pictured was from a miscarriage, not an abortion:
quote:
David Daleiden, the project lead Center for Medical Progress’ anti-Planned Parenthood campaign, admitted on Wednesday that an alleged fetus on a table that GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina described during a graphic anti-abortion rant was actually from a miscarriage.
Check your sources, Seriati. That, btw, is what Cecile Richards (the head of PP) told Chaffetz (the head of the House investigative committee) when he asserted he was displaying a graph taking from their (PP) own annual reports that turned out to be a bogus chart he took from a group called Americans United For Life.

The video of the stillborn fetus was used without permission by the couple whose fetus it was. They have decided not to sue, because they are strongly anti-abortion and don't want to stop the group that used it from promoting their agenda.

I'm *very* disappointed that you so willingly bought into the anti-PP narrative. By doing so you are emulating the behavior of the least trustworthy participants in this "debate". I hope you will correct your statement.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I seem, so you're pretending now that you comments relate solely to the inclusion of the video of the stillborn fetus, which the producers have refused to confirm where the video was from.

Does that mean you completely retract your other claims about the videos being heavily edited? Or is this an area where your going to double down against apparent facts you dislike?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati, I think it is now incumbent upon you to identify which videos you're talking about. There are at least four different sources, which certain idiots -- including presidential candidates -- are rather disingenuously conflating into a single discussion.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It doesn't appear that Seriati is talking about the first five videos from the Center for Medical Progress. Those have been analyzed by three teams of experts, who found "that all of the videos analyzed -- even the supposedly "full," unedited footage the CMP released -- were missing large sections of time and misleadingly altered so that separate conversations appeared to take place in an uninterrupted take. Moreover, the forensic team found that the transcripts CMS released with the videos were frequently erroneous."

quote:
The videos show Planned Parenthood doctors discussing the donation of fetal tissue after abortions -- a legal practice. But the CMP edited the videos into episodes that make it look as though Planned Parenthood is selling fetal parts for profit and changing abortion methods to deliver intact specimens...

Simpson said his team of experts found that the subtitles in the videos do not correspond to the actual dialogue, and that the CMP may have simply invented parts of the conversation when the recordings were too low-quality to determine what was really being said. In one case, the video indicates that a technician said, "It's a baby." But those words cannot actually be heard in the video -- the segment consists of incomprehensible background chatter.

"In our view, CMP created the purported statement, 'It's a baby,' either through transcription error or intentional fabrication," Simpson wrote in the report.

While this report is not definitive (having been commissioned by Planned Parenthood), it certainly brings into doubt Seriati's statement that it has been "widely reported that the videos were not in fact heavily edit or manipulated," if he happens to be referring to these videos.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the incomprehensible background chatter, you can faintly hear President Obama's grandmother.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW, Fenring, what do you think about the House is being run by Radical Conservatives?

241 votes to defund Planned Parenthood. And the worst part is, it wasn't just to take away a grant given to them. It was specifically to prevent Planned Parenthood from being paid for cancer screening and treatment, regular contraception, and STD testing and treatment, by preventing them from being able to charge for these things to Medicaid. Primarily for people at 150 percent below the poverty line.

All because of some accusations on some ginned-up videos that have never been confirmed.

Republicans are disgusting. [Mad]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
BTW, Fenring, what do you think about the House is being run by Radical Conservatives?

I don't like the way government is run at all, or the reasons people even think government should exist. Regarding the Republicans they seem to be against public health care, which would mean they put this topic under the general umbrella that government shouldn't be in the business of paying for private service out of other people's pockets. You can say what you want about the honesty of this kind of claim, but it seems to me roughly similar not to want to fund PP on the same grounds they don't want to fund health care in general. These points appear to at least be consistent, whether or not they are sensible.

I personally sympathize with pro-life people who don't want to be specifically contributing to abortion, but then again I can hardly imagine how they're ok funding the military industrial complex in the same breath.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, Fenring, I was specifically referring to how they decided to defund PP because of the ginned-up videos (notice the House didn't try to cut off all Medicaid payments, just those to PP [Smile] ), but I guess you have to start somewhere.

It still shows that the House Representatives are acting like a kangaroo court. [Frown]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Regarding the Republicans they seem to be against public health care, which would mean they put this topic under the general umbrella that government shouldn't be in the business of paying for private service...
Except that this isn't the rationale they're putting forward. No one is saying "cut off payments to Planned Parenthood because we shouldn't be paying for medical care to the poor."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
GOP Probe Into Planned Parenthood Funding Comes Up Empty

quote:
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Thursday that the GOP's investigation into Planned Parenthood's use of federal funds hasn't turned up anything.

"Did I look at the finances and have a hearing specifically as to the revenue portion and how they spend? Yes. Was there any wrongdoing? I didn't find any," he said during a Judiciary Committee hearing on the family planning provider.

quote:
Chaffetz said Thursday that he still supports digging into Planned Parenthood's activities, even if they're using their money appropriately.

"I think there will continue to be investigations," he said.

Of course there will.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No need to wait for the investigation to conclude is there? Of course not. The vote to create the panel to investigate was only 2 days ago. Gotta be done by now!
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're right, Rafi. No need to wait. Republicans don't need facts to support their conclusions. Kangaroo courts never do. They have (self-)righteousness on their side!

After all, that's why they've all ready voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Investigation is unnecessary. They know the verdict. They don't need no stinking facts. [Mad]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We have most of the facts, the videos (unedited and complete)are pretty damning.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They really aren't.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They aren't complete or damning, but they are videos, which is all you need.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They aren't unedited, either. *laugh*
I'm deeply curious which "facts" G# thinks are damning.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
They really aren't.

You really need to watch them, not just take PP's press release.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm watching The Manchurian Candidate. I can't believe how close they came!!!!
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1