The Dangers of a Govt Shutdown

SETIsLady · Post by **SETIsLady** » 04-10-2011 11:33 AM

Cherry Kelly wrote: Seti - when will the media call the Dems on their lies - ah - faux pas statements?

He probably meant 9% not 90% - but then who knows for sure - as if no one else GOP or DEM ever goofed like that...

Well I don't know anything about the vacation that you a referring to. However what Kyl said was intended to mislead. Otherwise he wouldn't not have said.

It says, ‘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.’

This was said intentionally to mislead the public, IMO.

This was on the record while Congress was in session. Perhaps he should have it said with a drum roll and a "but seriously folks"

Raggedyann · Post by **Raggedyann** » 04-10-2011 04:04 PM

Cherry Kelly wrote: Rom - just telling it like it is -you know that thing called REALITY - something you ignore unless its anti GOP....

= = = =
Raggedy --Something called security would have been alerted so that security could be established. Especially for presidential visits. Considering one of my home town boys was a security person in DC for many years - things planned in "advance" for when a president went somewhere - were always pre-checked, set up. (BTW he was military and worked under several different presidents.)

The "no fly zone" over Williamsburg was announced last week.

You seem to have far reaching connections to everything and everybody.

Sorry, but these claims do get old.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ds-newsxml

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 04-10-2011 09:51 PM

I read that Ezra Klein article. It's strange. I think he's not getting something.

"Well, the reality is that Planned Parenthood only deals 3% in infanticide. What's wrong with that?"

I'm not arguing either way, I'm just saying. It's a strange argument that doesn't really seem to understand the viewpoint of the other side at all.

SETIsLady · Post by **SETIsLady** » 04-10-2011 11:08 PM

I am sorry HB please do tell us about the women related medical care that you have tried to receive without medical insurance?

When was your last pap smear ? Or cancer screening as a woman without medical insurance.

I submit YOU don't get it.

And personal I am sick of men dragging woman back to the caves.

So tell us about your personal experience as a woman trying to get health care in a mans world.

Do tell us HB

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 04-10-2011 11:43 PM

Does anyone else not get my point? One other person and I'll rephrase it.

Raggedyann · Post by **Raggedyann** » 04-11-2011 12:17 AM

With all of these cuts and more of the same coming down the pike, I really am wondering just what Americans are paying taxes for. Infrastructure? Looks like that's been high on the priority list for a long time. Pretty soon the rich will be building their own walled in cities where everything is perfection and decadence and the rest can rot and fend for themselves on their $10 per hour.

SETIsLady · Post by **SETIsLady** » 04-11-2011 05:04 AM

HB3 wrote: I read that Ezra Klein article. It's strange. I think he's not getting something.

"Well, the reality is that Planned Parenthood only deals 3% in infanticide. What's wrong with that?"

I'm not arguing either way, I'm just saying. It's a strange argument that doesn't really seem to understand the viewpoint of the other side at all.

HB, there is no need to rephrase it can you please show me the article that you quote Ezra Klein stating the following.

"Well, the reality is that Planned Parenthood only deals 3% in infanticide. What's wrong with that?"

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 04-11-2011 12:31 PM

That's not a quote; it's an ironic paraphrase. The point is, if you really believe abortion is infanticide, it's not a question of percentages, and there didn't seem to be any awareness of this in Klein's piece -- or any of the arguments coming from the left utilizing percentages.

Post by **Linnea** » 04-11-2011 03:24 PM

Okay. I spent 20 minutes trying to find that "quote" by Ezra Klein - and I'm pissed off.

I knew that statement would not have been issued by Ezra Klein. No where is that statement found except on knee jerk, conservative (?) websites and/or spokespeople.

Very unethical and time wasting, HB.

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 04-11-2011 03:26 PM

You've got to be kidding.

I'm a bit stunned that the obvious point isn't being grasped here. I'd say it proves my point, but that'd be rubbing it in.

Post by **Linnea** » 04-11-2011 03:29 PM

Oh, and btw - following your 'logic', everyone alive today on the blue planet supports 'infanticide'. Let's get to that, and maybe we could have a real conversation.

Post by **Linnea** » 04-11-2011 03:30 PM

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 04-11-2011 03:31 PM

Ok, I'll try it again.

Obviously, Ezra Klein would not write such a thing, and I took it for granted that would be obvious.

It was, rather, an ironic paraphrase of his position from the perspective of the other side.

And that is: it's not a question of acceptable percentages. It doesn't matter if it's 90% or 9%. If you're truly against abortion, any number above "zero" is unacceptable.

I don't understand why this is so hard to understand, except that no credence is accorded to the perspective of the "other side."

My point is not to argue for or against abortion or Planned Parenthood but simply to point out this discrepancy.

Post by **Linnea** » 04-11-2011 03:36 PM

It actually does matter if an expenditure is 90% or 9% - when you are dealing with 'facts' and 'budgets'.

If one grows accustomed to dealing with 'facts' within a distorting miasma of ideology - you've got huge problems.

HB3 · Post by **HB3** » 04-11-2011 03:39 PM

The anti-abortionists aren't talking about expenditures. It's a totally different argument. One man's distorting miasma is another's moral clarity, and that's what the debate is really about.