Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Sorry to say

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: Sorry to say
Post by Howard T. Map-addict   » Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:28 pm

Howard T. Map-addict
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1392
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:47 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Pacifists *were* demanding that ... right up until
Pearl Harbor Day (except during actual wartimes).

Since then there have been few enough pacifists
that their objections could be ignored.

HTM

gcomeau wrote:
So pacifists get to demand we don't use tax dollars for the Military then... right? And as the moral thing to do you would fully support that of course?
Top
Re: Sorry to say
Post by PeterZ   » Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:34 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

True, but national defense has been a well defined Constitutional responsibility of the federal Government. I am all for pacifists screaming bloody murder when our military is misused and the responsibility for defending our nation turns into something else a bit more aggressive.



Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Pacifists *were* demanding that ... right up until
Pearl Harbor Day (except during actual wartimes).

Since then there have been few enough pacifists
that their objections could be ignored.

HTM

gcomeau wrote:
So pacifists get to demand we don't use tax dollars for the Military then... right? And as the moral thing to do you would fully support that of course?
Top
Re: Sorry to say
Post by Donnachaidh   » Mon Oct 05, 2015 9:14 pm

Donnachaidh
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1018
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:11 pm

Can you please explain what you mean by these two sentences?

biochem wrote:Actually they wouldn't lose the federal funds in the first place and PP knows it. As I said, PP care more about abortions than women's healthcare.
_____________________________________________________
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
Top
Re: Sorry to say
Post by Imaginos1892   » Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:41 pm

Imaginos1892
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1332
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:24 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

biochem wrote:There is a very simple way Planned Parenthood could solve their problem. They could spin off abortion as a separate business, COLLECTING ALL THE FEDERAL FUNDS THEY WISH WITHOUT CONTROVERSY for the remaining women's healthcare business.

They could do that, but what about people that don't want their tax money spent on contraception, or VD prevention and treatment, or any of a dozen other services they have been told are "sins"? How many bits must Planned Parenthood break themselves into?

A lot of those other "healthcare" organizations you mention provide only one "service": a sanctimonious tirade that Sex Is Evil And You Are Evil For Having It!! Or Even Wanting To!!
--------------------
Deja moo: that funny feeling that you've heard the same bullshit before.
Top
Re: Sorry to say
Post by Starsaber   » Tue Oct 06, 2015 8:22 am

Starsaber
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:40 am

PeterZ wrote:True, but national defense has been a well defined Constitutional responsibility of the federal Government. I am all for pacifists screaming bloody murder when our military is misused and the responsibility for defending our nation turns into something else a bit more aggressive.





For example spending more on defense than the next 10-15 nations combined despite not having hostile powers on either of our borders?

And I'm asking this as someone who works in the defense industry whose job could be impacted by budget cuts.
Top
Re: Sorry to say
Post by biochem   » Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:11 pm

biochem
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:06 pm
Location: USA

gcomeau wrote:
biochem wrote:
Right now the segregation is just an accounting trick.


Explain in detail the "trick" part of the accounting, if you don't mind.


A noninflamatory analogy would be a college scholarship. Say for example the student has a $5000 scholarship that can only be spent on tuition but has $5000 in tuition and $5000 in room & board. The student then has to pay $5000 cash for the remainder. Now say that the scholarship is unrestricted and the student applies it 50/50. The student still has to pay $5000. It does not matter how the student divides the money (as long as the restricted scholarship is equal to or less than tuition) income is income and expenses are expenses and at the end of the day the student still gets $5000 and has to pay $5000 no matter how the money is officially divided for accounting purposes.

In the case of PP (as long as government $ are less than what PP claims to spend on non-abortion services) the same holds. No matter which column the accountant puts it in at the end of the day income (government plus non-government) equals expenses.

Now if the student's scholarship is defunded he now has to either pay $10000 or reduce expenses. If PP is defunded the same applies, they have to either increase their non-government income or reduce their services. More than likely they will be forced to reduce services. The idealists believe that they will be forced to reduce abortion services but I doubt it. Knowing them they will cut women's healthcare first.
Top
Re: Sorry to say
Post by biochem   » Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:16 pm

biochem
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:06 pm
Location: USA

Donnachaidh wrote:Can you please explain what you mean by these two sentences?

biochem wrote:Actually they wouldn't lose the federal funds in the first place and PP knows it. As I said, PP care more about abortions than women's healthcare.


This is in reference to the point that PP could split into 2 entirely separate companies. Say PP Women's Services which provides only non-abortion services and PP Abortion Services which provides only abortions and nothing else. Since PP is in trouble due to it's abortion services and abortion is what is driving the defunding debate, if those were split off into their own company there would be no compelling reason for conservatives to push to defund the now independent PP Women's Services since they don't provide abortions.
Top
Re: Sorry to say
Post by hanuman   » Sat Oct 10, 2015 12:10 am

hanuman
Captain of the List

Posts: 643
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:47 pm

Biochem, conservatives will simply find another pretext to defund your hypothetical non-abortion-providing PP Women's Services. Their objection isn't really to abortion, but to women's control over their own lives and bodies. I remember a few years back when one of the senior GOP senators stated that single women and gays who engage in extramarital sex should not be allowed to teach, yet when asked about single men doing the same thing claimed that it was only natural for men to want sex, not a single senior Republican leader ANYWHERE called him out for his hypocrisy. Examples like that abound. Abortion is nothing more than an excuse.
Top
Re: Sorry to say
Post by Annachie   » Sat Oct 10, 2015 3:32 am

Annachie
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

Daryl wrote:I'm either a bit thick, ill-informed, or have a very different world view; but it seems that the cornerstone of this debate is that Federal funds shouldn't be used for abortions.
Why not?

Religion. Pure and simple.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: Sorry to say
Post by Annachie   » Sat Oct 10, 2015 3:38 am

Annachie
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

Biochem, you completely ignore the group that says abortion is wrong but it is the womans choice, not yours or mine.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top

Return to Politics