Revnak: So is plastic surgery. So are circumcisions. Neither should be paid for with government money unless it is significantly necessary. I think the same can be said of abortions.
And guess what? The amount of government money that pays for abortions is infinitesimal.
Revnak: And thank you for thinking I shouldn't be part of the democratic process because I dislike abortion. I suppose you would not like the tables to be turner regarding foreign wars if you fit a certain stereotype. Maybe those who disliked racism should have just been told to shut up and deal with it, especially those white folks who should have known better.
lolwut
Persecution complex in aisle five ...
1. Then why not make it zero? 2. You said that a government funded agency should not consider my opinion, the opinion of a taxpayer, about whether or not they should carry out abortions. I apologize for making baseless assumptions about you, but a previous poster had just insulted me in a manner that honestly confused me. I was in a bit of a mood I suppose.
Well, no, the agency shouldn't consider YOUR opinion (or mine, or anyone else's), since that's not how the U.S. works. If you're that against abortion, then vote for people who will change the law.
And why not make it zero? Because terminating a pregnancy is not always a bad thing. It's not a good thing, necessarily.
And guess what? The amount of government money that pays for abortions is infinitesimal.
lolwut
Persecution complex in aisle five ...
1. Then why not make it zero? 2. You said that a government funded agency should not consider my opinion, the opinion of a taxpayer, about whether or not they should carry out abortions. I apologize for making baseless assumptions about you, but a previous poster had just insulted me in a manner that honestly confused me. I was in a bit of a mood I suppose.
Well, no, the agency shouldn't consider YOUR opinion (or mine, or anyone else's), since that's not how the U.S. works. If you're that against abortion, then vote for people who will change the law.
And why not make it zero? Because terminating a pregnancy is not always a bad thing. It's not a good thing, necessarily.
1. Then why send letters to congressmen and the like? Each individual should make their opinions known. 2. Then why not set it up so that the kind of abortion that is absolutely necessary, the kind that is more likely to be carried out in an emergency room than a clinic?
Revnak: So is plastic surgery. So are circumcisions. Neither should be paid for with government money unless it is significantly necessary. I think the same can be said of abortions.
And guess what? The amount of government money that pays for abortions is infinitesimal.
Revnak: And thank you for thinking I shouldn't be part of the democratic process because I dislike abortion. I suppose you would not like the tables to be turner regarding foreign wars if you fit a certain stereotype. Maybe those who disliked racism should have just been told to shut up and deal with it, especially those white folks who should have known better.
lolwut
Persecution complex in aisle five ...
1. Then why not make it zero?
Because the SC ruled that abortion is legal.
2. You said that a government funded agency should not consider my opinion, the opinion of a taxpayer, about whether or not they should carry out abortions.
Does the government consider your opinion for their special ops budget? Does the government consider your opinion before dropping bombs that kill civillians? Does the government consider your opinion on any field you are not an expect on?
Revnak: So is plastic surgery. So are circumcisions. Neither should be paid for with government money unless it is significantly necessary. I think the same can be said of abortions.
And guess what? The amount of government money that pays for abortions is infinitesimal.
Nonsense. The US government funds abortions as late as the 118th trimester, as long as they're of brown-skinned people in foreign countries we don't like. And the government spends a LOT of money to make sure that they can terminate those non-viable tissue clusters by the thousands at a moment's notice. But for some strange reason, these 'sanctity of life' bullshitters almost never get worked up about THAT...
And guess what? The amount of government money that pays for abortions is infinitesimal.
lolwut
Persecution complex in aisle five ...
1. Then why not make it zero?
Because the SC ruled that abortion is legal.
2. You said that a government funded agency should not consider my opinion, the opinion of a taxpayer, about whether or not they should carry out abortions.
Does the government consider your opinion for their special ops budget? Does the government consider your opinion before dropping bombs that kill civillians? Does the government consider your opinion on any field you are not an expect on?
1. Does the government pay for everything that is legal? Why do I have to keep explaining this? 2. Should the government consider my opinions on such things? I'd say they should, otherwise it isn't representing my interests and therefore fails to be a representative government. And why am I suddenly not an expert on what people should be doing with my money. MINE. I have every right to have a say in how it is used.
Revnak: 1. I knew this, and it has even less to do with family planning than STD testing. As ovaries and breasts are technically sex organs of a sort, my name is still more appropriate.
So... you just want to fancy yourself clever for a few seconds?
2. That is somewhat rude. Republicans don't advocate government funded family planning beyond marriage. I'm pretty certain they're all for marital and family counseling of all sorts. They just want you to pay for it yourself. Same with birth control, though only being against the abortion part of planned parenthood could be seen to imply they aren't against government paying for people to get condoms and the like.
Depends on the ones you ask. The more socially conservative they are, the more they oppose any kind of family unit that does not resemble a 1950's sitcom.
As for being rude, deal. I no longer have any reason to be nice to the Republicans.
Because I believe that the government should provide for all healthcare. The job of a government is to protect the welfare of its citizens. Which is the opposite of letting a bunch of private sector vampires charge me out the ass for insurance that they can deny me whenever they want because it's profitable to do so.
1. Then why not make it zero? 2. You said that a government funded agency should not consider my opinion, the opinion of a taxpayer, about whether or not they should carry out abortions. I apologize for making baseless assumptions about you, but a previous poster had just insulted me in a manner that honestly confused me. I was in a bit of a mood I suppose.
Well, no, the agency shouldn't consider YOUR opinion (or mine, or anyone else's), since that's not how the U.S. works. If you're that against abortion, then vote for people who will change the law.
And why not make it zero? Because terminating a pregnancy is not always a bad thing. It's not a good thing, necessarily.
1. Then why send letters to congressmen and the like? Each individual should make their opinions known.
Individuals opinions only matter on issues that directly effect them. Abortion does not tangibly effect you in any measurable way; if you want to take the route that your tax dollars makes you responsible, I'd like to remind you that your tax dollars have led to hundreds if not thousands of civillians being killed by US made arms and munitions, so your hands would be bloody anyway.
2. Then why not set it up so that the kind of abortion that is absolutely necessary, the kind that is more likely to be carried out in an emergency room than a clinic?
Because the Supreme Court ruled that Abortion is legal, because Emergency Rooms are already overcrowded, because emergency rooms are for, you know, emergencies, because it's always better to have a room dedicated to a spefic procedure, because all the pro-life nutters will protest that emergency rooms are being used for abortions instead of saving lives.
Revnak: 1. I knew this, and it has even less to do with family planning than STD testing. As ovaries and breasts are technically sex organs of a sort, my name is still more appropriate.
So... you just want to fancy yourself clever for a few seconds?
2. That is somewhat rude. Republicans don't advocate government funded family planning beyond marriage. I'm pretty certain they're all for marital and family counseling of all sorts. They just want you to pay for it yourself. Same with birth control, though only being against the abortion part of planned parenthood could be seen to imply they aren't against government paying for people to get condoms and the like.
Depends on the ones you ask. The more socially conservative they are, the more they oppose any kind of family unit that does not resemble a 1950's sitcom.
As for being rude, deal. I no longer have any reason to be nice to the Republicans.
Because I believe that the government should provide for all healthcare. The job of a government is to protect the welfare of its citizens. Which is the opposite of letting a bunch of private sector vampires charge me out the ass for insurance that they can deny me whenever they want because it's profitable to do so.
1. Nah it was a joke. 2. We have every recent to be decent with one another. Nice, no, but decent, yes. And I'm not one by the way. Independent. 3. That is another argument, though I don't think that unnecessary healthcare should be considered at all. Abortions are not always necessary, though when they are I believe the government should pay for them.
2. You said that a government funded agency should not consider my opinion, the opinion of a taxpayer, about whether or not they should carry out abortions.
Does the government consider your opinion for their special ops budget? Does the government consider your opinion before dropping bombs that kill civillians? Does the government consider your opinion on any field you are not an expect on?
1. Does the government pay for everything that is legal? Why do I have to keep explaining this?
Let's see; it's related to women's health. The constitution states that the government has a resposiblity to keep their citizens healthy.
You wouldn't have to keep explaining it if it wasn't so blatantly wrong.
2. Should the government consider my opinions on such things? I'd say they should, otherwise it isn't representing my interests and therefore fails to be a representative government. And why am I suddenly not an expert on what people should be doing with my money. MINE. I have every right to have a say in how it is used.
No, you don't, because you are not an economist, you are not a scientist, you're not a general, you're not an expert in an field, so the notion that you get a say in matters you have no idea about is just stupid.
And you don't know what a representive government is; you vote for people to represent you and your best interests; that is what it is. You're mixing it up with direct democracy where an individual's opinion matters, even if that indivudal is a complete idiot on whatever field the decision relies in.
Well, no, the agency shouldn't consider YOUR opinion (or mine, or anyone else's), since that's not how the U.S. works. If you're that against abortion, then vote for people who will change the law.
And why not make it zero? Because terminating a pregnancy is not always a bad thing. It's not a good thing, necessarily.
1. Then why send letters to congressmen and the like? Each individual should make their opinions known.
Individuals opinions only matter on issues that directly effect them. Abortion does not tangibly effect you in any measurable way; if you want to take the route that your tax dollars makes you responsible, I'd like to remind you that your tax dollars have led to hundreds if not thousands of civillians being killed by US made arms and munitions, so your hands would be bloody anyway.
2. Then why not set it up so that the kind of abortion that is absolutely necessary, the kind that is more likely to be carried out in an emergency room than a clinic?
Because the Supreme Court ruled that Abortion is legal, because Emergency Rooms are already overcrowded, because emergency rooms are for, you know, emergencies, because it's always better to have a room dedicated to a spefic procedure, because all the pro-life nutters will protest that emergency rooms are being used for abortions instead of saving lives.
Take your pick.
1. And I am against how my tax dollars are being used in foreign wars. I am surprised you continue to assume I'm not. And as long as I am against how my tax dollars are being used then it certainly isn't my fault that they are being misused. 2. Why pay for unnecessary surgery? To appease people who hate that surgery's very existence. I'm pretty certain people who dislike abortion will be even more angry if the government is funding it.
Does the government consider your opinion for their special ops budget? Does the government consider your opinion before dropping bombs that kill civillians? Does the government consider your opinion on any field you are not an expect on?
1. Does the government pay for everything that is legal? Why do I have to keep explaining this?
Let's see; it's related to women's health. The constitution states that the government has a resposiblity to keep their citizens healthy.
You wouldn't have to keep explaining it if it wasn't so blatantly wrong.
2. Should the government consider my opinions on such things? I'd say they should, otherwise it isn't representing my interests and therefore fails to be a representative government. And why am I suddenly not an expert on what people should be doing with my money. MINE. I have every right to have a say in how it is used.
No, you don't, because you are not an economist, you are not a scientist, you're not a general, you're not an expert in an field, so the notion that you get a say in matters you have no idea about is just stupid.
And you don't know what a representive government is; you vote for people to represent you and your best interests; that is what it is. You're mixing it up with direct democracy where an individual's opinion matters, even if that indivudal is a complete idiot on whatever field the decision relies in.
1. Healthy? I think you may be reading into things a bit, but I'll ask you this then, why don't they control our diets then? Why don't we already have socialized healthcare? Why don't we have stricter ecological guidelines then? Because the government does not pay for things that are unnecessary. 2. You're the one who doesn't know what a representative government is then. They are supposed to represent me and my best interests, and me and my best interests does not involve wasting my money on needless surgeries. If the surgery is necessary, then go ahead I suppose, though I've never been the world's greatest supporter of socialized medicine, if they can't afford it than by all means the government should be paying for it.
Revnak: 1. Then why not make it zero? 2. You said that a government funded agency should not consider my opinion, the opinion of a taxpayer, about whether or not they should carry out abortions. I apologize for making baseless assumptions about you, but a previous poster had just insulted me in a manner that honestly confused me. I was in a bit of a mood I suppose.
1.) It is zero. The article states quite clearly "Arizona does not provide tax dollars for abortion". The federal government has a ban on it, though it gives money to PP. States vary, with some states allowing for tax payer funded abortions but many do not.
Republicans argue that by giving money to PP, you're indirectly paying for abortion by helping to cover the costs of their other services. So they have more of their non-government money to spend on abortion, and that's bad. Also, most physical PP facilities do NOT offer abortion services. The doctors are simply too expensive to have everywhere. A quick check at their website shows that 4 out of 14 PP's in Arizona provide abortion services.
Revnak: 1. Then why not make it zero? 2. You said that a government funded agency should not consider my opinion, the opinion of a taxpayer, about whether or not they should carry out abortions. I apologize for making baseless assumptions about you, but a previous poster had just insulted me in a manner that honestly confused me. I was in a bit of a mood I suppose.
1.) It is zero. The article states quite clearly "Arizona does not provide tax dollars for abortion". The federal government has a ban on it, though it gives money to PP. States vary, with some states allowing for tax payer funded abortions but many do not.
However, Republicans argue that by giving money to PP, you're indirectly paying for abortion by helping to cover the costs of the other services. So they have more of their non-government money to spend on abortion, and that's bad. Also, most physical PP facilities do NOT offer abortion services. The doctors are simply too expensive to have everywhere. A quick check at their website shows that 4 out of 14 PP's in Arizona provide abortion services.
And this is a line of argument I can get behind, just like I did before. What PP does is vital, and if taxpayer money isn't really going to fund abortions then this is a terrible thing to have happen. I guess the argument would be stronger if they had no facilities that offered abortions, and if they changed to that and Arizona still didn't give them their funding then people have every right to be outraged. I still think that 4 out of 14 clinics is minuscule though, and even then they still don't do many. None would be better, but I suppose the benefits outweigh the losses.
Here is a nice graph for people to understand how small part abortion is of PP. (2009 number)
And the fact that Arizona already do not give any money to PP for abortion makes this law very odd imo. "The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law."
Skeleon: How come we continue to get these sorts of bills out of there?
Space magic. How else could you explain the sort of crap that's been happening lately?
I understand peyote is rather easy to get down there...
So this means that Planned Parenthood now gets NO money? Okay, so some people have an issue with abortion. Okay. But how the hell do you justify taking away the money that also goes to things like...
STI screening and treatment Sex and pregnancy education Providing people with protection Counseling for rape victims (Planned Parenthood does that right?) Sexual/reproductive health screening (ie, testing for things like cervical or breast cancer)
Oh right, 'well women should just not have sex' uh-huh.
Revnak: 2. We have every recent to be decent with one another. Nice, no, but decent, yes. And I'm not one by the way. Independent.
Didn't say you were a Republican. But Republicans are the ones pushing for this bullshit, and I call it like I see it. I'm not going to be nice to a party that has so consistently opposed everything I value and are so riddled with corruption, nepotism and croneyism. If the Republican party folded tomorrow, I wouldn't bat an eye. Maybe that would leave room for a real conservative party to take the stage in the US.
3. That is another argument, though I don't think that unnecessary healthcare should be considered at all. Abortions are not always necessary, though when they are I believe the government should pay for them.
They already don't, so what's the bloody difference at this point? Still, it all rings hollow to me. People who oppose abortions end up getting them anyway when the shit hits the fan. And they're always ready with an excuse about why their situation or story is different and why everyone else involved is going to hell but they aren't. I've learned not to trust moralizers. The brighter the picture, the darker the negative.
WOW HOLY HELL HOW DO YOU LOOK THAT OLD. I wasn't even aware it was possible to look that ancient, but wow here we are.
Moving on, "By signing this measure into law I stand with the majority of Americans who oppose the use of taxpayer funds for abortion..." It's pretty obvious that this decrypt bitch only cares about obtaining as many votes as possible, and has no concern nor care for what that right thing to do is. The right thing being not going after fucking everything that has anything, however remote, to do with a cause you rally against.
Want to be anti-abortion? GOOD FOR YOU! I'll bitch at you, you'll bitch at me. Want to ban funding to a organization that spends a superminority of its funds on abortion, 0% of said abortionfunding coming from the goverment? Fuck off and take your fat horse with you.
1. Healthy? I think you may be reading into things a bit, but I'll ask you this then, why don't they control our diets then? Why don't we already have socialized healthcare? Why don't we have stricter ecological guidelines then? Because the government does not pay for things that are unnecessary.
Because our government still recognizes that people should be allowed to enjoy themselves(, as long as they don't take any Unholy drugs). Because it would cut into corporate profits. Because it would cut into corporate profits.
1. Healthy? I think you may be reading into things a bit, but I'll ask you this then, why don't they control our diets then? Why don't we already have socialized healthcare? Why don't we have stricter ecological guidelines then? Because the government does not pay for things that are unnecessary.
Because our government still recognizes that people should be allowed to enjoy themselves(, as long as they don't take any Unholy drugs). Because it would cut into corporate profits. Because it would cut into corporate profits.
Because corporations have always had absolute control over government. Even back when the dominating party was all about farmers. Yeah. I don't like conspiracy theories or cynics in case you haven't guessed.
Revnak: Because corporations have always had absolute control over government. Even back when the dominating party was all about farmers. Yeah. I don't like conspiracy theories or cynics in case you haven't guessed.
Let me see if I get this straight. You're arguing that corporations do not have disproportionate influence in Washington? And to support this, you are pointing to a time period where neither universal healthcare nor ecological science were even a thing and saying that it proves assertions of government/corporate collusion are just a conspiracy theory? Please tell me that's not what you're saying, because if you are I'm going to start drinking again.
And don't bullshit me by claiming we don't need environmental regulation. I live in Pittsburgh, a city that used to be so dirty because of the steel mills that you couldn't hang your laundry out to dry because it would turn black from soot. That's not hyperbole, that actually happened. Or if you want an example from the more recent past, two words: Love Canal.
Revnak: Because corporations have always had absolute control over government. Even back when the dominating party was all about farmers. Yeah. I don't like conspiracy theories or cynics in case you haven't guessed.
Let me see if I get this straight. You're arguing that corporations do not have disproportionate influence in Washington? And to support this, you are pointing to a time period where neither universal healthcare nor ecological science were even a thing and saying that it proves assertions of government/corporate collusion are just a conspiracy theory? Please tell me that's not what you're saying, because if you are I'm going to start drinking again.
Did I say they didn't have a disproportionate influence? No, I said they didn't have an absolute influence. There is a difference. One is the stance of a moderate, the others the stances of morons. And the person I had originally quoted (long, long ago) was referring to the US constitution, which is older than the political party I was talking about, though I suppose I could have made a better counterargument than that, I think the first sentence was argument enough.
And I really tire of posting here because everyone seems to want to start a fight. There was really no good reason for the person that quoted me to say what they did. They just took a cynical swipe at my argument rather than make a real counterpoint to the idea that government shouldn't waste money on unnecessary spending.
Revnak: So is plastic surgery. So are circumcisions. Neither should be paid for with government money unless it is significantly necessary. I think the same can be said of abortions.
And it doesn't occur to you that abortion is without a shadow of a doubt, signifantly necessary? In the case of rape victims you're talking lifelong trauma, in other cases you're talking about people failing their education, failing jobs, getting tied down in life at totally unexpected moments. Summarizing: not having abortion available means deep deep shit.
But go ahead, disagree with me. Try to argue that having a child is a frivolous affair that costs no effort and has no strings attached, so anyone could do it at any time and not be hindered by it.
Tubez: Here is a nice graph for people to understand how small part abortion is of PP. (2009 number)
And the fact that Arizona already do not give any money to PP for abortion makes this law very odd imo. "The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law."
Stop spreading your liberal propaganda from an obviously biased source, I can debunk that entire fucking graph in like one paragraph, watch and learn kids.
That graph is VERY misleading. Let's take a quick look at the two 35% procedures planned parenthood mostly perform. 35% STD/STI infections. When you are having unprotected sex, there is a high likelihood of planting a parasitic infection (baby) into the female host that sucks up resources for nine months, so the abortion would fall under an STI/STD. See this clever dodging? It's still an abortion but it's called *treatment for STI/STD* absolutely disgusting. Also, take a look at the contraception. It lowers the abortion rate performed by Planned Parenthood, because it aborts the baby before it's even born by providing "safe" sex, yeah safe for everyone but the baby. This ties into the 16% Cancer Treatment/Prevention statistic. What's the best way to prevent cancer in a patient? Stop them from being born, makes the chance of them getting cancer 0%. Coincidence? Or plot for good healthcare statistics? I'll leave that one up to you to decide, either way chalk up another 16% of abortions to "treatment".
Seriously, you guys need to pull your head from the fucking sand and pull up your bootstraps.
"Planned" Parenthood indeed, more like Planned Non-Parenthood if you follow me.
Revnak: So is plastic surgery. So are circumcisions. Neither should be paid for with government money unless it is significantly necessary. I think the same can be said of abortions.
And it doesn't occur to you that abortion is without a shadow of a doubt, signifantly necessary? In the case of rape victims you're talking lifelong trauma, in other cases you're talking about people failing their education, failing jobs, getting tied down in life at totally unexpected moments. Summarizing: not having abortion available means deep deep shit.
But go ahead, disagree with me. Try to argue that having a child is a frivolous affair that costs no effort and has no strings attached, so anyone could do it at any time and not be hindered by it.
Did I say abortion was always unnecessary? Nope, I did not. Stop assuming I fit into your little box. I merely am saying that sometimes it is not necessary, such as the case of the upper middle class teen who wants an abortion so her father won't realize she is not a virgin and will still buy her a sports car for her birthday. I would even venture to say that abortions of teens in general are largely frivolous, as adoption at no point ceased to exist and one lost year of school (among the worst possible outcomes here) is not beyond correction in the long run. However that is debatable. The idea that some abortions are unnecessary is not.
Tubez: Here is a nice graph for people to understand how small part abortion is of PP. (2009 number)
And the fact that Arizona already do not give any money to PP for abortion makes this law very odd imo. "The group does receive federal funding, but the money cannot be used for abortions by law."
Stop spreading your liberal propaganda from an obviously biased source, I can debunk that entire fucking graph in like one paragraph, watch and learn kids.
That graph is VERY misleading. Let's take a quick look at the two 35% procedures planned parenthood mostly perform. 35% STD/STI infections. When you are having unprotected sex, there is a high likelihood of planting a parasitic infection (baby) into the female host that sucks up resources for nine months, so the abortion would fall under an STI/STD. See this clever dodging? It's still an abortion but it's called *treatment for STI/STD* absolutely disgusting. Also, take a look at the contraception. It lowers the abortion rate performed by Planned Parenthood, because it aborts the baby before it's even born by providing "safe" sex, yeah safe for everyone but the baby. This ties into the 16%. What's the best way to prevent cancer in a patient? Stop them from being born, makes the chance of them getting cancer 0%. Coincidence? Or plot for good healthcare statistics? I'll leave that one up to you to decide.
Seriously, you guys need to pull your head from the fucking sand and pull up your bootstraps.
"Planned" Parenthood indeed, more like Planned Non-Parenthood if you follow me.
So, any proof that the underlying data was fudged in this way, or shall we simply dismiss your absurd conspiracy theory?
So, any proof that the underlying data was fudged in this way, or shall we simply dismiss your absurd conspiracy theory?
How dare you, my argument is infallible.
I'm not sure if you are trolling, being sarcastic or really are that incredible naive.
I'm 99% certain it's a crime for PP to fabricate data. And Arizonia is still stupid for doing this, just like 90% of what the current governer has done lately.
So, any proof that the underlying data was fudged in this way, or shall we simply dismiss your absurd conspiracy theory?
How dare you, my argument is infallible.
I'm 99% certain it's a crime for PP to fabricate data. And Arizonia is still stupid for doing this, just like 90% of what the current governer has done lately.
No... I didn't say the data was fabricated, I said it was misleading.
I'm 99% certain it's a crime for PP to fabricate data. And Arizonia is still stupid for doing this, just like 90% of what the current governer has done lately.
No... I didn't say the data was fabricated, I said it was misleading.
A baby is not a STI/STD, therefore to try and claim it is would be a crime. Also impossible to cover up, sinceyou need an abortion doctor and equipment for an abortion, and you need an STI expert and equipment for STI treatment.
If you're trying to invoke poe's law, you're failing badly at it.
I'm 99% certain it's a crime for PP to fabricate data. And Arizonia is still stupid for doing this, just like 90% of what the current governer has done lately.
No... I didn't say the data was fabricated, I said it was misleading.
A baby is not a STI/STD, therefore to try and claim it is would be a crime. Also impossible to cover up, sinceyou need an abortion doctor and equipment for an abortion, and you need an STI expert and equipment for STI treatment.
If you're trying to invoke poe's law, you're failing badly at it.
No... I didn't say the data was fabricated, I said it was misleading.
A baby is not a STI/STD, therefore to try and claim it is would be a crime. Also impossible to cover up, sinceyou need an abortion doctor and equipment for an abortion, and you need an STI expert and equipment for STI treatment.
If you're trying to invoke poe's law, you're failing badly at it.
I thought it was pretty funny.
You need to be more outragous and wild; somewhere out there there is a right-wing nutjob who said the exact same thing. You could start by tying in the "gay agenda" or "socialism" in there somewhere.
A baby is not a STI/STD, therefore to try and claim it is would be a crime. Also impossible to cover up, sinceyou need an abortion doctor and equipment for an abortion, and you need an STI expert and equipment for STI treatment.
If you're trying to invoke poe's law, you're failing badly at it.
I thought it was pretty funny.
You need to be more outragous and wild; somewhere out there there is a right-wing nutjob who said the exact same thing. You could start by tying in the "gay agenda" or "socialism" in there somewhere.
I tried to make it believable yet incredibly stupid though, you can only go so far with the gay agenda and socialism.
Revnak: Did I say they didn't have a disproportionate influence? No, I said they didn't have an absolute influence. There is a difference. One is the stance of a moderate, the others the stances of morons. And the person I had originally quoted (long, long ago) was referring to the US constitution, which is older than the political party I was talking about, though I suppose I could have made a better counterargument than that, I think the first sentence was argument enough.
But you still deny that the private insurance industry will throw a shitload of lobbyist money at Congress to prevent a public option? You're just going to assert that we don't have it because we don't need it? Considering how badly we lag behind the other first world nations in terms of coverage, cost and effectiveness of health care, I have a hard time buying that. Our health care was actually way better when the insurance companies were all non-profit. Allowing them to go for-profit was one of the worst ideas this country ever had.
Corporations have had influence that they shouldn't ever since the Supreme Court made the boneheaded decision that they count as people. Corporate collusion is what made the Grant administration one of the most corrupt in the nation's history. But we pick on the Republicans because they're the ones who bang on the loudest about the free market and then dick around with it the most. Oil companies for example are experiencing record profits and the Republicans still want to give them more subsidies and tax breaks.
You call it a conspiracy theory, but there's an easy way to explain why there are a lot of beneficial things we don't have: it's all about the money, Lebowski! Corporate collusion is one of this country's greatest problems and it's holding us back to an insane degree. And now we have Citizens United which has only made it worse.
Well, no, the agency shouldn't consider YOUR opinion (or mine, or anyone else's), since that's not how the U.S. works. If you're that against abortion, then vote for people who will change the law.
And why not make it zero? Because terminating a pregnancy is not always a bad thing. It's not a good thing, necessarily.