Harry Reid: We’ll shut down government before we shut down Planned Parenthood funding

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
YIKES!!! McGovern, Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush,Bush,Dole,Bush, Bush , McCAIN!!
Click to expand...
I assumed the mental fart there Bob. It’s nice to know that you can ‘know’ someone who’s really a stranger on a message board.😉
 
estesbob said:
Surely we can provide health care for the poor without forcing them to go to an organization that has a vested interest in killing their child.
Click to expand...
We can do anything we want; the question is: will the government do anything additional to provide the the same level services that PP does, excluding abortions?

Given the cut and slash mentality in Washington DC these days, I think not.
 
gamewell45 said:
We can do anything we want; the question is: will the government do anything additional to provide the the same level services that PP does, excluding abortions?

Given the cut and slash mentality in Washington DC these days, I think not.
Click to expand...
Regardless of whether they do or not we should not be funding organizations that are paid to kill chidren. You seem to think that other than abortion there is something good about planned parenthood. There is not. They are an evil organization that does not deserve one penny of taxpayer money. In a perfect world all of their offices would be closed down and everyone who worked their treated as pariahs until they repented for the unspeakable evil they have participated in.
 
ishii said:
The bases we have around the world are a legacy of our leadership of the free world during the cold war. It would be hard to attack the terrorist bases around the world with no military bases. All of the billions spent on defense has had broad partisan support in congress, otherwise it never would continue. If you think we have too many bases around the world in countries that can probably defend themselves then I might be inclined to agree with you and perhaps we do spend too much and waste too much. That said, the security of America is worth spending money on isn’t it? Otherwise its possible we wouldn’t really be enjoying this spirited discussion right now. I have no idea how much could be cut while still providing for the effective defense of the U.S. Its very easy to say “we spend too much on defense” , harder to say where, what and how much we should cut. The attack on Libya will probably cost billions. I think there are people on the right who are questioning the wisdom of that endeavor from a foreign policy, strategic, and constitutional point of view.

Ishii
Click to expand...
So Republicans are not really in favor of stopping the government gravy train after all.
 
sidbrown said:
So Republicans are not really in favor of stopping the government gravy train after all.
Click to expand...
Its very easy to say “we spend too much on defense” , harder to say where, what and how much we should cut. Atleast the “gravy train” (as you refer to it) could be said to have done a decent (but not perfect) job of accomplishing the mission of maintaining security. Much less could be said for the at best, useless, and at worst, counterproductive, govt. pet programs that are protected by the Dems… I am inclined to agree with you on closing down some of the bases - it doesn’t seem all of them are necessary - especially given that many of those bases are in countries wealthy enough to pay for their own defense. But, if you pressed me for a detailed explanation of which bases to close and why, I would be hard pressed to give you an informed answer. As for stopping the govt gravy train, I would start with the useless bureaucracies that have been created over the years such as Dept of Education and Energy which have, over the course of their existence, presided over the worsening of the very problems they were supposed to fix.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Its very easy to say “we spend too much on defense” , harder to say where, what and how much we should cut. Atleast the “gravy train” (as you refer to it) could be said to have done a decent (but not perfect) job of accomplishing the mission of maintaining security. Much less could be said for the at best, useless, and at worst, counterproductive, govt. pet programs that are protected by the Dems… I am inclined to agree with you on closing down some of the bases - it doesn’t seem all of them are necessary - especially given that many of those bases are in countries wealthy enough to pay for their own defense. But, if you pressed me for a detailed explanation of which bases to close and why, I would be hard pressed to give you an informed answer. As for stopping the govt gravy train, I would start with the useless bureaucracies that have been created over the years such as Dept of Education and Energy which have, over the course of their existence, presided over the worsening of the very problems they were supposed to fix.

Ishii
Click to expand...
So Republicans want the gravy train to continue for government support of the military industrial complex?
It is therefore false to say that Democrats are the only ones who want the gravy train to continue. Democrats have their gravy train and Republicans have theirs. They both want billions and billions and billions of dollars to be spent on worthless projects. What good ever came out of the thousands of Americans and Vietnamese killed in the Vietnam war?
Have Americans been killing innocent people for sport in Vietnam, in Iraq and in Afghanistan?
 
estesbob said:
Regardless of whether they do or not we should not be funding organizations that are paid to kill chidren. You seem to think that other than abortion there is something good about planned parenthood. There is not. They are an evil organization that does not deserve one penny of taxpayer money. In a perfect world all of their offices would be closed down and everyone who worked their treated as pariahs until they repented for the unspeakable evil they have participated in.
Click to expand...
I’m not looking at the organization from a religious aspect; rather from a practical one. And yes i do think that aside from abortion, the organization does a lot of good for the public with there various programs for good health, testing for STD’s (Including AIDS) general health care, pregnancy, relationships, womens health, etc. That’s why I take the position that I do with funding for them.
 
sidbrown said:
So Republicans want the gravy train to continue for government support of the military industrial complex?
It is therefore false to say that Democrats are the only ones who want the gravy train to continue. Democrats have their gravy train and Republicans have theirs. They both want billions and billions and billions of dollars to be spent on worthless projects. What good ever came out of the thousands of Americans and Vietnamese killed in the Vietnam war?
Have Americans been killing innocent people for sport in Vietnam, in Iraq and in Afghanistan?
Click to expand...
No, Republicans (and thankfully many Democrats) want to have a strong military to ensure our national security. We live in a dangerous world: defense spending is necessary. It is the duty of the president and congress to protect and defend the United States. Of course there is waste in defense spending and that should be looked at. On the other hand, many domestic programs are a waste of money because not only do they accomplish little, they actually make the problems worse. See the difference? Btw, I never used the words “gravy train” - I prefer to speak of what spending is wasteful or not and what should be cut. Why do we have ethanol subsidies? That is another example of something we should look at cutting because it doesn’t make sense and is a waste of money - and its supported by both Democrats and Republicans in the heartland of course. So there are things that need to be looked at. Hopefully it can be done in a bipartisan way. If not, then I think the next election will provide the party that seriously wants to tackle spending with enough members in congress to make it happen. However, I can see from the above comments that you obviously have an agenda to discredit the U.S. military. I have commented on the points that I think are valid questions you have posed. However, your last two questions are inflammatory and way off base. They deserve no response at all.

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Give him time. The Clintons had eight years to establish their pro-abortion rights credentials. Obama is no slouch though, especially if you believe what he says on the issue and how he voted as a senator - he always got a 100% NARAL rating as I’m sure Hillary did as well. Hard for me to believe that one 100% Naral politician is “no match” for another 100% Naral politician. I would say that the difference between Obama and Hillary on abortion is small compared to the difference between the two parties on the issue.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Although NARAL gave Obama a 100% rating, there was strong descent among them when they endorse Obama over Hillary.

Fact is, Obama did put an executive order, prohibiting federal funds to be used for abortions in the Health-Care bill. This upset NARAL members and you would never have seen such a thing from the Clinton’s.

And before you go off and say that the executive order is not binding, remember the executive order Bush signed prohibiting funding of new stem cell lines was accepted as binding by pro-life groups.

Yes, we’d prefer stronger language, but we’re dealing with politics here and not everyone in office are pro-life Catholics.

BTW, its my gut feeling, that Obama is not going to seek a 2nd term.

But I’m digressing from the topic of the thread, once again. Sorry!

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
…Fact is, Obama did put an executive order, prohibiting federal funds to be used for abortions in the Health-Care bill. This upset NARAL members and you would never have seen such a thing from the Clinton’s. …
Click to expand...
It didn’t exactly please pro-life folks either because it wasn’t effective and was just more political maneuvering. Obama is not pro-life. See excerpt below.

"Choice, Life Groups Slam Obama Order on Abortion Funding

…
…The National Right to Life Committee argued that seven objectionable pro-abortion provisions in the Senate bill are unchanged.

“The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says,” the group said."…

Entire article: foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/21/stupak-says-health-care-deal-looming-abortion-funding/
 
ishii said:
No, Republicans (and thankfully many Democrats) want to have a strong military to ensure our national security. We live in a dangerous world: defense spending is necessary. It is the duty of the president and congress to protect and defend the United States. Of course there is waste in defense spending and that should be looked at. On the other hand, many domestic programs are a waste of money because not only do they accomplish little, they actually make the problems worse. See the difference? Btw, I never used the words “gravy train” - I prefer to speak of what spending is wasteful or not and what should be cut. Why do we have ethanol subsidies? That is another example of something we should look at cutting because it doesn’t make sense and is a waste of money - and its supported by both Democrats and Republicans in the heartland of course. So there are things that need to be looked at. Hopefully it can be done in a bipartisan way. If not, then I think the next election will provide the party that seriously wants to tackle spending with enough members in congress to make it happen. However, I can see from the above comments that you obviously have an agenda to discredit the U.S. military. I have commented on the points that I think are valid questions you have posed. However, your last two questions are inflammatory and way off base. They deserve no response at all.

Ishii
Click to expand...
You are wasting your time. The poster obviously sings only one tune.
 
iamrefreshed said:
From your gut to God’s ears!😃
Click to expand...
Well don’t rejoice to loud if it happens.

My gut feeling also says that it was Hillary who has set Obama up with the bombing of Libya, knowing it would bring his ratings so low, he’d decide not to run.

That would open the door for Hillary to try again and I fear her as president than anyone else on earth.

Yes, I believe the Clinton’s are calculating enough to harm the US to serve their own self egoic interest.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Well don’t rejoice to loud if it happens.

My gut feeling also says that it was Hillary who has set Obama up with the bombing of Libya, knowing it would bring his ratings so low, he’d decide not to run.

That would open the door for Hillary to try again and I fear her as president than anyone else on earth.

Yes, I believe the Clinton’s are calculating enough to harm the US to serve their own self egoic interest.

Jim
Click to expand...
I’ll admit that Hillary did play Obama like a fiddle last week. It is sickening to watch two who support so many evils claw at eachother over power.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Although NARAL gave Obama a 100% rating, there was strong descent among them when they endorse Obama over Hillary.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but I have to wonder how much of that dissent was based on resentment for Naral endorsing the male candidate over the female one? Remember, Hillary would have likely been the first female president and made history and there had to be lots of radical abortion rights feminists who were supporting her for what she represented to them in that way. Of course I’m speculating, but it makes sense doesn’t it?
JimR-OCDS said:
Fact is, Obama did put an executive order, prohibiting federal funds to be used for abortions in the Health-Care bill. This upset NARAL members and you would never have seen such a thing from the Clinton’s.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The Clintons have shown that they are very cabable of compromise and pragmatism in order to maintain power - remember it was Bill Clinton who signed the welfare reform bill in the 90’s after vetoing it twice. I wouldn’t put it past Hillary to do what Obama did with the healthcare reform bill on federal funding if she though it was in her short term political interest.
JimR-OCDS said:
BTW, its my gut feeling, that Obama is not going to seek a 2nd term.
Click to expand...
I think he’s already running for a 2nd term.

Jim
 
ishii
I disagree. The Clintons have shown that they are very cabable of compromise and pragmatism in order to maintain power - remember it was Bill Clinton who signed the welfare reform bill in the 90’s after vetoing it twice. I wouldn’t put it past Hillary to do what Obama did with the healthcare reform bill on federal funding if she though it was in her short term political interest.
Click to expand...
Clinton signed the final welfare reform bill after he got put back into it what he wanted.
Also, the democratic governors across the USA were putting pressure on him to do something about their welfare costs.

However, when it comes to abortion, Hillary went to the Cairo-5 summit and threatened any nation seeking aid from the US, that if they outlawed abortion, they wouldn’t get anything.

She was first lady, not the president yet she was stating how US tax dollars would be spent for abortion.
I think he’s already running for a 2nd term.
Click to expand...
Its assumed he is because he’s the incumbent.

However, if this Libya issue takes his popularity down far enough, he may just be convinced not to run for a 2nd term.

Keep in mind, I’m just speculating on my gut feel and I admit, it has much to do with my distrust of the Clinton’s.

I also wonder, if there wasn’t some deal worked out between Obama and Hillary, when she decided to concede the democratic primary to him?

Jim
 
gamewell45 said:
I’m not looking at the organization from a religious aspect; rather from a practical one. And yes i do think that aside from abortion, the organization does a lot of good for the public with there various programs for good health, testing for STD’s (Including AIDS) general health care, pregnancy, relationships, womens health, etc. That’s why I take the position that I do with funding for them.
Click to expand...
I am not looking at them from a religious standpoint-i am looking at them from a moral standpoint. An organization that kills 400,000 children a year is EVIL and should not even be allowed to exist, more or less recieve public funding. There is no reason whatsoever that health care can not be provided to the poor without usiing such an evil organization to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top