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

[ishii]

Even Newt Gingrich says that Obama painted the United States into a corner with his decision to authorize air strikes to establish a no-fly zone and dismantle Moammar Gaddhafi’s air defenses. According to Gingrich, Obama is relying on a standard of “humanitarian intervention,” a policy he said would have justified American military engagement in countries like Sudan, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Yemen and Bahrain.

You said " the USA launched and attack on Libya" when what it did was join the coalition that included Britain and France and other nations including Arab ones. You implied that the USA acted unilaterally when it didnt’ - so I was correcting you on your facts. This has been billed as a humanitarian action and I would agree that we can’t act on every situation that would fall under such a rationale for intervention. If we intervened every time humanitarian concerns arose, then we would be in a permanent state of war as there are people around the globe suffering under unjust regimes all the time. When did I ever say that I support the action in Libya? Correcting your misstatement doesn’t mean I approve of what Obama is doing.

Basically you are going against the undeclared Republican candidate for president, Newt Gingrich, if you deny this.
Libya did not attack the USA, and there is no basis for declaring war on Libya. How many other Ghadafis are there in the world today? Is the USA supposed to bomb every country which has a dictator? I don’t think it is right. People are dying and being killed by these bomb strikes. And how many have landed in the hospital.

I believe that the air strikes and enforcement of the no-fly zone was intended to thwart Gaddahfi’s massacre of Libyans in rebel controlled cities. If you think the no-fly zone is causing casualties, imagine what would be happening if Gaddafi had free reign to do as he pleased. Do you think he’d hold back?

The only thing you have in your favor is an ad hominem attack. But it does not respond to the question as to who will answer to the families of these dead people killed by USA bombs.

Who would answer to the families of the many, many, more dead people killled by Ghaddafi’s bombs that would have fallen were it not for the no-fly zone of the coalition? (again, I am not necessarily supporting our involvment in the action - the Europeans should done this on their own). The no-fly zone is saving lives that would have otherwise been massacred by Ghaddafi.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Its not relevant since the KKK historically has not provided anything to the public other then racial bigotry. The same goes for the neo-nazi’s. Both you and ishii will have to come up with better examples that are relevant to the topic at hand.

Okay, what if the KKK had historically provided healthcare to the public. Would you then be for public funding of their organization?

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Unfortunatelly I really don’t know how to make my position any plainer then I have. Either way you have your position and I have mine. We’ll have to leave it at that.

You don’t have an answer to Suudy. Any government funding of PP - even if its not supposed to be used for abortions directly, will allow PP to divert other funds for abortions. It will make it easier for PP to do what it does best: slaughter babies, especially “undesirable” minority ones. There is no way of getting around that fact.

Ishii

 

[gamewell45]

You don’t have an answer to Suudy. Any government funding of PP - even if its not supposed to be used for abortions directly, will allow PP to divert other funds for abortions. It will make it easier for PP to do what it does best: slaughter babies, especially “undesirable” minority ones. There is no way of getting around that fact.

Ishii

No, its not about “getting around” as you put it, rather its my answer; just that its not the answer you want me to post.

I’ll say it again, people have their position, I have mine. I’m not asking you to change yours, nor will I change mine.

 

[estesbob]

No, its not about “getting around” as you put it, rather its my answer; just that its not the answer you want me to post.

I’ll say it again, people have their position, I have mine. I’m not asking you to change yours, nor will I change mine.

You say its OK to give Govt funing to a patently racist organization becuase they provide some good services but would deny that funding to other patently racist organizations because they dont have a History of doing some good things. So how long does the KKK have to do good things in additon to being racist before they can be eligible for govt funding?

If the US Army had offered free preganancy screening for Poor Indian Women would that have justified Wounded Knee?

 

[Suudy]

No, its not about “getting around” as you put it, rather its my answer; just that its not the answer you want me to post.

No, there are two things about your answer (besides being “not the answer” I want you to post): 1) you refuse to apply it to other situations and 2) you refuse to address the objections to it (other than “you have your position and I have mine”, which isn’t really any objection at all).

And besides, if did post the answer I want you to post, I’d only hope it’d be done with sincerity. It’s not a good thing to acquiesce, just for the sake it.

I’ll say it again, people have their position, I have mine. I’m not asking you to change yours, nor will I change mine.

If I’m wrong, I want my mind changed. Please, do show me where I’m wrong, and then I’ll drop this entire line of reasoning. Indeed, I’d be most grateful to show how government funding of PP does more good than harm. It would lift a huge burden off of my mind.

 

[Suudy]

You don’t have an answer to Suudy. Any government funding of PP - even if its not supposed to be used for abortions directly, will allow PP to divert other funds for abortions.

Hence my use of the term fungible, which he said he does not “believe this to be true”.

 

[the_phoenix]

Originally Posted by estesbob
Again how many free PAP smears does it take to migiate killing 400,000 children a year?

I don’t have access to that information.

An infinite number of free PAP smears
would not make up for the infinite crime
of killing one single child.

 

[estesbob]

Originally Posted by estesbob
Again how many free PAP smears does it take to migiate killing 400,000 children a year?

An infinite number of free PAP smears
would not make up for the infinite crime
of killing one single child.

Ageed. Its like claiming if they had offered free heatlh care at the Auschwitz clinic it made what they did in the gas chambers OK.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Instead of shutting down the government, how about just declaring a permanent snow day.

 

[gamewell45]

Originally Posted by estesbob
Again how many free PAP smears does it take to migiate killing 400,000 children a year?

An infinite number of free PAP smears
would not make up for the infinite crime
of killing one single child.

Thanks for the information.

 

[gamewell45]

You say its OK to give Govt funing to a patently racist organization becuase they provide some good services but would deny that funding to other patently racist organizations because they dont have a History of doing some good things. So how long does the KKK have to do good things in additon to being racist before they can be eligible for govt funding?

If the US Army had offered free preganancy screening for Poor Indian Women would that have justified Wounded Knee?

Finis

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Hmm. It took 274 posts before bringing in the obligatory reference to the Nazis.

 

[estesbob]

Hmm. It took 274 posts before bringing in the obligatory reference to the Nazis.

What you dont get is that Planned parenthood clinics are just as evil and horryfying as the death camps were. There are morally equivalent. So mock us all you want. I wear the mockery with pride. Unfortunately just as the Germans & the Poles tolerated the death camps many Americans and catholics do so today.

 

[exoflare]

Again…

I see the old “agree to disagree” and trying to understate facts as subjective “opinions” have both quickly been invoked. When the only criteria for evidence is the strength of your emotions, suddenly anyone can be correct in their own minds. Typical last resort of a regressive attempting to debate.

At the point where this happens, it’s clear enough that the person is arguing based on pure emotion. Facts won’t change their mind, nor will anything else. A lot of times people like this assume everyone else must be arguing this way as well, which is why the “agree to disagree” garbage actually makes sense to them in their own minds.

 

[exoflare]

Hmm. It took 274 posts before bringing in the obligatory reference to the Nazis.

He didn’t know that mentioning Nazis is illegal.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

He didn’t know that mentioning Nazis is illegal.

Not illegal. Rather, it is a demonstration of Godwin’s Law, which states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

 

[exoflare]

Oh how fascinating and relevant. :yawn:

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Oh how fascinating and relevant. :yawn:

Well, you asked!

 

[exoflare]

No I didn’t. Which is why if you reply to this it’s only going to be another one of your silly tangents instead of some actual backing up your claim that I asked. Do you just assume people forget stuff really quickly or what?