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.
It seems, however, that you’re directing your comments at people here on these forums, in which case I don’t think they are justified. You seem to make assumptions and accuse everyone who attacks GOP policies or defends a liberal position, perhaps a policy enacted by President Obama of supporting abortion.
That’s the reason that I don’t pay attention to any of those posts, either with regard to their delivery or to their content. That said, Bob is free to say what he wants, how he wants, regarding contraception or abortion or…whatever. 🤷
 
I have posted this before but whenver I see the “well other than the fact he supports abortion…” statement I immediatly think of "Well other than that how was the play , Mrs. Lincoln.
I suppose I can just try identifying myself as a strongly dissenting Republican; that is, moderately pro- gun control, neo-Keynesian, foreign policy anti-neocon, Republican. I’ll see how it works out.
And whenever I see “gun control” I immediately think of these:
http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/250/xrg122.gif
http://www.nerepublican.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/gun-truths-03.jpg
 
Hey, I read that you can buy anti tank weapons in Switzerland. I’ve shot an AT-4, I’d love to own one.
Do you need that for hunting? I guess you could argue that shooting an animal with an AT-4 saves time by immediately turning into shredded meat.

I personally would rather have the tank. I could drive 30 mph on the highway and no one behind be would dare honk at me.

Btw, you can really buy those in Switzerland? I’ve heard interesting things about Swiss weapons laws, like that the government distributes assault rifles to its people so that they can rise against the state should it ever retract its neutrality. I’m never sure what to believe.
40.png
Erich:
And whenever I see “gun control” I immediately think of these:
I’m “pro gun control” in a non euphemistic sense (in other words, I really mean control, not outlaw). I don’t have any objections to the second amendments. It’s more that I don’t see any reason why a private citizen could possibly need an assault rifle. Or a bazooka for that matter.
 
I’m “pro gun control” in a non euphemistic sense (in other words, I really mean control, not outlaw). I don’t have any objections to the second amendments. It’s more that I don’t see any reason why a private citizen could possibly need an assault rifle. Or a bazooka for that matter.
No private citizen needs a $300k sports car that goes 200mph, but each their own. BTW, you have to have a Class III license to own an assault rifle, which is fully automatic. Very few people possess that license.
 
I believe in the question sidbrown asked “who ever said that they support the killing of children” the “they” or “he” did not refer to anyone in particular; he was asking you to point to who in particular supported abortion to whom you were addessing you remarks. I may be wrong though.
I think you are wrong. If you go back, you can tell from the context of Estesbob’s post that he was clearly referring to those voters who say: “candidate X may support abortion rights but I vote for him anyway because he is for funding the school lunch program for needy kids.” Now you would agree that abortion kills children - unborn children? So you could say “candidate X is for the right to kill children” which is nearly the same as “candidate X supports killing children.” Estesbob was clearly referring to pro-abortion rights candidates and the catholic voters who make lame excuses for voting for those candidates.
It seems, however, that you’re directing your comments at people here on these forums, in which case I don’t think they are justified. You seem to make assumptions and accuse everyone who attacks GOP policies or defends a liberal position, perhaps a policy enacted by President Obama of supporting abortion. By this logic, everyone who is vegetarian supports Hitler (also a vegetarian), and everyone who supports Catholicism is a Francoist. By saying “such and such economic policy by Obama was a good idea” does not contitute aiding and abetting abortion. Nor does it even mean that the one who says it voted for him. I’ve seen you make that assumption before for people who explcicitly stated elsewhere that they didn’t vote for him. So maybe you should avoid that sort of presumption.
It is not aiding and abetting abortion rights to acknowlege something that Obama does or did that we might agree with. It becomes aiding and abetting abortion rights when we say: “I like what Obama did on the issue of taxes. Therefore I’m going to vote for him again in spite of his abortion rights policy.” Similarly, its not “supporting abortion” to attack a policy promoted by the GOP. However, if you say, " I am against GOP policy on budget cuts, therefore I am going to vote for Barbara Boxer for senate over the pro-life candidate" you are indeed aiding and abetting abortion by doing so. I hope this clears things up.

Ishii
 
Btw, you can really buy those in Switzerland? I’ve heard interesting things about Swiss weapons laws, like that the government distributes assault rifles to its people so that they can rise against the state should it ever retract its neutrality. I’m never sure what to believe.

I’m “pro gun control” in a non euphemistic sense (in other words, I really mean control, not outlaw). I don’t have any objections to the second amendments. It’s more that I don’t see any reason why a private citizen could possibly need an assault rifle. Or a bazooka for that matter.
I personally don’t have much use for any anti-tank weapons, but think about this for a moment… the Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” At the time this amendment was ratified, the firepower available to the army was on a par with the firepower available to the people. Now, not so much.
 
At the time this amendment was ratified, the firepower available to the army was on a par with the firepower available to the people. Now, not so much.
Indeed, private citizens (privateers) owned warships comparable to what the governments had in service. Privately owned cannons were frequently used in the civil war.

And yeah, now? Not so much.
 
I think you are wrong. If you go back, you can tell from the context of Estesbob’s post that he was clearly referring to those voters who say: “candidate X may support abortion rights but I vote for him anyway because he is for funding the school lunch program for needy kids.” Now you would agree that abortion kills children - unborn children? So you could say “candidate X is for the right to kill children” which is nearly the same as “candidate X supports killing children.” Estesbob was clearly referring to pro-abortion rights candidates and the catholic voters who make lame excuses for voting for those candidates.

It is not aiding and abetting abortion rights to acknowlege something that Obama does or did that we might agree with. It becomes aiding and abetting abortion rights when we say: “I like what Obama did on the issue of taxes. Therefore I’m going to vote for him again in spite of his abortion rights policy.” Similarly, its not “supporting abortion” to attack a policy promoted by the GOP. However, if you say, " I am against GOP policy on budget cuts, therefore I am going to vote for Barbara Boxer for senate over the pro-life candidate" you are indeed aiding and abetting abortion by doing so. I hope this clears things up.

Ishii
Well said! Abortion is the original sin of the Democratic Party. No matter how much you like like their policies you simply cannot get around the fact that they support unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand. It is a rare Democrat indeed that is not toe the party line.

Abortion is not just another political issue were politicians meet in of smoke-filled rooms and make compromises. It is an abject evil and it is to this country’s eternal shame that 4,000 children a day are killed and many not only support this but feel it is the duty of the taxpayers to help pay for this carnage.
 
I personally don’t have much use for any anti-tank weapons, but think about this for a moment… the Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” At the time this amendment was ratified, the firepower available to the army was on a par with the firepower available to the people. Now, not so much.
The U.S. government will not sell surplus fighter jets to private citizens. If you want one, you need to purchase one from Canada, for example, an F-86 Sabre jet or from one of the former Soviet republics or even China [MiG-15, -17 or -21] or from the UK.
 
By he do you mean Barrack Obama? Not only does he support killing children he took steps on his third day in office to help other countries fund killing their children.
Back on topic, as an Illinois legislator, he voted to prevent the saving of the lives of aborted babies who survived.
 
Message to Harry Reid:

Go ahead and shut down the government.

The blame will ultimately rest where it belongs, on the Democrat party. Keep in mind that the budget being discussed at present is LAST YEAR’S (2010-2011) fiscal budget! The one that was supposed to be passed when the Democrats held all three branches of government and could have passed anything they wanted without effective opposition. WHY didn’t do it when they had the chance? Because they knew there would be a groundswell revolution against the government for passing such a suicidal budget!! The Democrat plan is to attempt to pin blame for their own abysmal fiscal accounting on the Republican Party. In the end, it will backfire on them.
 
Sorry for repeating a post of mine from another thread a few days ago.

The PROBLEM is that the Democrat controlled Congress only a few months ago REFUSED to even SUBMIT a budget!!! It doesn’t get any more irresponsible than that.

NO budget = no money for the government to spend.

What the Democrats were hoping for was a bunch of continuing resolutions … meaning, just spend whatever you want to spend.

So, here’s what I posted before [modified for clarity]:

Why not standard format annual reports for Federal government, states and cities?

Found while surfing:

Why not do this for each state and the Feds and gradually expand the detail and then include the cities.

Here are the U.S. Treasury Dept’s numbers:

Item… Fiscal Year 2009 …Fiscal Year 2010 … Fiscal 2011

Revenues …$ 2104 billion …$ 2102 Billion… $?

Expenses …$ 3520 Billion …$ 3456 Billion…$?

Deficit …$1416 Billion …$1294* Billion

Debt … $12000 Billion? …$14000 Billion

GDP? … $?? …$? Billion

So, to balance the budget, we have got to cut about $1300* Billion from current year spending. Almost 1/3.

Michele Bachmann has identified one item to cut, so far, for $105 billion

Need to find another $1200* Billion in cuts.

How much in cuts have the other politicians suggested?

The politicians don’t actually tell you the actual revenues and proposed spending (budget)

They complain about what percent here or there.

But rarely tell you the actuals.

So we don’t actually have the actuals for FY 2011 or even part of the fiscal year.

We need to write in the proposed budget for FY2011. The problem is the Congress is REQUIRED to submit an approved budget by October or so of 2010 and they didn’ t do it.

So the government is getting by on a month to month basis with what they call continuing resolutions.

If you visit Yahoo Finance and look up the financials for any corporation, they have three pages for each … income/expenses; balance sheet [assets and liabilities/ debt]; cash flow

And Yahoo has it for each public corporation for three years of history, by year and by quarter.

And if you get the company’s annual report you might find as much as 10-years data.

BUT, you won’t find ANY of the actual revenues and spending for any government … not for states, not for cities, not for Federal.

You should be able to type in the zip code or postal abbreviation and get all of that data with one click of the keyboard.

Here are the data for GE

finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=GE&annual

Why can’t you get the data for NYC or NYS or USA just by visiting Yahoo Finance and typing in the governments’ “ticker symbols”?

If not on Yahoo Finance, then some specialty Web site just for that purpose.

NYS, NYC, NJ, WI, CA, etc always talk about “budget shortfalls” but NEVER about ACTUAL revenues/receipts/income versus spending.

California doesn’t say that they have been spending $100 billion but that their tax revenues have been stagnating at $80 Billion and then dropped to $70 Billion.

If GE or BP put that out, the shareholders and the bond holders and the board of directors would fire management and the board might get fired at the next annual meeting as well.

And you can look up those financials in one second/

But not the governments’ financials.

Start small and expand the data to include debt and off-budget financing.
 
Well said! Abortion is the original sin of the Democratic Party. No matter how much you like like their policies you simply cannot get around the fact that they support unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand. It is a rare Democrat indeed that is not toe the party line.

Abortion is not just another political issue were politicians meet in of smoke-filled rooms and make compromises. It is an abject evil and it is to this country’s eternal shame that 4,000 children a day are killed and many not only support this but feel it is the duty of the taxpayers to help pay for this carnage.
As to toeing the party line, remember the group, headed by Rep. Stupak? They were opposed to Obamacare because of the abortion clause. They held out for awhile, but gave in due to pressure from Pelosi.
 
In the end, it is rather telling that Harry Reid would go so far as stating that he (and the Democrat Party) would rather shut down the US government than defund Planned Parenthood. If the Democrat Party feels that Planned Parenthood is so sacred as to punish Federal workers by shutting down the government in favor of saving funding of Planned Parenthood over the 2010 budget, there is definitely a logical disconnect. It would be a rather strong statement that the Democrat Party stands for abortion in very certain and unambiguous terms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top