Lying Republicans and Organiations

Lying Republicans and Organiations (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

joether -> Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/18/2015 10:13:42 AM)
Truth as they say, is the first causality of any war. For die-hard religious conservative nuts, that began shortly before the decision of Roe vs. Wade and has continued since. Recently, all the 'cookie cutted' candidates running for the GOP field have stated they are against abortion (big surprise right?). What you might not know, is many of them supported an organization's Revealing Attack on Planned Parenthood.. A nine minute field that tries to show a high level executive stating Planned Parenthood is selling body parts (which is illegal in the USA) from bodies after abortions. It should be noted that of the total of Planned Parenthood's operations, abortions make up just 3%. Of course, listening to the liars in the GOP/TP, thats 300% of their operation. Mathematics is not the strong suit of the GOP/TP, one only has to look up that 'fiscal conservative' and 'fiscal responsibility' guys that grew the national debt from $2 trillion to $11.5 trillion between 2000 to 2008. For conservatives, it seems they accept what their masters tell them is true or not.... Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, and Bobby Jindal have started petitions to cut the organization's funding. Rick Perry and Scott Walker made references about this view as being in opposition to Planned Parenthood. Carly Fiorina is quotes as saying: "This latest news is tragic and outrageous". Rep. Ann Wagner on the Capital Hill press stated: "It is probably the most horrifying and heartbreaking undercover video I have ever seen". Planned Parenthood produced a statement when this all came to light a few days ago: "At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does – with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood." So what's wrong here? The organization that brought this up, Center for Medical Progress, is.....LYING....to make a political attack. They cut down nearly a Three Hour Video to just under nine mines. In the first minute I can find three poorly edited video effects. You dont have to watch the three hour video if you dont want to. The executive explains things in details, while explaining the laws and ethics surrounding it. This is not a thread on abortion, but one in which people are willing to lie and ignore the facts to push a political objective (attacking PP or becoming a US President). If these presidential hopefuls are so willing to ignore the facts and spread the lies while they are NOT in office, what will they do once they are? The sad thing is, I can find it on all those 'liberalis media' sites, but nowhere on conservative ones. I wonder why that is.... Let's see what that 'honest and trustworthy' conservative media says about it: Breitbart.com. Christian Broadcasting 'News' (CBN). FOX 'news'. All of them lying to pushing a political agenda. They know, that conservatives and libertarians are to stupid to question what they are told, nor able to check on information. They accept what they are told from 'The Ministry of Truth' (to use a George Orwell reference from the book '1984'). Again, this is not a thread about abortion. This is about conservative media and people running for public office willing to lie, and ignore the factual evidence, to push a political objective. This is about a political ideology lying to unsuspecting Americans and preying on their ignorance and fears. Yes, it sounds evil that body parts are being sold from Planned Parenthood whom makes a profit {which they don't) after an abortion so recklessly. Until you find out the people doing the abortions, consented before hand. That the parts are used to advance medical science. And that there is a huge ethical standard and discussion in the medical field on this very topic (something those conservative 'journalists' neglect to mention).

joether -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/18/2015 12:35:11 PM)
"...to just under nine mines." Should read: to just under nine minutes. I'm not perfect at grammar, but I do try....

Kirata -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/18/2015 12:48:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether "...to just under nine mines." Should read: to just under nine minutes. I'm not perfect at grammar, but I do try.... I think you mean spelling, but let's not quibble. [:D] K.

BamaD -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/18/2015 2:59:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Truth as they say, is the first causality of any war. For die-hard religious conservative nuts, that began shortly before the decision of Roe vs. Wade and has continued since. Recently, all the 'cookie cutted' candidates running for the GOP field have stated they are against abortion (big surprise right?). What you might not know, is many of them supported an organization's Revealing Attack on Planned Parenthood.. A nine minute field that tries to show a high level executive stating Planned Parenthood is selling body parts (which is illegal in the USA) from bodies after abortions. It should be noted that of the total of Planned Parenthood's operations, abortions make up just 3%. Of course, listening to the liars in the GOP/TP, thats 300% of their operation. Mathematics is not the strong suit of the GOP/TP, one only has to look up that 'fiscal conservative' and 'fiscal responsibility' guys that grew the national debt from $2 trillion to $11.5 trillion between 2000 to 2008. For conservatives, it seems they accept what their masters tell them is true or not.... Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, and Bobby Jindal have started petitions to cut the organization's funding. Rick Perry and Scott Walker made references about this view as being in opposition to Planned Parenthood. Carly Fiorina is quotes as saying: "This latest news is tragic and outrageous". Rep. Ann Wagner on the Capital Hill press stated: "It is probably the most horrifying and heartbreaking undercover video I have ever seen". Planned Parenthood produced a statement when this all came to light a few days ago: "At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does – with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood." So what's wrong here? The organization that brought this up, Center for Medical Progress, is.....LYING....to make a political attack. They cut down nearly a Three Hour Video to just under nine mines. In the first minute I can find three poorly edited video effects. You dont have to watch the three hour video if you dont want to. The executive explains things in details, while explaining the laws and ethics surrounding it. This is not a thread on abortion, but one in which people are willing to lie and ignore the facts to push a political objective (attacking PP or becoming a US President). If these presidential hopefuls are so willing to ignore the facts and spread the lies while they are NOT in office, what will they do once they are? The sad thing is, I can find it on all those 'liberalis media' sites, but nowhere on conservative ones. I wonder why that is.... Let's see what that 'honest and trustworthy' conservative media says about it: Breitbart.com. Christian Broadcasting 'News' (CBN). FOX 'news'. All of them lying to pushing a political agenda. They know, that conservatives and libertarians are to stupid to question what they are told, nor able to check on information. They accept what they are told from 'The Ministry of Truth' (to use a George Orwell reference from the book '1984'). Again, this is not a thread about abortion. This is about conservative media and people running for public office willing to lie, and ignore the factual evidence, to push a political objective. This is about a political ideology lying to unsuspecting Americans and preying on their ignorance and fears. Yes, it sounds evil that body parts are being sold from Planned Parenthood whom makes a profit {which they don't) after an abortion so recklessly. Until you find out the people doing the abortions, consented before hand. That the parts are used to advance medical science. And that there is a huge ethical standard and discussion in the medical field on this very topic (something those conservative 'journalists' neglect to mention). So since they only violate the law (by their own admission) it is a lie. As always a lie is anything you don't like.

KenDckey -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/18/2015 6:15:39 PM)
truth Bama

DesideriScuri -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/19/2015 4:14:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Mathematics is not the strong suit of the GOP/TP, one only has to look up that 'fiscal conservative' and 'fiscal responsibility' guys that grew the national debt from $2 trillion to $11.5 trillion between 2000 to 2008. For conservatives, it seems they accept what their masters tell them is true or not.... Might as well, since we can't look to you and yours for it. You are a liar, Joether. Shall we start out with the obvious: President Bush was not in charge of spending for FY2000, so any attempt to foist debt on his watch would correctly be FY2001-2009. I'm sure you knew that, so, you lied. Next lie: $2T-$11.5T https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm I know it's not easy info to find ([8\|]), so I went to my super secret search engine (aka "Google") and looked up "national debt in 2000." The link above was found after much searching and wading through ad links and... okay, it was the 2nd entry after the 3 ads. National Debt on 9/30/2000: $5.67T (not $2T) National Debt on 9/30/2008: $10.0T (not $11.5T) You probably used the debt numbers from the proper years, so, let's look at that, shall we? National Debt on 9/30/2001: $5.8T National Debt on 9/30/2009: $11.9T FFS, Joether!! Not only did you lie about what years W was in control of the economy, but you lied abut how much debt there was!! To be sure, W piled debt on like it was going out of style. "Slick Willy" only added, roughly, $1.4T in his 8 years, so W was an awful lot worse than him (and conservatives were not happy about W's spending, no matter what bullshit you sling). Bush's final 2 years saw a debt increase of $2.9T, almost half of all the debt his Administration oversaw. So, where is our debt now? $17.8T, as of 9/30/2014. $5.9T added during Obama's first 5 years in control. Annual deficits have dropped (even though spending hasn't) as the economy has been recovering. Revenues have been at all-time highs, yet we keep adding to the debt. You are ethically bankrupt.

bounty44 -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/19/2015 4:38:44 AM)
and lemme just tack on to and concur with desideri's "ethically bankrupt" statement, since you don't appear to know what a "lie" is... the question isn't about making a profit einstein, *its about selling aborted remains period*. that's the illegal part. so far as I know, and since you didn't provide any evidence to the contrary, the law doesn't make a distinction for the exchange of money for parts to "cover expenses" as opposed to making a profit. bobby Jindal and ted cruz and the center for medical progress---or whoever, aren't responsible to know planned parenthood's accounting books when they say "they are selling body parts." that's the illegal part and what the stories about brainiac. and neither is the issue whether or not consent was given by the women. which by the way, you also don't and actually cannot provide evidence of (your quote from pp not withstanding). for all we know, pp does indeed sell parts independent of consent but that's not what people are talking about. it also doesn't matter that the parts are used for "good." that's not the issue either. its the selling. so where and what exactly is the lie? I continue to be dismayed by your lack of critical thinking skills. what a headache it is to read the absolute garbage stuff you post. oh, and sorry, your baby killers got busted. maybe it was the mean 'ol Christians who helped to create the law in the first place, and you can find some happiness railing against them?

Lucylastic -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/19/2015 4:44:11 AM)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jul/17/planned-parenthood-video-context/ An anti-abortion activist group released a video that they say proves Planned Parenthood "sells the body parts of aborted fetuses." Is it misleading? Posing as a biological tissue procurement company, actors for the Center for Medical Progress secretly filmed a luncheon with Planned Parenthood’s senior director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola in 2014. On July 14, 2015, the group released a nine-minute video that they say shows Nucatola talking about performing partial-birth abortions to keep body parts intact in order to "sell" them, an action which the video alleges is a felony. Nearly every Republican presidential candidate has responded, condemning Planned Parenthood. And Congress, as well as the states of Texas and Louisiana, have called for investigations into the women’s reproductive health care organization. Many, including Planned Parenthood, have said the video was heavily edited and is misleading. They say Nucatola was discussing a standard, legal procedure for providing fetal tissue for scientific research, for which clinics are often reimbursed for costs associated with procuring the tissue (as opposed to selling tissue for a profit). Who’s right? We read the 60-page transcript of the nearly three-hour luncheon and found that Nucatola reveals very little concrete information on Planned Parenthood’s practices. Put simply, there’s no clear gotcha. We’ll leave it up to readers to come to their own conclusions about Planned Parenthood’s practices and Nucatola’s statements, but we want to highlight a few key moments in the conversation to put the edited video in context. It’s clear in the full-length video that Nucatola believes she is speaking with representatives from a company that provides scientific researchers with tissue from aborted fetuses (a legal process that raises difficult ethical questions). She describes the process of getting consent from patients, as well as how Planned Parenthood clinics typically interacts with the companies that take the tissue from the clinics to the researchers. The edited video shows Nucatola discussing a per-specimen price range for tissue parts. But the full video shows that the cost under discussion is a reimbursement for the cost of preparing the specimens for transfer, not the value of the specimens themselves. She adds that Planned Parenthood needs to be able to explain exactly what the funds are used for. Asked by the actors about a price range, Nucatola said: "You know, I would throw a number out, I would say it’s probably anywhere from $30 to $100 (per specimen), depending on the facility and what’s involved. It just has to do with space issues, are you sending someone there who’s going to be doing everything, is there shipping involved, is somebody going to have to take it out? You know, I think everybody just wants, it’s really just about if anyone were ever to ask them, ‘What do you do for this $60? How can you justify that? Or are you basically just doing something completely egregious, that you should be doing for free.’ So it just needs to be justifiable. "The way they budget (for the cost of producing a specimen) is by the amount of time they spend on one patient. … It depends, if (the procurement service is) expecting somebody to process, and package, identify tissue for you, it’s going to be at the higher end of the range. In all cases, it’s really going to be about staff time, because that’s the only cost to the affiliate. And then, if you want space." Nucatola also said Planned Parenthood affiliate clinics appreciate that they can reduce some of their overhead costs of disposing of aborted fetal tissue by using a tissue procurement service. Nucatola said: "I think for affiliates, at the end of the day, they’re a nonprofit, they just don’t want to — they want to break even. And if they can do a little better than break even, and do so in a way that seems reasonable, they’re happy to do that. Really their bottom line is, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn’t get. "No one’s going to see this as a money-making thing. The other reason affiliates think this is a good thing is, it’s less tissue that they need to worry about, it’s taken care of. They have to do something with that tissue, it’s hard to find somebody that wants to do something with that tissue, so the fact that there’s somebody that’s looking for that tissue is -- that is such a huge service to them." Nucatola says throughout the luncheon that Planned Parenthood is not interested in making a profit off the specimens -- an interpretation the edited video pushes. "(Clinics) want to do this, but they want to do it in a way that’s not going to impact them, and it’s much much less about money. You could call them up and say, ‘I’ll pay you double the money,’ and they’re almost more inclined to say no, because it’s going to look bad. … To them, this is not a service they should be making money from, it’s something they should be able to offer this to their patients, in a way that doesn’t impact them. "Again, affiliates don’t — affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line. "At the end of the day we just want to keep the doors open. And we don’t want to let jeopardize keeping the doors open. We just want (the cost per specimen) to be reasonable for the impact it has on the clinic. This is not a new revenue stream the affiliates are looking at. This is a way to offer the patient the service that they want. Do good for the medical community. "Like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream because that’s not what it is." The actors in the video act as if they are on the same page: Actor: "I understand what you’re saying. This cannot be seen as, ‘We’re doing this for profit.’ " Nucatola: "No. Nothing, no affiliate should be doing anything that’s not like, reasonable and customary. This is not -- nobody should be ‘selling’ tissue. That’s just not the goal here." Actor: "Right. And, I never see that as, I don’t look at it that way, we’re not selling tissue, we’re selling the possibility of what the research can offer." Nucatola: "I think we all would agree with you. That’s just not the perception, sadly, for everybody." Actor: "I mean, researchers are paying for procurement, they’re not paying for — You’re not buying a brain, you’re buying a procurement service." Nucatola: "Exactly. Exactly." The conversation indicates that at least some Planned Parenthood clinics do sell aborted fetal tissue. But Nucatola plainly argues that the money they’re charging is trying to offset the costs associated with tissue procurement -- a legal service. 60 page transcript of the full 3 hour vid http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPFAtranscript072514_final.pdf 3 hour video tape, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4UjIM9B9KQ

Lucylastic -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/19/2015 4:46:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 and lemme just tack on to and concur with desideri's "ethically bankrupt" statement, since you don't appear to know what a "lie" is... the question isn't about making a profit einstein, *its about selling aborted remains period*. that's the illegal part. so far as I know, and since you didn't provide any evidence to the contrary, the law doesn't make a distinction for the exchange of money for parts to "cover expenses" as opposed to making a profit. bobby Jindal and ted cruz and the center for medical progress---or whoever, aren't responsible to know planned parenthood's accounting books when they say "they are selling body parts." that's the illegal part and what the stories about brainiac. and neither is the issue whether or not consent was given by the women. which by the way, you also don't provide evidence of. for all we know, pp does indeed sell parts independent of consent but that's not what people are talking about. so where and what exactly is the lie? I continue to be dismayed by your lack of critical thinking skills. what a headache it is to read the absolute garbage stuff you post. oh, and sorry, your baby killers got busted. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/289g-2 42 U.S. Code § 289g–2 - Prohibitions regarding human fetal tissue Current through Pub. L. 114-19. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.) (a) Purchase of tissue It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce. (b) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue as directed donation for use in transplantation It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person if the donation affects interstate commerce, the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, and— (1) the donation will be or is made pursuant to a promise to the donating individual that the donated tissue will be transplanted into a recipient specified by such individual; (2) the donated tissue will be transplanted into a relative of the donating individual; or (3) the person who solicits or knowingly acquires, receives, or accepts the donation has provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such abortion. (c) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to— (1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or (2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal. (d) Criminal penalties for violations (1) In general Any person who violates subsection (a), (b), or (c) shall be fined in accordance with title 18, subject to paragraph (2), or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both. (2) Penalties applicable to persons receiving consideration With respect to the imposition of a fine under paragraph (1), if the person involved violates subsection (a) or (b)(3), a fine shall be imposed in an amount not less than twice the amount of the valuable consideration received. (e) Definitions For purposes of this section: (1) The term “human fetal tissue” has the meaning given such term in section 289g–1 (g) of this title. (2) The term “interstate commerce” has the meaning given such term in section 321 (b) of title 21. (3) The term “valuable consideration” does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue. Planned Parenthood actually facilitates tissue donation with full patient consent, at no financial benefit to the organization, and in full compliance with the law. Unedited Transcript: "Nobody Should Be 'Selling' Tissue. That's Just Not The Goal Here." The Center for Medical Progress also released a full transcript and longer version of the video with Dr. Nucatola -- featuring more than 150 minutes of additional footage -- which include crucial portions that were edited out. In one case, Nucatola says, "no affiliate should be doing anything that's not like, reasonable and customary. This is not- nobody should be 'selling' tissue. That's just not the goal here." From the Center for Medical Progress' transcript (emphasis added):

MercTech -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/19/2015 6:18:27 AM)
There is no this side lies or that side lies; it boils down to politicians lie. All the GOP vs DEM rhetoric is mainly smoke and mirrors to distract from the fact that we, as a constituency, are being played for personal power agendas. Some politicians lie because they are really good at spinning things to their advantage. Some lie because they are too stupid to realize their words are disconnected with reality. The legal citation begs a question of where the frozen placentas used for OB/GYN and Cellular Biology classes come from. Is a placenta considered "fetal tissue"? Hmmm

Lucylastic -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/19/2015 6:34:02 AM)
Well strictly speaking yes. As without a placenta there would be no fetus. Some people eat placenta, the chinese use it as medicine, and even in drinks of course its also used in cosmetics, and education purposes.

lady4dad -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/19/2015 6:41:04 AM)
strictly speaking a placenta is fetomaternal tissue btw most mammal mothers eat their placentas after birth

bounty44 -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/19/2015 6:53:46 AM)
some more information germane to the topic: "Under the radar: The lucrative sale of fetal body parts: "The largest unregulated industry in our nation, the abortion industry, and its collaborators in the medical research fields have found a way around the law to profit from illegal trafficing of human fetal tissues. This goulish practice has been exposed on national TV, and the U.S. House of Representatives held hearings on the matter. But if you know how the game is played, you can safely participate in the thriving fetal body parts business without violating the guidlines of the National Institute of Health or being penalized by the feds. " quote: Follow the money trail around the law: ... 2. Pregnant mothers contribute to clinic profits in a big way. Sadly, most donate their aborted babies after being told, "What you carry inside you is merely a glob of tissue...and that same fetal tissue could help researchers preserve another life." About 75% of women agree to such a donation in this context. 3. Selling human tissue is against federal law. But body parts wholesalers work around this by placing an employee on site at the clinic to train and oversee the collection of fetal material they desire. They then pay the clinic a "site fee" in return for the value of the body parts removed from the clinic. Most orders for fetal material are for healthy tissue--no abnormalities, please! The more fully formed, the more desirable they are for research purposes. Orders are often placed specifying that an organ must be procured from a living, aborted baby! Use of certain chemicals might harm a desired organ. 4. Technically, the abortion clinic "donates" the fetal materials to the wholesaler. There is no record of anyone illegally paying for a body part. Specimens can be obtained within minutes of passage, flash-frozen or processed to your specification, then shipped FedEx to preserve freshness. 5. Once again, the fetal tissues are "donated", not sold, from the wholesaler to the research organization. The biggest demand for human fetal tissues comes from pharmaceutical and biological firms, government and university research laboratories. 6. If no one has illegally bought or sold a human body part, how is the wholesaler paid off? The wholesaler cleverly bills the research facility for "retrieval costs", which cover all operational expenses plus profits. The mother is the only one to not share in the profits from her infant’s body parts. Each year $19 million in grants and awards is dished out for fetal tissue research by the U.S. taxpayer-funded National Institute of Health, whose guidelines prohibit profit from direct sales, but allow all other forms of compensation which cover the hidden profit. 7. Why doesn't our government shut down this grisly business of harvesting and selling body parts of our unborn citizens? Because it's not illegal, as the laws are written. The money trail leads us back to legislators who accept campaign funds from the abortion industry and others profiting under the radar. But the trail of money pales compared to the trail of innocent blood spilled in the clinics since Roe vs. Wade. It would fill the Potomac. http://www.unbornintheusa.org/pages/P_bodyparts.htm heres the actual law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/289g-2 and the very unfortunate "workaround" section in it: quote: (e) Definitions For purposes of this section: (1) The term “human fetal tissue” has the meaning given such term in section 289g–1 (g) of this title. (2) The term “interstate commerce” has the meaning given such term in section 321 (b) of title 21. (3) The term “valuable consideration” does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue. and so, to comrade penguin, of course everyone knows that and is therefore lying for political gain.

Lucylastic -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/19/2015 6:54:36 AM)
Lady4dad...maternal yes true, its still necessary for fetal tissue growth, filtering mother and fetus blood, immunities food, excretion. Which is my"rationale" nothing more.

joether -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/19/2015 10:41:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether "...to just under nine mines." Should read: to just under nine minutes. I'm not perfect at grammar, but I do try.... I think you mean spelling, but let's not quibble. [:D] The words mines, minutes, and grammar, are all correct spellings within the English language. That you are simply being your usual cheap and pettiness is not missed. But then, I've come to expect your infantile attempts to match my intellect. And fail!!!!!! (Be sure to check on the stuff after the 'fail'. Might prove insightful to your limited understanding of spelling concepts....)

Sanity -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/19/2015 10:47:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lady4dad btw most mammal mothers eat their placentas after birth Isnt that so that it doesnt attract predators, like big pharma etc

joether -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/19/2015 10:51:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So since they only violate the law (by their own admission) it is a lie. As always a lie is anything you don't like. Do you REALLY not understand what is being stated here?

BamaD -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/19/2015 11:28:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So since they only violate the law (by their own admission) it is a lie. As always a lie is anything you don't like. Do you REALLY not understand what is being stated here? I do, you don't understand that the point is that they admitted to breaking the law.

bounty44 -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/19/2015 12:29:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So since they only violate the law (by their own admission) it is a lie. As always a lie is anything you don't like. Do you REALLY not understand what is being stated here? I do, you don't understand that the point is that they admitted to breaking the law. I certainly wouldn't fault you bama, his writing runs like a stream of consciousness and its nigh to impossible sometimes to follow, or to get his point.

joether -> RE: Lying Republicans and Organiations (7/19/2015 12:50:10 PM)
Understand this DS, I'm only entertaining this tangent on a limited scale. Since it is off topic. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Mathematics is not the strong suit of the GOP/TP, one only has to look up that 'fiscal conservative' and 'fiscal responsibility' guys that grew the national debt from $2 trillion to $11.5 trillion between 2000 to 2008. For conservatives, it seems they accept what their masters tell them is true or not.... Might as well, since we can't look to you and yours for it. You are a liar, Joether. Shall we start out with the obvious: President Bush was not in charge of spending for FY2000, so any attempt to foist debt on his watch would correctly be FY2001-2009. I'm sure you knew that, so, you lied. Unfortunately conservatives blame President Obama about 2008. Only fair to place former President George W. Bush as 'being in control' of 2000. Actually, the federal budget begins in the month of July and ends in June of the following year. Therefore, we are both right (from a certain perspective). The difference is, I knew that small detail that you now know. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Might as well, since we can't look to you and yours for it. You of all people, should know me better. There are times I place an intellectual trap down to see whom I catch. Cus I respect ya, I'm not going to beat you down to much (maybe a little for fun....). quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You are a liar, Joether. Shall we start out with the obvious: President Bush was not in charge of spending for FY2000, so any attempt to foist debt on his watch would correctly be FY2001-2009. I'm sure you knew that, so, you lied. Actually President Bush was not in control of the budget anymore than President Obama. Its Congress's job to create and maintain the budget. But for simple minds, its easier to blame blame the party they hate. Or are you going to tell me there are more intellectual conservatives beyond yourself on these boards? You got Sanity and RealOne whom are really not doing your side any favors! That US Presidents, being one of three branches of the federal government can suggest a budget to Congress. It remains Congress's job to finalize and maintain it throughout the operating year. Come on, DS, you KNOW me better than this. You got to know when the other side is bluffing and call them on it. But also know when to fold because they most likely have a better hand and are leading you towards filling the pot with more money. Isn't there a country song to this effect......? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Next lie: $2T-$11.5T https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm I know it's not easy info to find ([8\|]), so I went to my super secret search engine (aka "Google") and looked up "national debt in 2000." The link above was found after much searching and wading through ad links and... okay, it was the 2nd entry after the 3 ads. National Debt on 9/30/2000: $5.67T (not $2T) National Debt on 9/30/2008: $10.0T (not $11.5T) You probably used the debt numbers from the proper years, so, let's look at that, shall we? National Debt on 9/30/2001: $5.8T National Debt on 9/30/2009: $11.9T Which numbers are being used here? Current value or actuated for future value? The US Government uses both processes so it is important to know which is being used. What your stating is the 'current value', what I stated was 'what numbers will exist in the future'. Meaning that the dollar's more likely 'value' based upon a number of normal, fairly easily to determined factors (i.e. rate of inflation over 'X' years). I think you got the basic idea, but didn't follow it to the correct conclusion (your like 75% there). The number I quote was $2 trillion. An educated guess based on the future value. This is a number the GOP was quoting throughout the first term of Mr. Bush's stay in the White House. This was used to downplay the real numbers (which your quoting at $5.6 trillion). What was going on in the nation between 2000-2003? Would the American people have been 'on-board' with going into two separate theaters of war that would place considerably more burdens on the national debt if they were told the debt was $2 trillion or $5 trillion? It sounds dumb to say it......BUT.....'2' is smaller than '5'. Not just from a mathematical perspective, but a psychological one. The GOP/TP had to sell the conflicts to their own constituents as 'not increasing the debt'. You might recall in those three years, supporters of the GOP wanted to cut costs (i.e. the five tax cuts in those years), rather than raise them (because they just got done telling their supporters that Democrats are 'The Party of Tax and Spend'). Important to know the history of events and their perspective from different viewpoints, is it not? As a side note, are you aware the Iraq War alone cost the nation $4 trillion in overall costs? Yes, $2 trillion in the actual conduction of the war and 'Nation Building' afterward. The remainder is the actuary cost for wounded veterans and other assorted costs. All with borrowed money! A conservative number would place it at $3.7 trillion, a more liberal number at $4.8 trillion. Understand here, that the words 'conservative' and 'liberal' have nothing to do with politics, but in making an educated guess, given all known information. Since conservatives have used liberal numbers when stating something, just as liberals use 'a conservative estimate'. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri FFS, Joether!! Not only did you lie about what years W was in control of the economy, but you lied abut how much debt there was!! To be sure, W piled debt on like it was going out of style. "Slick Willy" only added, roughly, $1.4T in his 8 years, so W was an awful lot worse than him (and conservatives were not happy about W's spending, no matter what bullshit you sling). Bush's final 2 years saw a debt increase of $2.9T, almost half of all the debt his Administration oversaw. There is a difference between the Clinton and Bush administration that followed it. The Democrats and Republicans got together and hashed out a compromise on the budget back in 1995. This resulted in the nation experiencing a budget surplus. Since that time, making agreements on the federal budget have become more and more intense and 'stand-off-ish'. You might recall the 'Super Committee' on the Budget in 2011? In which Republicans according to House Speak Bohmer stated 'We have 98% of what we want on our side'; and still stalled for the remaining 2% when the deadline was hit. Republicans took a beating in the polls and election due to it. So here is the question: Why did the debt increase under the Bush Administration? There is a very logical answer to this. Trust me when I say "I know the answer". That both parties view the other as 'the evil doer', and their views as 'just and correct for the American people'. There is an actual string of events that would place this nation on a course for 'higher debt'. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, where is our debt now? $17.8T, as of 9/30/2014. $5.9T added during Obama's first 5 years in control. Annual deficits have dropped (even though spending hasn't) as the economy has been recovering. Revenues have been at all-time highs, yet we keep adding to the debt. Notice I'm not arguing the numbers your using here on the debt? Since the question I asked above, leads us to these very numbers. An I'm not going to give you anymore hints! I think we both understand the debt is....FUCKING HIGH....and not good for the nation long term. That I understand your view on how the nation should lower this value (i.e. a combination of lowering taxes and budget). I'm not entirely sure you understand mine. Its not so much as 'raise taxes', as is a combination of 'cutting the budget, raising taxes, and considerations alternative concepts/ideas'. We've had these chats before. I think your idea has some very deep flaws to its execution, and hope you remember my....long....explanation of the effects. An that many economists on all sides agree to the viewpoint I was stating as 'not being in the best interests of the nation'. Consider what your saying on a personal level. Your in debt. Your current job pays $65K/year grossing. Assuming your good with a budget, you'll take the debt down in 10 years (where 'X' is the amount you owe). Which of the following makes more sense: A ) Take a new job at $45k/year grossing and cutting budgetary items here and there. B) Getting a new job at $85K/year grossing, while cutting some budgetary items and pouring more money against the principle? Of course, 'B' is the best option at the micro level. At the macro level, that means higher taxes, tariffs, and fees, right? An I agree, yes it does. At the micro level, your employer will most likely expect more from you for $85K/year than either $65K/year or $45K/year. This means more stressing situations, less time with family, handling more job responsibilities. For some people, they can do this, for others, they can not. So while 'A' allows an easier time with stress and responsibilities, the time to pay that debt off is much longer. Resulting in more interest being paid. Option 'B' adds considerably more stress and responsibilities, but lowers the debt faster, resulting in less money being paid on the principle. So what is the answer? Lowering the budget....fairly....between the two parties. But not to quickly, nor sharply. And considering whether the nation will be in a bull or bear market for the following year (this is FUCKING TOUCH to predict). Yes, taxes, tariffs and fees will be raised. Hopefully, if we have performed the math correctly, we have a surplus. We used that surplus to pay down the existing debt. Now here is were it becomes REALLY important and tough (like the previous paragraph isn't tough already, right?): This would be done through one or more bills that become law (because that is the process by which budgets are made in the nation). It would be up to....ALL AMERICANS....to keep ALL SIDES financially accountable to the budget. I hate to say, but disasters and other taxing events will take place during this time. That is the penalty for this nation's people not watching nor understanding laws passed by this nation's government. You've seen how well Americans on all sides of the political spectrum understand The Affordable Care Act? Both in the nation and on this forum, right? Now try to imagine how well the American people can follow the financial plan of getting us out of debt? Being manipulated by people that have a financial/political (or both) stake in the current and final outcome? You've seen how many times I've had to correct people on the ACA, right? Try to imagine how often I'll have to correct people on this law or set of laws for the budget? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You are ethically bankrupt. Or is it your just not understanding because I left things out on purpose? This is a discussion not a lecture, right? Therefore, we benefit by me leaving some details and concepts out (if it were a lecture, they would be added). Thus, if a good argument is made by someone else, I might learn something I would not have known before. Thereby reducing 'group think' and lessening ideological rigidness as it relates to the topic. There is a method to the madness.....

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875