|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RMNC
Joined: 21 Jul 2010
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 7:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
When the House is talking about about de-funding Planned Parenthood (a clear move to try and (once again) punish women for having sex), it makes me happy that I moved to country where I didn't speak the language or follow the politics. Republicans seem intent on running America into the ground.
This also comes in the wake of the Republican-sponsored Net Neutrality attacks, backed by media and internet giants and their lobbyists. What a stupid, stupid country. I even read that Oklahoma is making it LEGAL to murder anyone who threatens the life of a fetus, by calling it defending a child. This literally means that it would legal to murder abortion doctors. The hypocrisy of some Americans is so mind numbing that I just had to escape it all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RMNC wrote: |
When the House is talking about about de-funding Planned Parenthood (a clear move to try and (once again) punish women for having sex), it makes me happy that I moved to country where I didn't speak the language or follow the politics. Republicans seem intent on running America into the ground.
This also comes in the wake of the Republican-sponsored Net Neutrality attacks, backed by media and internet giants and their lobbyists. What a stupid, stupid country. I even read that Oklahoma is making it LEGAL to murder anyone who threatens the life of a fetus, by calling it defending a child. This literally means that it would legal to murder abortion doctors. The hypocrisy of some Americans is so mind numbing that I just had to escape it all. |
I guess it is a good thing that the rest of the world is just a bowl of cherries, then.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RMNC wrote: |
When the House is talking about about de-funding Planned Parenthood (a clear move to try and (once again) punish women for having sex), it makes me happy that I moved to country where I didn't speak the language or follow the politics. Republicans seem intent on running America into the ground.
This also comes in the wake of the Republican-sponsored Net Neutrality attacks, backed by media and internet giants and their lobbyists. What a stupid, stupid country. I even read that Oklahoma is making it LEGAL to murder anyone who threatens the life of a fetus, by calling it defending a child. This literally means that it would legal to murder abortion doctors. The hypocrisy of some Americans is so mind numbing that I just had to escape it all. |
It's not Oklahoma, it is South Dakota. And you got the proposed law wrong. It would not make it legal to murder those who perform abortions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What's irritating about this is that Republicans are using a budget crisis they themselves in large part engineered (via ridiculous tax policy, needless wars of discretion, and ridiculous corporate handouts disguised as social and/or defense spending) in order to wage political war on policies they've always been against and whose eliminations won't even come close to closing the budget gap.
Anyone who seriously wants to close the budget gap will have to:
1) Drastically reduce "defense" spending.
2) Address Medicare/Medicaid somehow (preferably in a way that doesn't simply neuter these programs, but either way, either you talk about it or you aren't serious).
3) Raise taxes.
Anyone suggesting anything that doesn't involve at least those three steps is probably either an ideologue or just playing politics. Anyone bringing up the idea of cutting Social Security with regards to our budget deficit is also probably engaging in some chicanery. The above goes for anyone on either side of the aisle, of course (and in fact applies to almost everyone in Congress). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox,
Great points! I agree, especially about points 2 and 3.
But, raising taxes, especially for the top 2% seems nearly impossible. What is it about this bunch that doesn't seem to care about the rest of the country? I mean I do hear people like Gates and Buffet say things like maybe we should raise taxes but then the Republicans say we will agree to anything but. These guys have literally hundreds of billions of dollars. It is astronomical! What gives? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
Fox,
Great points! I agree, especially about points 2 and 3. |
I do, too, but especially about point 1. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RMNC wrote: |
| When the House is talking about about de-funding Planned Parenthood (a clear move to try and (once again) punish women for having sex), it makes me happy that I moved to country where I didn't speak the language or follow the politics. Republicans seem intent on running America into the ground. |
You mean the eugenics organization started by renowned sterilization advocate and racist Margaret Sanger? You mean the Planned Parenthood that has 80% of its clinics located in minority neighborhoods, deliberately targeting blacks (1/3 of ALL black babies are aborted in the US), Hispanics and native Americans? (as well as poor whites for that matter)...
Any move to remove funding from a blatant eugenics organization (with a sordid history going back nearly a century, to a time when it openly championed the forced sterilization which enforced in the US) is okay in my books. Especially in the case of tax dollars, which shouldn't be used to pay for abortions anyway.
| Quote: |
| This also comes in the wake of the Republican-sponsored Net Neutrality attacks, backed by media and internet giants and their lobbyists. What a stupid, stupid country. I even read that Oklahoma is making it LEGAL to murder anyone who threatens the life of a fetus, by calling it defending a child. This literally means that it would legal to murder abortion doctors. The hypocrisy of some Americans is so mind numbing that I just had to escape it all. |
While I'm skeptical any such law exists in Oklahoma, it would obviously be unconstitutional. On the other hand, while I'm not anti-abortion in every case, if doctors do abort late-term pregnancies (sometimes to fully developed fetuses, a short time before they would have been born), then that is murder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alljokingaside
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="visitorq"]
| RMNC wrote: |
| Any move to remove funding from a blatant eugenics organization (with a sordid history going back nearly a century, to a time when it openly championed the forced sterilization which enforced in the US) is okay in my books. Especially in the case of tax dollars, which shouldn't be used to pay for abortions anyway.. |
Well, continual funding to PP would also be ok in that sense, since federal cash doesn't go to pay for abortions. (Google it.)
Now what it does pay for, the little things that matter, are HIV tests, cancer screening, contraceptives, prevention, etc etc
You know, the issues festering in those communities that you mentioned like an open sore.
"And poor whites"- the common factor seems less to be racially motivated (whatever its history) and more due to class and wealth. Maybe its uneven distribution is due to ...economic factors? Poor folk stuck in poor neighborhoods might need the federal subsidies a bit more than rich folk...and frankly speaking, babies cost cash. Not exactly something that's falling from the sky in those neighborhoods. Again, the process of which isn't subsidized by federal dollars.
And speaking of Fox, (ha low blow sorry), http://www.someecards.com/2011/01/31/fox-news-doesnt-know-where-egypt-is?ref=nf
This is the media source a good chunk of Americans follow religiously. At moments like these, never have I been prouder to be an A-Mer-I-Can! .....
Last edited by alljokingaside on Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alljokingaside
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RMNC wrote: |
Republicans are just evil in the super villain sense of the word.
Defund the military. Problem fixed. Don't go after the friggin' EPA! |
They're also going after the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the government's hand supposedly used to handle and regulate financial affairs, their fist supposedly used to smash banking baddies, for those of you trying to follow. and although it is illuminating, showing what Republicans really stand for, this might not be as bad as one may imagine.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
toadkillerdog
Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Location: Daejeon. ROK
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1. Reduce the number of foreign military bases.
2. Impose a "national sales tax" on all non-food items.
3. Impose a $2 a gallon fuel tax.
4. Tax all religious institutions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alljokingaside
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| addition: tax the top 2% |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alljokingaside wrote: |
| Well, continual funding to PP would also be ok in that sense, since federal cash doesn't go to pay for abortions. (Google it.) |
I didn't say federal cash specifically. However there is over a billion dollars (federal funds) per year of unaccounted spending by Planned Parenthood. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/18/planned-parenthoods-missing-millions/?page=1
Regardless, federal funds are most certainly used to subsidize PP abortion mega-centers and for their marketing (luring women in to be customers). Possibly it's even used to pay for abortions directly (the money being unaccounted for), blatantly disregarding the Hyde Amendment. PP abortions have increased yearly along side increased federal funding.
Anyway, state funding for abortion is just as bad.
| Quote: |
Now what it does pay for, the little things that matter, are HIV tests, cancer screening, contraceptives, prevention, etc etc
You know, the issues festering in those communities that you mentioned like an open sore. |
Of course I have no problem with such things in themselves; I don't think it needs to be paid for with tax money though... Women should be able to go to a local clinic, however, to get the treatments they want.
I am not anti-abortion (except late term). I am simply against tax money being used in any way whatsoever to fund a long established, blatant eugenics organization like PP, which has such a sordid history (if you don't know about Margaret Sanger, the renowned eugenicist and forced sterilization advocate who founded the original Planned Parenthood, please google it). Black people should especially be outraged that any public funding is given the PP.
| Quote: |
| "And poor whites"- the common factor seems less to be racially motivated (whatever its history) and more due to class and wealth. Maybe its uneven distribution is due to ...economic factors? Poor folk stuck in poor neighborhoods might need the federal subsidies a bit more than rich folk... |
It's both. Eugenics is definitely racist, but also focuses on so-called traits like "feeble-mindedness" (basically meaning that if you were too poor to be educated at Harvard or Yale with the Bush kin, then you are of lower genetic stock).
| Quote: |
| and frankly speaking, babies cost cash. |
Not really actually. In fact there is money to be made from putting children up for adoption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TinyGuest
Joined: 09 Feb 2010
Location: Houston, TX for only one more year
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apologies in advance folks, but I've never quite been able to work out the quote tags. I'm sure some will be broken.
Do you realize you're not quoting an objective source? The break down for Planned Parenthood spending is actually more towards 3% for abortions and they spend over half of their budget on contraceptives and STD testing/treatment. I'd also point out how it sweeps under the rug that it's saying other businesses are doing the same thing. Not saying it's right, but this is definitely a bias article.
PDF breakdown of '08 - '09 - http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_AR_011011_vF.pdf
Calling out Laura Ingraham on misrepresenting the numbers -http://mediamatters.org/research/201102180003
A bit dated, but a med student working at a PP who went in only knowing PP for abortions - http://www.grahamazon.com/over/2007/10/planned-parenthood-aint-abortions/
| Quote: |
Regardless, federal funds are most certainly used to subsidize PP abortion mega-centers and for their marketing (luring women in to be customers). Possibly it's even used to pay for abortions directly (the money being unaccounted for), blatantly disregarding the Hyde Amendment. PP abortions have increased yearly along side increased federal funding.
Anyway, state funding for abortion is just as bad.
|
How are they luring women in as customers? That's suggesting subversion, which is hard to believe since they're not hustling people to come in. Generally speaking it's one of the cheapest services for trying to do something as simple as getting an annual pap smear. Lately it's not been so cheap because the costs are rising (due to funding cuts), making it harder for women to have effective family planning, STD testings, gaining contraceptives, and for other medical needs like pap smears.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Now what it does pay for, the little things that matter, are HIV tests, cancer screening, contraceptives, prevention, etc etc
You know, the issues festering in those communities that you mentioned like an open sore.
|
Of course I have no problem with such things in themselves; I don't think it needs to be paid for with tax money though... Women should be able to go to a local clinic, however, to get the treatments they want.
|
Why shouldn't these things be paid for by tax money? They're not cheap. Even with insurance, but especially without it. It's getting away from being a cheap place to go for effective procedures due to funding being cut too because of this propaganda. They're not "abortion mega-centers". For quite a few people, Planned Parenthood is the local clinic. Without tax money a lot of women wouldn't be able to afford getting such a basic need like a pap smear done. Without tax money a huge line would be drawn in class over women getting basic medical services and family planning.
| Quote: |
I am not anti-abortion (except late term). I am simply against tax money being used in any way whatsoever to fund a long established, blatant eugenics organization like PP, which has such a sordid history (if you don't know about Margaret Sanger, the renowned eugenicist and forced sterilization advocate who founded the original Planned Parenthood, please google it). Black people should especially be outraged that any public funding is given the PP.
|
I'd also like to point out that no one is forcing them through the door; it's their choice to go. So why be outraged if they're taking advantage of an organization that's giving them things they want/need? Eugenics from what my googling-fu showed me, would be advocating that they be pressured into not breeding at all. PP isn't giving them any kind of pressure to not procreate, unless I suppose, it be due to danger for the potential mother in question. So, I'm wondering if you're taking in the historical context of eugenics when making this argument.
I also did some googling on Margaret Sanger, along with the taglines of being a eugenicist and forced sterilization. Yes, she believed in eugenics, much like other people during that time period. Yes, she advocated for sterilizing the feeble-minded and insane, much like everyone else in that time period. However, this needs to be taken into the historical context where this was considered a solution. Now, it's not. Anyone doing this will have an ACLU team fighting over who gets to headline the case. Just because it was founded by someone controversial now because she believed in what was considered medical fact then doesn't mean it should eclipse the fact she was essentially advocating for women's rights to contraceptives and choosing when to have a potential baby.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
Quote:
and frankly speaking, babies cost cash.
|
Not really actually. In fact there is money to be made from putting children up for adoption.
|
I'd say abortions are increasing because of the economics of having a child. Also, that federal funding is then increasing because women want access to contraceptives to avoid having a child during this economy. Children, are really, really expensive. The cost of raising a kid to the age of 18 is mind-boggling. Even while a woman is pregnant the charges already start up with pre-natal vitamins, checkups, and other medical needs (also things Planned Parenthood can provide coincidently). This is before even getting it out of the womb. The delivery itself will cost several thousand dollars. The first year for a baby equals over a $1,000 dollars in supplies. With insurance it's expensive enough, without insurance it's really taking limited budgets and squeezing them down to the last drop. Googling will show you plenty of break downs.
I'd like to point out even with babies being oh-so expensive that it's also cheaper to just have them instead of adopting. There's the possibility that the child will never wind up in a family (going into foster case) if it's not a private adoption as it's so insanely expensive to adopt one infant. Yes, adoption does involve money, but the money goes to the agencies and the bills if insurance doesn't cover them. Whoever is giving birth basically just gets her bills paid, no pay check. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Anyone who seriously wants to close the budget gap will have to:
1) Drastically reduce "defense" spending.
2) Address Medicare/Medicaid somehow (preferably in a way that doesn't simply neuter these programs, but either way, either you talk about it or you aren't serious).
3) Raise taxes. |
That's right. Most deficit hawks will propose these three things. The first should be the easiest to do because a less bloated military will be a better military. The third should be the second easiest to do because averting generational theft should be uncontroversial. By far the toughest is the second, which will have deleterious but necessary consequences.
While we're at it we should make the income tax code progressive again. Hopefully Bowles-Simpson will be adopted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
