'Gato, have you ever acknowledged the possibility that you’re a total moron?
Well, yeah, you should have. I mean, you think I’m fakin it when you do that hoodoo that you do on my looloo so well?
I mean, damn, especially after your surgery, you think I’m not gonna bring it up every chance I get?
(yah doorknob, I know you’re banned- this is on the chance that you re-animate with a correctly spelled name. ‘shit’ would be a good one- small, easy to spell.)
So let it be written, so let it be done.
[sub]remind me never to cross Falcon again[/sub]
Not to throw myself in with the OPer in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM…but I have to throw a couple of corrections in here:
Or the Dept. of Education. Or the EPA. etc…Do you really want to start rolling the Fed gov’t back to it’s Constitutional limits? I do.
WTF??? Are you crazy? Refusing to pay for the rest of the world’s abortions is a far cry from violating their freedom of speech. You do not have to be subsidized to have free speech.
Or as bad as making them pay for 30% of the taxes and then giving them no tax rebate when they have overpaid?
All of which were put there when the state had a democratic governor and legislature.
BTW…do you have any cites for Bush’s claim or that implication that any of them were not guilty?
I know…I know…this is the pit. Maybe I shouldn’t be asking for cites in here, but thoses points were just so far off base I couldn’t resist.
Every single one of those points have been discussed over and over and over in GD.
I’m not getting into them again. I will very briefly* explain myself.
All I know is that the Dept. of Education is not preaching the word of God to me. I’m all for people finding God, but not on my dollar.
Obviously you do not go into GD often, or read the newspapers.
It has been against the law since 1976 for any overseas planned parenthood organization to use US funds for abortions. Now Bush is taking it a step further. Now it’s illegal for any of the organizations to MENTION the word abortion, or counsel on it in anyway. If he tried to pull that shit in the US he’d be beaten resoundly over the head. However, he thinks he can pull it in foreign countries. Maybe it doesn’t bother you that Bush thinks the principals of the Constitution doesn’t extend outside of the US, but it bothers me.
Actually according to my AP Econ and AP Gov teachers, the top 1% does not pay 30% of the taxes. Furthermore, they don’t even pay all the taxes recquired in their tax bracket. They already get bigger breaks than most of us anyway. Think about it. Off the top of my head, I can’t recall what the percentage is for the top tax bracket, but I do recall that they don’t pay the full amount.
Bush claimed on Oprah that all of them were 100% guilty, and of that, he was 100% certain. However, that is a statistic impossibility. And makes him look like a fool. Since the courts are not perfect, they make mistakes. It’s bad enough when a man is falsely imprisoned, but it’s even worse when someone is mistakenly put on death row, and ultimately murdered.
My point was, Bush did not know 100%, and making comments like that calls his credibility into question. (But hey, most of what he says calls his credibility into question.)
*This is not GD, and I really don’t care. I’m not going to hunt through hundreds of bookmarks to prove my point.
Actually they pay more. For the most recent tax year data released (1998), the top 1% paid 34.8% of total income taxes. This top 1% had 18.5% of total Adjusted Gross income and a total average tax rate of 27.1%.
I don’t understand your last comment on them not paying the taxes that are required in their tax bracket. I think there may be some confusion on the rate of taxes paid vs. the marginal tax rate for a bracket. I can’t think of many situation of where a taxpayer pays the top marginal rate on their entire income.
…and who are you again?
Whatever are you talking about. There is no legal/illegal thing going on here. Bush cut off funding to overseas groups that advocate/offer abortions.
If they want to MENTION the word abortion, Bush is not sending the ATF in to kick down the door and gun them down. If they advocate/offer abortions, then they don’t get Federal funding.
Which goes back to the first point you made about the Constitution. I don’t see anything about family planning in the constitution either, so I don’t know why we are using Federal funds for that either.
Which takes us one more step into your initial point. If you can’t compartmentalize funds in faith based charities, and you are going to look at any money given to them as “funding religion,” then you need to hold the same standard in a clinic that perfoms abortions.
I happen to think Bush wants it both ways, and is ignoring the obvious hypocrisy.
My solution? I agree with you. If it isn’t in the Constitution, we should cut off funding for it.
I hate to be the one to break it to you…
…but they don’t.
From love for sale to this?
[sub]**Freedom is really a sock for Gazpacho
I see, so the only people worthy of “inalienable rights” are those of us lucky enough to be born within US borders. I simply can’t agree with that.
The organizations that are losing funds, such as International Planned Parenthood do not advocate abortion as a form of birth control or perform abortions. They simply offer counseling. If they talk about it(That pesky freedom of speech) they lose money. If Bush tried to punish people for simply counseling on matters here in the US, people would be outraged at the violation of the first amendment. However, if he does it overseas, it’s perfectly alright?
That type of double-standard disgusts me.
Ouch. My feelings. Please, pull the dagger out of my heart. I can’t stand the cruelty. :rolleyes:
Neither can I. Nor can I agree to the notion that the US should prop the whole fucking planet up on its shoulders, especially when most of it doesn’t want us to.
Less idealism, Pepper, and more realism, please. Or do you not understand that 250 million people can’t support 6 billion others?
I’m not advocating that we go out and “absorb” other countries, till we’re all one giant happy USA. I don’t even think we should go out and be the world’s policemen. Not even when country leaders are being jerks (to put it mildly). However, when our own leader is acting like a complete and total jackass, ignoring the very principals he’s sworn to protect, whether here or abroad, it annoys me.
I don’t think we have to go make sure every person in every country should have their rights protected. But I don’t think the US should go out of their way to take certain rights, or in this case, ignore certain rights of other people. If an organization discusses a legal option with one of its patient’s, that’s grounds to lose US funds. I don’t care what country it’s in, that’s hypocritical and a double-standard.
I understand that, as of late, the poor, benighted 'eathens in some of the less favoured parts of the world have had the temerity to make their own constitutional arrangements.
Pepperlandgirl, I don’t want to pile on. But can you see the difference between criminalizing abortion counseling, and NOT FUNDING abortion counseling? One is a violation of free speech. The other is not.
The US taxpayers get to decide what happens to their tax money, right? So therefore, if we chose to fund abortion counseling, fine. If we choose not to, fine. There is no constitutional or free speech issue here.
And of course, you are still free to argue that we SHOULD fund abortion counseling even though we presently don’t. The “taking away my funding is censorship!” argument doesn’t fly.
Sorry, I didn’t mean that to come off as a slam. I was referring to the fact that a good 80% of my posts have been in GD. I LIVE in GD. So when you asked me if I had been in GD recently…
…well you get the picture.
You and I have a very different definition of inalienable rights. IMHO…if someone else has to pay for it…then it is not inalienable.
No one said they can’t talk about abortion, they only said WE will not PAY for THEM to talk about it.
No organization has ANY rights to US tax dollars as far as I’m concerned, so I don’t see how getting our money turns into someonelse’s inalienable rights.
If you care so much, cut them a check from your own bank account.
On the thought of unalienable Rights…
Declaration of Independence, rather than the Constitution…
Freedom, you stated:
Now, it is my understanding that the organization as a whole is funded or not depending on whether they talk about abortion as one of many viable options.
So… Let me see if I understand this concept.
A family planning organization needs funds. The US government has a wonderful charitable reputation for providing funds.
The President of the United States tells me (this is a paraphrase, so please excuse, but none the less point out my inaccuracies): If you tell people about abortion and present it as an option for them to consider, we won’t give you any money. If you censor yourself and allow no mention of abortion in your organization we will certainly send you money.
Now, if that’s right. Well, we are a country of people who consider freedom of speech to be important enough that we made it the first amendment to our constitution.
Now, I’m not saying that this means we should be out fighting for every world citizen’s right to free speech because their government isn’t giving it to them.
I am saying it makes the US government look like a bunch of putzes to be using monetary blackmail to stifle anyone’s free speech. Especially when the speech being stifled is due to the President’s personal preference rather than something shown to be the opinion of a majority of the citizens of this country.
First, I would like a cite demonstrating that the majority of Americans have a different preference on this issue than Bush.
Second, what world do you live in? Our gov’t stifles so called “free speech” all the time if you go by your definition.
Why is it that the Klan can march down the street, but not get federal funds like Planned Parenthood?
I will repeat…
If it takes American tax dollars to say it, then it is not free speech.
Free speech is when you pay for it yourself. If you go crazy and suffer a pit meltdown like PitMeister, the Chicago Reader is not infringing on your freedom of speech by banning you and locking your threads. If they came after your crappy little sockpuppet MB and tried to shut that down, then they would be infringing on your rights.
When Bush sends out American troops to shutdown clinics in other countries that offer advice he doesn’t approve of, then I will agree with you.
Until then, withholding funding does not equal draconian infringement of free speech.
In other countries no less…
For the 3rd time.
I do not advocate going into countries and forcing other countries to follow the US Constitution. Ultimately, I’m not too concerned what other countries do in their Constitution.
But when the President of the United States of America advocates censorship via blackmail overseas because he can’t do it here, it bothers me.
When I read the title of the thread, “Love for sale…” and then read the first line complaining about Clinton, I thought he was buying himself prostitutes. Instead, it’s an article of another mistake bonehead Clinton made unknowingly, in an attempt by Origato for everyone to lose respect for Clinton. 9/10 of the population lost for Clinton as a man and as a person with common sense a olng time ago pal. Furthermore, he’s no longer President Clinton, just Joe Schmoe Clinton, and he is not worth hearing about, even if he’ll probably win a Darwin Award some day. So…let’s just let sleeping dogs lie, or in this case sleeping politicians.
Bribery seems to fit the situation much more than blackmail.
I say we just cut off the funding no matter what they say and call it even. What do you say?
Unknowingly? C’mon…the man was the friggin PRESIDENT. Are you guys always going to excuse every thing he does an an accident? The guy is scum, and he knowingly sold pardons.
So which is it?
I am keen to know, since we have a general election coming up in this country soon and I want to know whether it’s worth my while turning out to vote or whether I should just sit here and wait for Uncle Sam to come along and tell me what my rights are.
I know that the USA is generally the global arbiter of what constitutes democracy, civil rights and the rule of law, but I was just wondering whther we might be given special dispensation to work it out for ourselves? If that’s OK by you?
You could still use our airbases to launch bombing raids on third-world cities, so long as we were allowed to make our own policy on things like health services (I understand you didn’t do too well on that one) and you didn’t make us play your strange American “sports”.
- Confused in Europe.