Personally, Bricker, I think that if you want to excuse Senator Kyl on the grounds that it’s more equitable to characterize his statement as hyperbole than as dishonesty, you should do it in that thread. I also think that it would serve you right if a mod were to fold this thread into the Kyl thread.
Or fold the Kyl thread into this one (since this one is so much longer).
Rats.
Well, turns out PP picks up 10% of the cost of mammograms here in Virginia.
OK. I’m an idiot. Nothing to see here. Move along.
I’m sure some other liberal lied at some point in the past. No need to give up on your effort to make Kyl into a goodguy yet!
If you want to shift the numbers in the proper response to you (“X% serious, Y% mock”), OK. On your head be any carpal tunnel cases resulting from the ever-growing string of zeroes required for X and the ever-growing string of nines required for Y.
Everybody knows that 87% of all statistics are just made up on the spot.
You’ve already conceded, which I appreciate, but I’m still going to respond to this: that’s not how nonprofits work, in my experience.
The humane society I used to work for got many thousands of dollars worth of grants from Bob Barker’s DJ&T Foundation to provide spay/neuter services. We did this in the form of vouchers: people could come to us and, with very little paperwork, receive a voucher that reduced or eliminated the cost of getting their pet sterilized at a local clinic. The funds from the grants went 100% to the vouchers; our only contribution to the effort was filling out the paperwork for them and passing it on to DJ&T for reimbursement.
We needed DJ&T’s money. They needed our on-the-ground organizational skills. Both of us needed the vet clinic’s medical expertise. Without all three of us, the surgeries wouldn’t have happened.
And we advertised in our fundraising materials–wholly appropriately, IMO–that we provided spay/neuter assistance for low-income pet owners.
People couldn’t go directly to DJ&T, because the foundation wasn’t set up for individual assistance. They were set up to give block grants.
The situation with PP, the Komen Foundation, and the radiology clinics sounds very similar. Except fewer puppies.
But here’s the thing, Bricker. You never presented any evidence that Boxer lied. Even if PP didn’t provide any funds for mammograms, how do you know that Boxer wasn’t simply mistaken? How do you get “lie” out of this story?
No quite, dude.
Answer this question, first: If Senator Boxer makes a statement that she thinks is correct, but it later turns out that it was not correct, is she a liar, or is she mistaken?
Right. I’m actually on the board of a pro-life non-profit, and we provide certain things directly (cribs, baby clothes, vocational training) and act as the referrer for many other things (Sec. 8 housing, TANF).
JUst recently we entered into an arrangement with the state: they give us free car seats, and we distribute them; we have to make sure our recipients qualify under income guidelines. I wouldn’t say we provide car seats, even though we physcially hand them out, because they cost us nothing.
But your point is well-taken. Certainly the discovery that PP actually pays a portion of the costs in my own state took the wind out of my sails on this point.
She’s mistaken. She’s not a liar.
Now, if Senator Kyl lies, than admits that he lies, is he a liar, or is he mistaken?
So, how did you conclude that she lied when you wrote the OP?
OF COURSE Kyle was not lying. After all, his office merely told us that what he said was "not intended to be a factual statement ".
So - Kyle did did not INTEND to make a factual statement, therefore, he … um sorry, I’ve just lost my train of thought here.
Oh, right, Kyle really intended to make a non-factual statement, so we have to look at his intentions here, or rather his non-intentions, so therefore any accusation of lying on his part must be… sorry again.
Let’s analyse Boxer’s “lie”
She said:
She SHOULD have said:
(bolding mine)
So it is Bricker’s contention that Boxer deliberately, and with foreknowledge that it was untrue, committed a lie by ommision - that is, she knowingly left out the words “referrals for” in order to advance her agenda. Because that clearly changes the **entire meaning **of her statement (or not). We know that she did this deliberately, because Bricker told us so. And we know that it is important to differentiate between a deliberate, knowing lie and a simple omission of a detail, because Bricker has, in the past, been VERY adamant about making sure we all know the difference <cough, Bush’s Iraq lies, cough>
On the positive side, nobody has chimed in with “Bricker, you’re better than this”, so at least folks around here are learning.
Well, “Mammograms” for “mammogram referrals” is an easily understood slip of the tongue.
As opposed to “Planned Parenthood is in the abortion business” when 3% of donated funds, purposefully kept sequestered away from public funding, is expended on abortions; I don’t know how that would figure on the full national budget, as they intentionally keep two sets of accounts to ensure that no taxpayer money goes for abortions. This out-and-out lie has been repeated constantly by the religious organization of which Bricker is a proud member.
And it has been used as justification by the political party of which he is a member to justify bills which would deny Planned Parenthood services to the poor.
He’s a lawyer. Like all lawyers, he’s in business to twist the facts to support his causes. To hell with justice or the commandments of Christ if they get in the way of his goals!
Bricker, it’s really very simple. Do you think the gravamen of Sen. Boxer’s complaint, namely that defunding PP would restrict low-income access to health services generally of the same type as mammograms, is false? Do you believe that the essence of Sen. Kyl’s remark, namely that the overwhelming majority of services provided by PP are abortions, is true?
Perhaps you resist this characterization of the arguments. Were mammograms the sine qua non of Sen. Boxer’s complaint? Was Sen. Kyl’s goal anything other than characterizing PP as principally an abortion provider?
Is it your position that it is just as easy to overstate, by a factor 30, the percentage of PP’s activity given over to a controversial medical procedure such as abortion as it is to include mistakenly mammorgams among a list of similar medical procedures that are afforded by PP?
Do gratify us with your response.
Tellingly, even Kyl didn’t try to spin his remark as hyperbole. Probably wishes he did, now… at least one person out there seems to find that credible.
Well, he is now. A little bit, at least. Always look on the bright side of life.
“I have a wide stance on interpreting percentages.”
The thread has moved on, so please forgive the pro forma response:
So, your position apparently is that they are precisely equivalent. I’m sorry, but I find your argument unconvincing, and no one else here seems to agree with you either.
I haven’t made any statements at all about Boxer, nor have I at any point claimed that Kyl lied simply because he is a Republican. I guess maybe you believe that lying is an inherently Republican trait. I certainly don’t.
No, not OK. I will post to whatever thread I care to, whenever I care to, and you haven’t a goddam thing to say about it.
Meanwhile, in my view it takes a truly breathtaking level of cynicism to claim that Kyl’s blatant lie, followed by borderline boasting about it by his office, is of no concern to anyone except what is rather arbitrarily defined by you as a ‘loony left’.
I mean c’mon. Even the most partisan hack ever hatched would have to admit that Kyl is worthy of at least a little derision, no?