" on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On May 22, 6:37*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive. Leave that
to the Tea Party.


I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". "Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."


usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x 10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
" on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On May 22, 6:37 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:


If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're
only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real
ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't
waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small
you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive. Leave
that
to the Tea Party.


I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". "Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."

Nonsense. The big budget items aren't things you can nibble a few cents at a
time. And you can take all the things you *can* nibble, add them up, and
they'll amount to so little they get lost in the rounding.

The big items need serious solutions, or we get nowhere.



usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x
10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play
child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

Meanwhile, insuring health care is eating us alive, while you're arguing
over Big Bird and Head Start.

That's why I'm skeptical that we'll get anywhere. The politicians can make
plenty of hay off of people like you and Roger, and avoid the big -- and
politically costly -- issues that are running us into the ground.

--
Ed Huntress

On May 27, 12:33*pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:
" on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking *the following:

On May 22, 6:37*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive. Leave that
to the Tea Party.

I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. *If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

* * * * If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". *"Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."



usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x 10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. *Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

* * * * I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" * Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:

While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

rangerssuck wrote:

(...)

So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:

While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I made the same point, (albeit much less eloquently) almost
a week ago. Still no comment from The Roger.

--Winston

Ed Huntress wrote:



Nonsense. The big budget items aren't things you can nibble a few cents at a
time. And you can take all the things you *can* nibble, add them up, and
they'll amount to so little they get lost in the rounding.

The big items need serious solutions, or we get nowhere.


Meanwhile, insuring health care is eating us alive, while you're arguing
over Big Bird and Head Start.

That's why I'm skeptical that we'll get anywhere. The politicians can make
plenty of hay off of people like you and Roger, and avoid the big -- and
politically costly -- issues that are running us into the ground.

--
Ed Huntress

I have come to the conclusion that you do not want the budget cut.
And this bit about large versus small items is just to provide a
diversion. You say do not look at everything, and Congress will
comply by not looking at anything.


Dan

wrote in message
...


Ed Huntress wrote:



Nonsense. The big budget items aren't things you can nibble a few cents
at a
time. And you can take all the things you *can* nibble, add them up, and
they'll amount to so little they get lost in the rounding.

The big items need serious solutions, or we get nowhere.


Meanwhile, insuring health care is eating us alive, while you're arguing
over Big Bird and Head Start.

That's why I'm skeptical that we'll get anywhere. The politicians can
make
plenty of hay off of people like you and Roger, and avoid the big -- and
politically costly -- issues that are running us into the ground.

--
Ed Huntress

I have come to the conclusion that you do not want the budget cut.

Then you've come to the wrong conclusion.

And this bit about large versus small items is just to provide a
diversion.

The diversion is by the people who want to cut things that are fractions of
a percent of the budget, fighting cultural wars and wasting time, while
leaving over 50% of the budget alone.

I'd say it's some kind of affliction; possibly an acute avoidance of some
kind.

You say do not look at everything, and Congress will
comply by not looking at anything.

You've lost sight of the forest for the sake of a few saplings, Dan.

Meantime, I haven't heard a peep out of you about health care or defense --
the two enormous components of our budget. Do you just think they can be put
off while we diddle around with PBS and Planned Parenthood?

--
Ed Huntress

Until we can do something about the Defense budget this is all
rather academic.

And THAT will be a tough nut to crack.
(Militarized nut?)

--

Richard Lamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~sv_temptress

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 12:33 pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:
" on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

On May 22, 6:37 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're
only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real
ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't
waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small
you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive. Leave
that
to the Tea Party.

I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". "Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."



usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x
10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play
child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
\
\So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:
\
\While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
\about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
\initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
\religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
\federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
\what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

How many crimes are prevented by pastoral council? How about Pastors that
visit the sick in the Hospitals? Many churches help the poor with food
and/or clothing, what $ value is that? In other words, these religious
organizations also serve a secular purpose. Thomas Jefferson gave taxpayer
money to missionaries because they were beneficial with the Indians. In
many instances, if we would have sent a few more missionaries we probably
would not have had to send as many troops.

Today as you see crime on the increase, as you see the world going down the
****ter, thank people just like yourself, your kind of thinking is the
cause.

RogerN

"Winston" wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

(...)

So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:

While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I made the same point, (albeit much less eloquently) almost
a week ago. Still no comment from The Roger.

--Winston

Simply look up the reason these organizations are tax exempt. They are
providing a service, at least for their congregation, and in many cases they
should be saving the government much more than the value of the taxes.

In my own circumstance I sought to find out if God is real and at the same
time I was figuring out a way to kill the man my ex cheated on me with. I
was going to take a six pack of beer, drain all the cans, fill up 4 of the
cans with explosives, one can for the controls(microswitches and wiring),
one can for batteries. I would set the six pack on the hood of his vehicle
and arm it. When he got up the next morning he would see some of his
buddies left a six pack on his hood, lift it up, activating a microswitch,
and boom!

When I was serious enough to find God or risk life in prison, I found God.
I experienced supernatural answers to prayer like I never imagined, almost
every week I was seeing or experiencing miracles. My religion possibly
saved a mans (a taxpayer!) life and kept his kids from being fatherless, how
much $ did that save the government?

RogerN

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
"Winston" wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

(...)

So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:

While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I made the same point, (albeit much less eloquently) almost
a week ago. Still no comment from The Roger.

--Winston

Simply look up the reason these organizations are tax exempt. They are
providing a service, at least for their congregation, and in many cases
they should be saving the government much more than the value of the
taxes.

They're tax-exempt because they're non-profit/charitable institutions, and
because of court rulings concerning the government keeping its hands off of
churches under the First Amendment. They don't even have to file tax returns
However, since the mid-'50s (I think), many churches file for tax-exempt
status under a revised tax code.

It's a complicated piece of tax law. Don't try it at home. d8-)


In my own circumstance I sought to find out if God is real and at the same
time I was figuring out a way to kill the man my ex cheated on me with. I
was going to take a six pack of beer, drain all the cans, fill up 4 of the
cans with explosives, one can for the controls(microswitches and wiring),
one can for batteries. I would set the six pack on the hood of his
vehicle and arm it. When he got up the next morning he would see some of
his buddies left a six pack on his hood, lift it up, activating a
microswitch, and boom!

When I was serious enough to find God or risk life in prison, I found God.
I experienced supernatural answers to prayer like I never imagined, almost
every week I was seeing or experiencing miracles. My religion possibly
saved a mans (a taxpayer!) life and kept his kids from being fatherless,
how much $ did that save the government?


And that, Roger, is the primary basis for my acceptance of organized
religion. You're not the only one I know who is not in prison, and who is
living a useful life, because he got religion.

Keep it up. Just don't lay it on the rest of us too thick, Ok?

--
Ed Huntress

RogerN wrote:
My religion possibly
saved a mans (a taxpayer!) life and kept his kids from being fatherless, how
much $ did that save the government?

So the people going to church are maniacal sociopathic killers
and the church keeps them from harming society.
That is why the churches deserve tax-exempt status
Your explanation makes perfect sense.

"jim" wrote in message
.. .
RogerN wrote:
My religion possibly
saved a mans (a taxpayer!) life and kept his kids from being fatherless,
how
much $ did that save the government?

So the people going to church are maniacal sociopathic killers
and the church keeps them from harming society.

Do you know many born-again types? Some of them were a real danger before
they got religion -- angst-ridden, angry, etc.

(I'm excempting G.W. Bush, of course, who became a bigger danger to society
*after* he got born again. g)

That is why the churches deserve tax-exempt status
Your explanation makes perfect sense.

Eh, they're in a special tax category, but it doesn't work out much
differently from other non-profits and charitable organizations.

--
Ed Huntress

On 5/27/2011 7:51 PM, RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
On May 27, 12:33 pm, pyotr wrote:
on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

On May 22, 6:37 pm, "Ed wrote:

If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're
only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real
ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't
waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small
you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive. Leave
that
to the Tea Party.

I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". "Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."



usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x
10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play
child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
\
\So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:
\
\While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
\about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
\initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
\religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
\federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
\what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

How many crimes are prevented by pastoral council? How about Pastors that
visit the sick in the Hospitals? Many churches help the poor with food
and/or clothing, what $ value is that? In other words, these religious
organizations also serve a secular purpose. Thomas Jefferson gave taxpayer
money to missionaries because they were beneficial with the Indians. In
many instances, if we would have sent a few more missionaries we probably
would not have had to send as many troops.

Today as you see crime on the increase, as you see the world going down the
****ter, thank people just like yourself, your kind of thinking is the
cause.

RogerN




How many underfunded schools are supplemented by solid educational
television on sesame street? How many people are enlightened by Ken
Burns' documentaries?

There's an Ironclad case for PBS if you ever created one! thanks!

503.c sounds like non-profit and sometimes tax free.
Some are taxed by local tax generators. Property tax...

Some are tax free in all ways except for a specialized tax unit -
a college or other special case.

Martin

On 5/27/2011 7:45 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
wrote in message
m...
wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

(...)

So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:

While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I made the same point, (albeit much less eloquently) almost
a week ago. Still no comment from The Roger.

--Winston

Simply look up the reason these organizations are tax exempt. They are
providing a service, at least for their congregation, and in many cases
they should be saving the government much more than the value of the
taxes.

They're tax-exempt because they're non-profit/charitable institutions, and
because of court rulings concerning the government keeping its hands off of
churches under the First Amendment. They don't even have to file tax returns
However, since the mid-'50s (I think), many churches file for tax-exempt
status under a revised tax code.

It's a complicated piece of tax law. Don't try it at home. d8-)


In my own circumstance I sought to find out if God is real and at the same
time I was figuring out a way to kill the man my ex cheated on me with. I
was going to take a six pack of beer, drain all the cans, fill up 4 of the
cans with explosives, one can for the controls(microswitches and wiring),
one can for batteries. I would set the six pack on the hood of his
vehicle and arm it. When he got up the next morning he would see some of
his buddies left a six pack on his hood, lift it up, activating a
microswitch, and boom!

When I was serious enough to find God or risk life in prison, I found God.
I experienced supernatural answers to prayer like I never imagined, almost
every week I was seeing or experiencing miracles. My religion possibly
saved a mans (a taxpayer!) life and kept his kids from being fatherless,
how much $ did that save the government?


And that, Roger, is the primary basis for my acceptance of organized
religion. You're not the only one I know who is not in prison, and who is
living a useful life, because he got religion.

Keep it up. Just don't lay it on the rest of us too thick, Ok?

Stuart Wheaton wrote:

On 5/27/2011 7:51 PM, RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
On May 27, 12:33 pm, pyotr wrote:
on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

On May 22, 6:37 pm, "Ed wrote:

If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're
only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real
ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't
waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small
you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive. Leave
that
to the Tea Party.

I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". "Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."



usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x
10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play
child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
\
\So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:
\
\While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
\about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
\initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
\religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
\federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
\what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

How many crimes are prevented by pastoral council? How about Pastors that
visit the sick in the Hospitals? Many churches help the poor with food
and/or clothing, what $ value is that? In other words, these religious
organizations also serve a secular purpose. Thomas Jefferson gave taxpayer
money to missionaries because they were beneficial with the Indians. In
many instances, if we would have sent a few more missionaries we probably
would not have had to send as many troops.

Today as you see crime on the increase, as you see the world going down the
****ter, thank people just like yourself, your kind of thinking is the
cause.

RogerN




How many underfunded schools are supplemented by solid educational
television on sesame street? How many people are enlightened by Ken
Burns' documentaries?

There's an Ironclad case for PBS if you ever created one! thanks!


It would be cheaper and more effective to put up a bird and use the
Dish/Direct TV DBS hardware. It could deliver hundreds of channels of
educational TV for thousands of hours per day and cover everything from
kindergarten to college courses. Not only would it work for schools,
but home schooling, continuing education and to update employee training
on 'scrambled' channels


--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.

RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

(...)

So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:

While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I made the same point, (albeit much less eloquently) almost
a week ago. Still no comment from The Roger.

--Winston

Simply look up the reason these organizations are tax exempt. They are
providing a service, at least for their congregation, and in many cases they
should be saving the government much more than the value of the taxes.

$660 Million at a time. And counting.
http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/

Perhaps that is not what you meant.

(...)

lift it up, activating a microswitch,
and boom!

(...)

I experienced supernatural answers to prayer like I never imagined, almost
every week I was seeing or experiencing miracles. My religion possibly
saved a mans (a taxpayer!) life and kept his kids from being fatherless, how
much $ did that save the government?

Now *that* is Catholic Bookkeeping. Whoa. I am speechless.

00 Winston

On May 27, 5:19*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...











Ed Huntress wrote:

Nonsense. The big budget items aren't things you can nibble a few cents
at a
time. And you can take all the things you *can* nibble, add them up, and
they'll amount to so little they get lost in the rounding.

The big items need serious solutions, or we get nowhere.

Meanwhile, insuring health care is eating us alive, while you're arguing
over Big Bird and Head Start.

That's why I'm skeptical that we'll get anywhere. The politicians can
make
plenty of hay off of people like you and Roger, and avoid the big -- and
politically costly -- issues that are running us into the ground.

--
Ed Huntress

I have come to the conclusion that you do not want the budget cut.

Then you've come to the wrong conclusion.

And this bit about large versus small items is just to provide a
diversion.

The diversion is by the people who want to cut things that are fractions of
a percent of the budget, fighting cultural wars and wasting time, while
leaving over 50% of the budget alone.

I'd say it's some kind of affliction; possibly an acute avoidance of some
kind.

You say do not look at everything, and Congress will
comply by not looking at anything.

You've lost sight of the forest for the sake of a few saplings, Dan.

Meantime, I haven't heard a peep out of you about health care or defense -- *
the two enormous components of our budget. Do you just think they can be put
off while we diddle around with PBS and Planned Parenthood?

--
Ed Huntress


I still think you are against cutting the budget.

I cut and pasted a previous message about cutting defense. I can not
help it if you do not read my posts.

Dan

On May 23, 9:39 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

So we have a non-starter for Medicare, and a nearly impenetrable wall of
resistance for defense and infrastructure spending. Those are the two
biggest cost problems we face. The present system of responsibilities and
authorities probably can't touch either one. Anyone who tries will get his
head handed to him.

--
Ed Huntress

The way around this is to do it similar to the military base
closures. Present a bill to Congress for a up or down vote on the
amount. Not on specific programs. A 1% cut in defense spending. The
Pentagon gets to choose how to accomplish it.

Dan

On May 27, 7:51*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On May 27, 12:33 pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:



" on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

On May 22, 6:37 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're
only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real
ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't
waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small
you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive. Leave
that
to the Tea Party.

I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". "Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."

usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x
10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play
child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

\
\So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:
\
\While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
\about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
\initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
\religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
\federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
\what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

How many crimes are prevented by pastoral council? *How about Pastors that
visit the sick in the Hospitals? *Many churches help the poor with food
and/or clothing, what $ value is that? *In other words, these religious
organizations also serve a secular purpose. *Thomas Jefferson gave taxpayer
money to missionaries because they were beneficial with the Indians. *In
many instances, if we would have sent a few more missionaries we probably
would not have had to send as many troops.

Today as you see crime on the increase, as you see the world going down the
****ter, thank people just like yourself, your kind of thinking is the
cause.

RogerN- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How many abortions are prevented by the family planning services
offered by Planned Parenthood? I'm not talking about abortions, I'm
talking about contraception and counseling.

How many tax dollars are saved by Planned Parenthood's providing early
detection of breast cancer and a host of other diseases?

Roger, I NEVER said that religious organizations should not be tax
exempt. I was trying to put the discussion into a frame that you might
understand. I see I touched a nerve.

On May 27, 11:45*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Stuart Wheaton wrote:

On 5/27/2011 7:51 PM, RogerN wrote:
*wrote in message
....
On May 27, 12:33 pm, pyotr *wrote:
*on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

On May 22, 6:37 pm, "Ed *wrote:

If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're
only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real
ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't
waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small
you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive. Leave
that
to the Tea Party.

I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". "Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."

usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x
10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play
child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
\
\So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:
\
\While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
\about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
\initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
\religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
\federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
\what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

How many crimes are prevented by pastoral council? *How about Pastors that
visit the sick in the Hospitals? *Many churches help the poor with food
and/or clothing, what $ value is that? *In other words, these religious
organizations also serve a secular purpose. *Thomas Jefferson gave taxpayer
money to missionaries because they were beneficial with the Indians. *In
many instances, if we would have sent a few more missionaries we probably
would not have had to send as many troops.

Today as you see crime on the increase, as you see the world going down the
****ter, thank people just like yourself, your kind of thinking is the
cause.

RogerN

How many underfunded schools are supplemented by solid educational
television on sesame street? *How many people are enlightened by Ken
Burns' documentaries?

There's an Ironclad case for PBS if you ever created one! *thanks!

* *It would be cheaper and more effective to put up a bird and use the
Dish/Direct TV DBS hardware. *It could deliver hundreds of channels of
educational TV for thousands of hours per day and cover everything from
kindergarten to college courses. *Not only would it work for schools,
but home schooling, continuing education and to update employee training
on 'scrambled' channels

--
It's easy to think outside the box, when you have a cutting torch.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And the programming would come from...

wrote in message
...
On May 27, 5:19 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
wrote in message

...











Ed Huntress wrote:

Nonsense. The big budget items aren't things you can nibble a few cents
at a
time. And you can take all the things you *can* nibble, add them up,
and
they'll amount to so little they get lost in the rounding.

The big items need serious solutions, or we get nowhere.

Meanwhile, insuring health care is eating us alive, while you're
arguing
over Big Bird and Head Start.

That's why I'm skeptical that we'll get anywhere. The politicians can
make
plenty of hay off of people like you and Roger, and avoid the big --
and
politically costly -- issues that are running us into the ground.

--
Ed Huntress

I have come to the conclusion that you do not want the budget cut.

Then you've come to the wrong conclusion.

And this bit about large versus small items is just to provide a
diversion.

The diversion is by the people who want to cut things that are fractions
of
a percent of the budget, fighting cultural wars and wasting time, while
leaving over 50% of the budget alone.

I'd say it's some kind of affliction; possibly an acute avoidance of some
kind.

You say do not look at everything, and Congress will
comply by not looking at anything.

You've lost sight of the forest for the sake of a few saplings, Dan.

Meantime, I haven't heard a peep out of you about health care or
defense --
the two enormous components of our budget. Do you just think they can be
put
off while we diddle around with PBS and Planned Parenthood?

--
Ed Huntress


I still think you are against cutting the budget.

I think you're thinking what you want to think, and it has little to do with
reality.


I cut and pasted a previous message about cutting defense. I can not
help it if you do not read my posts.

Dan

On May 23, 9:39 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

So we have a non-starter for Medicare, and a nearly impenetrable wall of
resistance for defense and infrastructure spending. Those are the two
biggest cost problems we face. The present system of responsibilities and
authorities probably can't touch either one. Anyone who tries will get
his
head handed to him.

--
Ed Huntress

The way around this is to do it similar to the military base
closures. Present a bill to Congress for a up or down vote on the
amount. Not on specific programs. A 1% cut in defense spending. The
Pentagon gets to choose how to accomplish it.

Right. I remember that now. 1%. Thank you for that contribution, Dan.

One percent here, one percent there...pretty soon, you've got six or seven
percent, while health care is expected to rise by 8.5% in 2012 alone, and
you haven't touched the deficit for many years ahead.

You've got a real winner of an idea there.

--
Ed Huntress

On May 28, 11:36*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:





I still think you are against cutting the budget.

I think you're thinking what you want to think, and it has little to do with
reality.

Well it is obvious to me. You have not been in favor of any ideas of
budget cutting, you have denigrated every idea for budget cutting,
while not offering any ideas of your own.

So if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc. Well by golly I
think Ed is against cutting the budget.





Right. I remember that now. 1%. Thank you for that contribution, Dan.

One percent here, one percent there...pretty soon, you've got six or seven
percent, while health care is expected to rise by 8.5% in 2012 alone, and
you haven't touched the deficit for many years ahead.

You've got a real winner of an idea there.

Hey it beats every idea you have presented here. Like I said, no
ideas from you on budget cutting and belittle every idea anyone else
has. By god, I think we have someone against cutting the budget.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On May 28, 11:36 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

I still think you are against cutting the budget.

I think you're thinking what you want to think, and it has little to do
with
reality.


Well it is obvious to me. You have not been in favor of any ideas of
budget cutting, you have denigrated every idea for budget cutting,
while not offering any ideas of your own.

Well, why didn't you ask? I didn't know you cared. g

So if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc. Well by golly I
think Ed is against cutting the budget.

I'm against wasting time with trivial expenses that have no economic
significance, but which serve as foils for what really is a social
conservative agenda -- like Roger's infatuation with cutting PBS and Planned
Parenthood. Deal with them after you get serious about big expenses.

Now, about the budget: Knock about 1/3 off of Defense. That will save $250
billion. We'll still have by far the largest military in the world, with
lots of advanced technologies. Stop fighting the Cold War; that will help.

Next, push up Social Security retirement age by two years, and means-test. I
forget how much that saves but the estimates are around somewhere. It's a
real bundle.

The killer is Medicare, which has to be considered in the same breath as
universal health care and Medicaid, however that shakes out. Telling seniors
"here's some money to help with your insurance bill, see if you can do any
better than we did at controlling costs," ain't gonna fly. First, it's
absurd -- seniors have no pricing power. Second, it isn't going to work
because insurance companies have no incentive to replace the extensive care
now provided by Medicare. Their incentive is to, first, narrow down their
communities (cohorts), and, second, to limit types of coverage as much as
they can get away with. We know that from experience. That's why we started
Medicare in the first place. Third, medical care is inflating at two or
three times the rate of overall inflation, because the incentives are
perverse. That's why it's a potential economic killer. This is a long story
that I'll skip for now. Just realize that my thoughts on this are intended
to replace the perversities with constructive incentives.

I think of universal health care as something close to Medicare writ large,
so these things apply to changing both. First, give Medicare the same
authority that the VA has to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical
companies. VA pays something like 30% - 40% less for drugs than Medicare
does.

Second, Medicare pays for many, many procedures that research has shown to
be useless or second-rate. I heard this a lot when I was in the business,
and a former Medicare director wrote an op-ed about this in the NYT just
within the past few days. It's well-known in the medical field.

That's partly because they don't have the authority to control payments
based on evidence-based medical science (the dread "death panels.") The
private insurance companies do, but they don't exercise it based on patient
outcomes. They exercise it based on avoiding expensive procedures,
regardless of outcomes. Give Medicare the same authority that private
insurers have now. That doesn't mean that they will control what you can get
and what you can't, only what the taxpayers will pay for.

I read all 72 pages of Ryan's proposal and I think the conflict has been
poorly articulated. Interestingly, though, seniors seem to get it better
than anyone. IMO, there's no intrinsic problem with having private insurance
take over. The problem is, the way they operate in the US now, insurance
companies are pursuing a normal business objective of maximizing profit, but
the market doesn't really exist as a competitive market. It can't with the
present insurance structure. So fulfilling normal business objectives
short-changes the customers, rather than providing them with competitive
alternatives and the efficiencies normally brought on by competition.

The short answer is to re-structure the insurance industry on a non-profit
model, like the Swiss did very successfully not many years ago. Growth and
compensation for the Swiss insurance companies is based on outcome success
and financial efficiency. It isn't quite as cheap as the fully socialized
models, but it avoids a great deal of government decision-making and it
re-orients market incentives toward producing the best results for patients,
both in medical terms and in financial terms. The Swiss model is very
effective in terms of outcomes at a cost that falls between what we have in
the US now, and what most other developed countries have, with their
more-socialized models. Those countries typically pay half of what we pay
and have similar patient outcomes.

As it is, Ryan's model basically throws seniors to the wolves. The answer,
if we want to maintain medical insurance as a private affair while assuring
that the incentives push in the right direction, is to turn the insurance
companies into sheep dogs.

The rest of the health care industry also is full of perverse incentives.
Hospitals are competitive, and the competition is for reputation for
excellent treatment of patients -- or the perception thereof. That often
means extreme levels of redundant plant (in economic terms) within a
community. How many MRI machines does a town or a county need?

There are successful models for hospitals that serve the real needs of
patients first, at a lower cost than many hospitals, and they're known in
the business as the best. Emulate the models provided by the Mayo Clinic and
Geisinger.Health System. They're winners.

Legislate new terms for "malpractice" and create a special class of torts
for malpractice suits. This really doesn't save as much as many people seem
to think it would, but the culture of defensive medicine must be broken.
These things would help a great deal in that regard.

None of these things are simple. Given the business and political culture of
the US, I don't think we could accomplish them until we're really in a deep
crisis. So I'm skeptical about whether we'll wind up saving our own bacon or
waiting too long and becoming the bacon. That doesn't mean we should throw
up our hands. It does mean that we'd better not be disappointed if we don't
see any results until most of the members of this NG are dead and gone.


Right. I remember that now. 1%. Thank you for that contribution, Dan.

One percent here, one percent there...pretty soon, you've got six or seven
percent, while health care is expected to rise by 8.5% in 2012 alone, and
you haven't touched the deficit for many years ahead.

You've got a real winner of an idea there.


Hey it beats every idea you have presented here.

No, it doesn't, or it didn't. It's worse than nothing, because it wastes
time and energy on feel-good measures that leave us right where we are now,
minus a couple of percent. That's not enough to keep up even with the growth
rate of the crisis.

Save your feel-goods for later, when the crisis has been dealt with. All
you're suggesting is to delay confronting the real issues.

Like I said, no
ideas from you on budget cutting and belittle every idea anyone else
has. By god, I think we have someone against cutting the budget.

As I said, all you had to do was ask. I'll go on for thousands of words
more, if you want. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:


The killer is Medicare, which has to be considered in the same breath as
universal health care and Medicaid, however that shakes out.

If one doesn't ask the right questions
or identify the right problems,
it is expected to get wrong answers or
arrive at the wrong conclusions

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-mo...e-world-2011-3

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 7:51 pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On May 27, 12:33 pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:



" on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

On May 22, 6:37 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're
only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real
ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't
waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small
you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive.
Leave
that
to the Tea Party.

I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". "Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."

usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x
10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play
child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

\
\So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:
\
\While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
\about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
\initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
\religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
\federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
\what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

How many crimes are prevented by pastoral council? How about Pastors that
visit the sick in the Hospitals? Many churches help the poor with food
and/or clothing, what $ value is that? In other words, these religious
organizations also serve a secular purpose. Thomas Jefferson gave taxpayer
money to missionaries because they were beneficial with the Indians. In
many instances, if we would have sent a few more missionaries we probably
would not have had to send as many troops.

Today as you see crime on the increase, as you see the world going down
the
****ter, thank people just like yourself, your kind of thinking is the
cause.

RogerN- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
\
\How many abortions are prevented by the family planning services
\offered by Planned Parenthood? I'm not talking about abortions, I'm
\talking about contraception and counseling.

Won't Obamacare provide these services?

A woman went to a planned parenthood abortion mill to inquire about an
abortion, she hadn't made up her mind but wanted to discuss it. She was
nervous and all so they gave her some medicine to help her relax. After
thinking it over, she decided she didn't want the abortion. They told her
that the medicine they gave her could harm the baby and talked her into the
abortion. Afterward she found out the medicine they gave her wasn't harmful
to the baby, they lied to her to talk her into the abortion.

\How many tax dollars are saved by Planned Parenthood's providing early
\detection of breast cancer and a host of other diseases?

So we need to fund Obamacare and planned parenthood?

\Roger, I NEVER said that religious organizations should not be tax
\exempt. I was trying to put the discussion into a frame that you might
\understand. I see I touched a nerve.

I don't know the details but I think there are some that shouldn't be tax
exempt, some use religion as a way to get rich, Jesus threw that type out of
the temple saying they turned the house of prayer into a den of thieves. I
also know of some that do quite a bit of good for the little bit of money
they make.

RogerN

On May 29, 3:30*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On May 27, 7:51 pm, "RogerN" wrote:



"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On May 27, 12:33 pm, pyotr filipivich wrote:

" on Sun, 22 May 2011 18:08:35 -0700
(PDT) typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

On May 22, 6:37 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

If you're going to descend into bitching about trivial costs, you're
only
going to delude yourself about our real problems. Deal with the real
ones
first. Then you can bitch about the trivia all you want. Just don't
waste
the country's time and energy bitching about things that are so small
you
can hardly measure them, while the big ones are eating us alive.
Leave
that
to the Tea Party.

I believe it is important to cut all the trivial costs. If you do not
cut trivial costs, you will never have the courage to cut the big
ones.

If it is only a few cents per person, then by all means, let us
eliminate that "few cents". "Take care of the pence and the pounds
will take care of themselves."

usefulness. But PP gets $75 million in federal funding. That's 5.35 x
10^-6
of the federal budget.

Are you going to get serious about this, or are you going to play
child's
games?

If you are going to be serious, you have to take the same approach on
all costs. Saying you are only going to look at big programs is
really saying cost cutting does not matter.

I'd start with the question "Why is this the Business of the
Federal Government?" Then go on with "Do you favor funding the other
side, too?"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

\
\So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:
\
\While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
\about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
\initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
\religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
\federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
\what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

How many crimes are prevented by pastoral council? How about Pastors that
visit the sick in the Hospitals? Many churches help the poor with food
and/or clothing, what $ value is that? In other words, these religious
organizations also serve a secular purpose. Thomas Jefferson gave taxpayer
money to missionaries because they were beneficial with the Indians. In
many instances, if we would have sent a few more missionaries we probably
would not have had to send as many troops.

Today as you see crime on the increase, as you see the world going down
the
****ter, thank people just like yourself, your kind of thinking is the
cause.

RogerN- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

\
\How many abortions are prevented by the family planning services
\offered by Planned Parenthood? I'm not talking about abortions, I'm
\talking about contraception and counseling.

Won't Obamacare provide these services?

A woman went to a planned parenthood abortion mill to inquire about an
abortion, she hadn't made up her mind but wanted to discuss it. *She was
nervous and all so they gave her some medicine to help her relax. *After
thinking it over, she decided she didn't want the abortion. *They told her
that the medicine they gave her could harm the baby and talked her into the
abortion. *Afterward she found out the medicine they gave her wasn't harmful
to the baby, they lied to her to talk her into the abortion.

Without credible cites, that is nothing more than a fairy tale.

\How many tax dollars are saved by Planned Parenthood's providing early
\detection of breast cancer and a host of other diseases?

So we need to fund Obamacare and planned parenthood?


If government run health care truly provided all the services that
Planned Parenthood currently does, then of course there would be no
need to fund both. Let me know when that happens.


\Roger, I NEVER said that religious organizations should not be tax
\exempt. I was trying to put the discussion into a frame that you might
\understand. I see I touched a nerve.

I don't know the details but I think there are some that shouldn't be tax
exempt, some use religion as a way to get rich, Jesus threw that type out of
the temple saying they turned the house of prayer into a den of thieves. *I
also know of some that do quite a bit of good for the little bit of money
they make.

o, how does the Government decide which institutions to tax?


RogerN-

rangerssuck wrote:
On May 29, 3:30 pm, wrote:

(...)

A woman went to a planned parenthood abortion mill to inquire about an
abortion, she hadn't made up her mind but wanted to discuss it. She was
nervous and all so they gave her some medicine to help her relax. After
thinking it over, she decided she didn't want the abortion. They told her
that the medicine they gave her could harm the baby and talked her into the
abortion. Afterward she found out the medicine they gave her wasn't harmful
to the baby, they lied to her to talk her into the abortion.

Without credible cites, that is nothing more than a fairy tale.

No fairy tale, it's libel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

--Winston

"Winston" wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:
On May 29, 3:30 pm, wrote:

(...)

A woman went to a planned parenthood abortion mill to inquire about an
abortion, she hadn't made up her mind but wanted to discuss it. She was
nervous and all so they gave her some medicine to help her relax. After
thinking it over, she decided she didn't want the abortion. They told
her
that the medicine they gave her could harm the baby and talked her into
the
abortion. Afterward she found out the medicine they gave her wasn't
harmful
to the baby, they lied to her to talk her into the abortion.

Without credible cites, that is nothing more than a fairy tale.

No fairy tale, it's libel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

--Winston

It's truth:

http://911babies.com/news.php?action...mments=1&id=86

Over $320 million of state, local, and federal funding goes to Planned
Parenthood every year (almost a third of its income). However, thanks to its
lucrative abortion services, this "non-profit" reported a net income of
approximately $106,000,000 from July 2008-July 2009.

Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood director who had a change of heart
and is now pro-life, says, "Every meeting that we had was, 'We don't have
enough money, we don't have enough money - we've got to keep these abortions
coming.'" Johnson told a reporter for Foxnews.com, "It's a very lucrative
business, and that's why they want to increase numbers."

My own mother is one of the millions of women who have been lied to and hurt
by abortion clinic greed over the years. Below is just part of her story:

I married very young and got divorced a couple years after - started
partying all the time, had a warped body image, and figured my looks were
all that mattered in life. When I was at my best and most promiscuous,
eventually the result of my lifestyle was a pregnancy. I lived a mile away
from the local clinic. Easy way out? Abortion. So many of my friends had
them all the time. And I didn't need to tell the guy, after all. The night I
met him at a club, I really just wanted to be with him out of loneliness,
and I was feeling horrendously guilty over that mistake as it was.

Obtaining my first abortion was as easy as buying burgers and fries at your
local McDonalds! Make the appointment, bring your cash, and it's over. The
burden would be lifted. No weight gain, no responsibility, etc. Yes, that
was my reason. Easy birth control method - that's why most women do it.

On May 29, 7:56*pm, Winston wrote:
RogerN wrote:
*wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:
On May 29, 3:30 pm, * wrote:

(...)

A woman went to a planned parenthood abortion mill to inquire about an
abortion, she hadn't made up her mind but wanted to discuss it. *She was
nervous and all so they gave her some medicine to help her relax. *After
thinking it over, she decided she didn't want the abortion. *They told
her
that the medicine they gave her could harm the baby and talked her into
the
abortion. *Afterward she found out the medicine they gave her wasn't
harmful
to the baby, they lied to her to talk her into the abortion.

Without credible cites, that is nothing more than a fairy tale.

No fairy tale, it's libel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

--Winston

It's truth:

http://911babies.com/news.php?action...mments=1&id=86

Help me understand your point Roger, please?

Where in your cite does it indicate that Planned Parenthood
coerced someone into an abortion by lying to them?
It just doesn't.

The only internet cite I can see for your
story *is* your story, written by you.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2...arenthood-resp...

I agree that there is some lying going on. *

--Winston-

When I asked for a cite, I got, "I heard it on the radio" followed by
a bunch of cut & paste from an anti-abortion web site. I clicked on
one of the links and got a 404 error. That's about all the time I'm
willing to put in to chasing Rogers "facts."

Now, you need to remember that the discussion was about federal
funding for women's health services which Roger claimed would become
redundant under publicly funded health insurance. You also need to
remember that I said that I had no quarrel with that, and that Roger
then responded by going off into his all-too-familiar tirade about
baby killing.

Menwhile, Gunner fantasizes about being a tennis umpire...

Roger: Are you also against contraception? Do you believe that
intercourse is only for procreation?

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On May 29, 7:56 pm, Winston wrote:
RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:
On May 29, 3:30 pm, wrote:

(...)

A woman went to a planned parenthood abortion mill to inquire about
an
abortion, she hadn't made up her mind but wanted to discuss it. She
was
nervous and all so they gave her some medicine to help her relax.
After
thinking it over, she decided she didn't want the abortion. They told
her
that the medicine they gave her could harm the baby and talked her
into
the
abortion. Afterward she found out the medicine they gave her wasn't
harmful
to the baby, they lied to her to talk her into the abortion.

Without credible cites, that is nothing more than a fairy tale.

No fairy tale, it's libel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

--Winston

It's truth:

http://911babies.com/news.php?action...mments=1&id=86

Help me understand your point Roger, please?

Where in your cite does it indicate that Planned Parenthood
coerced someone into an abortion by lying to them?
It just doesn't.

The only internet cite I can see for your
story *is* your story, written by you.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2...arenthood-resp...

I agree that there is some lying going on.

--Winston-
\
\When I asked for a cite, I got, "I heard it on the radio" followed by
\a bunch of cut & paste from an anti-abortion web site. I clicked on
\one of the links and got a 404 error. That's about all the time I'm
\willing to put in to chasing Rogers "facts."

Yes, the woman telling of her experience with Planned Parenthood was on the
radio, just because she said it on the radio doesn't make it less true or
false than it being on a website. So, I provided you with many other
similar incidents that other women experienced with Planned Parenthood.

\Now, you need to remember that the discussion was about federal
\funding for women's health services which Roger claimed would become
\redundant under publicly funded health insurance. You also need to
\remember that I said that I had no quarrel with that, and that Roger
\then responded by going off into his all-too-familiar tirade about
\baby killing.

Many bring up the "good" services that Planned Parenthood provides, if you
search you can see that many abortions Planned Parenthood provided were
because the contraceptives they provided failed, job security I guess. Use
government money to hand out unreliable contraceptives and make billions
aborting those babies!

\Menwhile, Gunner fantasizes about being a tennis umpire...
\
\Roger: Are you also against contraception? Do you believe that
\intercourse is only for procreation?
\

Contraception is OK by me, but why does the government give PP money to had
out contraceptives and PP makes a profit if the contraceptives fail? So, if
PP gives out bad contraceptives, or bad advice, they are rewarded by making
$$$ for an abortion, no wonder they are the nations number one abortion
provider. And why is Obama so obsessed with funding PP? Maybe they aborted
some babies for him so he wouldn't get caught or have to pay Child Support?

RogerN

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On May 29, 7:56 pm, Winston wrote:
RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:
On May 29, 3:30 pm, wrote:

(...)

A woman went to a planned parenthood abortion mill to inquire about
an
abortion, she hadn't made up her mind but wanted to discuss it. She
was
nervous and all so they gave her some medicine to help her relax.
After
thinking it over, she decided she didn't want the abortion. They
told
her
that the medicine they gave her could harm the baby and talked her
into
the
abortion. Afterward she found out the medicine they gave her wasn't
harmful
to the baby, they lied to her to talk her into the abortion.

Without credible cites, that is nothing more than a fairy tale.

No fairy tale, it's libel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

--Winston

It's truth:

http://911babies.com/news.php?action...mments=1&id=86

Help me understand your point Roger, please?

Where in your cite does it indicate that Planned Parenthood
coerced someone into an abortion by lying to them?
It just doesn't.

The only internet cite I can see for your
story *is* your story, written by you.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2...arenthood-resp...

I agree that there is some lying going on.

--Winston-
\
\When I asked for a cite, I got, "I heard it on the radio" followed by
\a bunch of cut & paste from an anti-abortion web site. I clicked on
\one of the links and got a 404 error. That's about all the time I'm
\willing to put in to chasing Rogers "facts."

Yes, the woman telling of her experience with Planned Parenthood was on
the radio, just because she said it on the radio doesn't make it less true
or false than it being on a website. So, I provided you with many other
similar incidents that other women experienced with Planned Parenthood.

\Now, you need to remember that the discussion was about federal
\funding for women's health services which Roger claimed would become
\redundant under publicly funded health insurance. You also need to
\remember that I said that I had no quarrel with that, and that Roger
\then responded by going off into his all-too-familiar tirade about
\baby killing.

Many bring up the "good" services that Planned Parenthood provides, if you
search you can see that many abortions Planned Parenthood provided were
because the contraceptives they provided failed, job security I guess.
Use government money to hand out unreliable contraceptives and make
billions aborting those babies!

It's those ventilated condoms. Planned Parenthood hires a guy who shoots the
condom packs with .22 birdshot loads before they hand them out. I read it on
a Christian blog.


\Menwhile, Gunner fantasizes about being a tennis umpire...
\
\Roger: Are you also against contraception? Do you believe that
\intercourse is only for procreation?
\

Contraception is OK by me, but why does the government give PP money to
had out contraceptives and PP makes a profit if the contraceptives fail?
So, if PP gives out bad contraceptives, or bad advice, they are rewarded
by making $$$ for an abortion, no wonder they are the nations number one
abortion provider. And why is Obama so obsessed with funding PP? Maybe
they aborted some babies for him so he wouldn't get caught or have to pay
Child Support?

RogerN

Roger, why don't you just face the truth. Planned Parenthood is an
organization of people who feel that women have been medically undertreated
and mistreated for centuries, particularly concerning reproductive issues.
Some of them, like a good friend of mine, feel that Christians had it right
about abortion -- before roughly 1840, when some of the Christians suddenly
got the superstitious idea that human zygotes were imbued with a soul at the
time of conception.

Before that time, the standard Christian idea was that there was a "delayed
ensoulment," which occurred at some time before the middle of a term of
pregnancy, and that terminating a fetus was at least marginally acceptable
until that time. This was the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, which dominated
the thinking about this and some other subjects on the part of theistic
scholars from the late 13th century until American evangelicals got a
different idea in their heads, with different sects rolling over between
1820 and roughly 1910. The Catholic Church did the same in 1869. English
common law held roughly the same position -- abortion before "quickening"
was Ok, or at least not a crime -- and that was the law that ruled US
jurisprudence during the early days of our republic.

Those PP people see themselves as the last lifeline for women who are
victims of subjugation by people like you, who want to tell them what they
can do with their bodies because of your superstitious views. They are
indeed firm supporters of the right to abortion and it's become the symbol,
for you and your ilk, of what they're about. But abortion is not what
they're about. It's women's health and rights that they're about.

We've listened to your rants about abortion and the way your former wife
behaved for years. I have no way to judge your situation; we've only heard
your side of the story, and we don't know a thing about the other side. Be
that as it may, I'm not judging you or what you went through. I'll take you
at your word for that.

But there's something missing. The only time you talk about kids is when you
tell us how much it costs you to support yours, and about the "babies"
(gestating fetuses) that are being killed. Never a word of affection, or
anything that sounds even vaguely like human concern for any of them as
human beings. It's always about you, and your wife, and the "baby killers."
It's like they aren't even humans, let alone objects of human interest or
concern.

Obviously, you're deeply embittered about what happened to you, and you may
well be justified. But your anger toward abortion providers sounds
unconnected with any feeling for the objects -- the children, or potential
children. The closest you come is clinical descriptions of abortions. You
could as well be describing taxidermy.

FWIW, it sounds like you want to make women pay for what's happened to you,
and this is your way of doing it. The whole thing sounds not like a genuine
interest in the lives of children, but rather an imposition of order that
you think will restore your own sense of fairness.

And it's about you, not about those potential human lives. That's the
feeling I get from most religious anti-abortionists. Your talk about it is
so abstract and so focused on your own sense of propriety, which the antis
call their morality, that if one walked into the middle of their discussions
he would wonder for a few minutes what you all were talking about.

As far as I'm concerned, you keep your hands off. It's not your business.
You don't have any connection to those women or their pregnancies. Those are
their business, and their doctors', should the women choose. You're entitled
to your religion but not to impose it on others.

Just so we know where we stand on this.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

(...)

As far as I'm concerned, you keep your hands off. It's not your business.
You don't have any connection to those women or their pregnancies. Those are
their business, and their doctors', should the women choose. You're entitled
to your religion but not to impose it on others.

Just so we know where we stand on this.

What Ed said.

Life is sufficiently tragic.
Enough with the terrorism, already.

--Winston

On May 31, 12:05*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"RogerN" wrote in message

m...





"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On May 29, 7:56 pm, Winston wrote:
RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:
On May 29, 3:30 pm, wrote:

(...)

A woman went to a planned parenthood abortion mill to inquire about
an
abortion, she hadn't made up her mind but wanted to discuss it. She
was
nervous and all so they gave her some medicine to help her relax.
After
thinking it over, she decided she didn't want the abortion. They
told
her
that the medicine they gave her could harm the baby and talked her
into
the
abortion. Afterward she found out the medicine they gave her wasn't
harmful
to the baby, they lied to her to talk her into the abortion.

Without credible cites, that is nothing more than a fairy tale.

No fairy tale, it's libel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

--Winston

It's truth:

http://911babies.com/news.php?action...mments=1&id=86

Help me understand your point Roger, please?

Where in your cite does it indicate that Planned Parenthood
coerced someone into an abortion by lying to them?
It just doesn't.

The only internet cite I can see for your
story *is* your story, written by you.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2...arenthood-resp....

I agree that there is some lying going on.

--Winston-
\
\When I asked for a cite, I got, "I heard it on the radio" followed by
\a bunch of cut & paste from an anti-abortion web site. I clicked on
\one of the links and got a 404 error. That's about all the time I'm
\willing to put in to chasing Rogers "facts."

Yes, the woman telling of her experience with Planned Parenthood was on
the radio, just because she said it on the radio doesn't make it less true
or false than it being on a website. *So, I provided you with many other
similar incidents that other women experienced with Planned Parenthood.

\Now, you need to remember that the discussion was about federal
\funding for women's health services which Roger claimed would become
\redundant under publicly funded health insurance. You also need to
\remember that I said that I had no quarrel with that, and that Roger
\then responded by going off into his all-too-familiar tirade about
\baby killing.

Many bring up the "good" services that Planned Parenthood provides, if you
search you can see that many abortions Planned Parenthood provided were
because the contraceptives they provided failed, job security I guess.
Use government money to hand out unreliable contraceptives and make
billions aborting those babies!

It's those ventilated condoms. Planned Parenthood hires a guy who shoots the
condom packs with .22 birdshot loads before they hand them out. I read it on
a Christian blog.







\Menwhile, Gunner fantasizes about being a tennis umpire...
\
\Roger: Are you also against contraception? Do you believe that
\intercourse is only for procreation?
\

Contraception is OK by me, but why does the government give PP money to
had out contraceptives and PP makes a profit if the contraceptives fail?
So, if PP gives out bad contraceptives, or bad advice, they are rewarded
by making $$$ for an abortion, no wonder they are the nations number one
abortion provider. *And why is Obama so obsessed with funding PP? *Maybe
they aborted some babies for him so he wouldn't get caught or have to pay
Child Support?

RogerN

Roger, why don't you just face the truth. Planned Parenthood is an
organization of people who feel that women have been medically undertreated
and mistreated for centuries, particularly concerning reproductive issues..
Some of them, like a good friend of mine, feel that Christians had it right
about abortion -- before roughly 1840, when some of the Christians suddenly
got the superstitious idea that human zygotes were imbued with a soul at the
time of conception.

Before that time, the standard Christian idea was that there was a "delayed
ensoulment," which occurred at some time before the middle of a term of
pregnancy, and that terminating a fetus was at least marginally acceptable
until that time. This was the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, which dominated
the thinking about this and some other subjects on the part of theistic
scholars from the late 13th century until American evangelicals got a
different idea in their heads, with different sects rolling over between
1820 and roughly 1910. The Catholic Church did the same in 1869. English
common law held roughly the same position -- abortion before "quickening"
was Ok, or at least not a crime -- and that was the law that ruled US
jurisprudence during the early days of our republic.

Those PP people see themselves as the last lifeline for women who are
victims of subjugation by people like you, who want to tell them what they
can do with their bodies because of your superstitious views. They are
indeed firm supporters of the right to abortion and it's become the symbol,
for you and your ilk, of what they're about. But abortion is not what
they're about. It's women's health and rights that they're about.

We've listened to your rants about abortion and the way your former wife
behaved for years. I have no way to judge your situation; we've only heard
your side of the story, and we don't know a thing about the other side. Be
that as it may, I'm not judging you or what you went through. I'll take you
at your word for that.

But there's something missing. The only time you talk about kids is when you
tell us how much it costs you to support yours, and about the "babies"
(gestating fetuses) that are being killed. Never a word of affection, or
anything that sounds even vaguely like human concern for any of them as
human beings. It's always about you, and your wife, and the "baby killers.."
It's like they aren't even humans, let alone objects of human interest or
concern.

Obviously, you're deeply embittered about what happened to you, and you may
well be justified. But your anger toward abortion providers sounds
unconnected with any feeling for the objects -- the children, or potential
children. The closest you come is clinical descriptions of abortions. You
could as well be describing taxidermy.

FWIW, it sounds like you want to make women pay for what's happened to you,
and this is your way of doing it. The whole thing sounds not like a genuine
interest in the lives of children, but rather an imposition of order that
you think will restore your own sense of fairness.

And it's about you, not about those potential human lives. That's the
feeling I get from most religious anti-abortionists. Your talk about it is
so abstract and so focused on your own sense of propriety, which the antis
call their morality, that if one walked into the middle of their discussions
he would wonder for a few minutes what you all were talking about.

As far as I'm concerned, you keep your hands off. It's not your business.
You don't have any connection to those women or their pregnancies. Those are
their business, and their doctors', should the women choose. You're entitled
to your religion but not to impose it on others.

Just so we know where we stand on this.

--
Ed Huntress-

Very well stated.

On May 27, 8:45*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"RogerN" wrote in message

m...





"Winston" wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:

(...)

So, as I said a few posts above here, in response to RogerN:

While you're busy cutting programs that don't fit your ideology, how
about calling for immediate defunding of the office of faith based
initiatives? How about rescinding the tax-exampt status of ALL
religious organizations? Of course, in the greater scheme of the
federal budget, these items don't amount to a hill of beans, but
what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I made the same point, (albeit much less eloquently) almost
a week ago. *Still no comment from The Roger.

--Winston

Simply look up the reason these organizations are tax exempt. *They are
providing a service, at least for their congregation, and in many cases
they should be saving the government much more than the value of the
taxes.

They're tax-exempt because they're non-profit/charitable institutions, and
because of court rulings concerning the government keeping its hands off of
churches under the First Amendment. They don't even have to file tax returns
However, since the mid-'50s (I think), many churches file for tax-exempt
status under a revised tax code.

It's a complicated piece of tax law. Don't try it at home. d8-)







In my own circumstance I sought to find out if God is real and at the same
time I was figuring out a way to kill the man my ex cheated on me with. *I
was going to take a six pack of beer, drain all the cans, fill up 4 of the
cans with explosives, one can for the controls(microswitches and wiring),
one can for batteries. *I would set the six pack on the hood of his
vehicle and arm it. *When he got up the next morning he would see some of
his buddies left a six pack on his hood, lift it up, activating a
microswitch, and boom!

When I was serious enough to find God or risk life in prison, I found God.
I experienced supernatural answers to prayer like I never imagined, almost
every week I was seeing or experiencing miracles. *My religion possibly
saved a mans (a taxpayer!) life and kept his kids from being fatherless,
how much $ did that save the government?

And that, Roger, is the primary basis for my acceptance of organized
religion. You're not the only one I know who is not in prison, and who is
living a useful life, because he got religion.

Keep it up. Just don't lay it on the rest of us too thick, Ok?

--
Ed Huntress

OK, I've been thinking about this for a couple of days and while I
can't argue that some significant number of people have been "saved"
by religion, what about the huge number of people who have been killed
in the name of religion? How many killed in the Crusades? How many in
the Inquisition? How many in the Holocaust?

Seems to me like a losing proposition that religion saves lives, so we
ought to pay for it.

And the fact that Roger chose to "find God or face life in prison" is
good, but why couldn't he have decided to find something else rather
than face life in prison? He could have decided, for instance, to find
a good therapist or gone back to school, or taken up origami rather
than going to prison. The point is that it was a choice that he made.
Does this all mean that anything anyone decides to do rather than
pusuing a life of crime should be tax-exempt?

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"RogerN" wrote in message
m...
"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On May 29, 7:56 pm, Winston wrote:
RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:
On May 29, 3:30 pm, wrote:

(...)

A woman went to a planned parenthood abortion mill to inquire about
an
abortion, she hadn't made up her mind but wanted to discuss it. She
was
nervous and all so they gave her some medicine to help her relax.
After
thinking it over, she decided she didn't want the abortion. They
told
her
that the medicine they gave her could harm the baby and talked her
into
the
abortion. Afterward she found out the medicine they gave her wasn't
harmful
to the baby, they lied to her to talk her into the abortion.

Without credible cites, that is nothing more than a fairy tale.

No fairy tale, it's libel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

--Winston

It's truth:

http://911babies.com/news.php?action...mments=1&id=86

Help me understand your point Roger, please?

Where in your cite does it indicate that Planned Parenthood
coerced someone into an abortion by lying to them?
It just doesn't.

The only internet cite I can see for your
story *is* your story, written by you.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2...arenthood-resp...

I agree that there is some lying going on.

--Winston-
\
\When I asked for a cite, I got, "I heard it on the radio" followed by
\a bunch of cut & paste from an anti-abortion web site. I clicked on
\one of the links and got a 404 error. That's about all the time I'm
\willing to put in to chasing Rogers "facts."

Yes, the woman telling of her experience with Planned Parenthood was on
the radio, just because she said it on the radio doesn't make it less
true or false than it being on a website. So, I provided you with many
other similar incidents that other women experienced with Planned
Parenthood.

\Now, you need to remember that the discussion was about federal
\funding for women's health services which Roger claimed would become
\redundant under publicly funded health insurance. You also need to
\remember that I said that I had no quarrel with that, and that Roger
\then responded by going off into his all-too-familiar tirade about
\baby killing.

Many bring up the "good" services that Planned Parenthood provides, if
you search you can see that many abortions Planned Parenthood provided
were because the contraceptives they provided failed, job security I
guess. Use government money to hand out unreliable contraceptives and
make billions aborting those babies!

It's those ventilated condoms. Planned Parenthood hires a guy who shoots
the condom packs with .22 birdshot loads before they hand them out. I read
it on a Christian blog.


\Menwhile, Gunner fantasizes about being a tennis umpire...
\
\Roger: Are you also against contraception? Do you believe that
\intercourse is only for procreation?
\

Contraception is OK by me, but why does the government give PP money to
had out contraceptives and PP makes a profit if the contraceptives fail?
So, if PP gives out bad contraceptives, or bad advice, they are rewarded
by making $$$ for an abortion, no wonder they are the nations number one
abortion provider. And why is Obama so obsessed with funding PP? Maybe
they aborted some babies for him so he wouldn't get caught or have to pay
Child Support?

RogerN

Roger, why don't you just face the truth. Planned Parenthood is an
organization of people who feel that women have been medically
undertreated and mistreated for centuries, particularly concerning
reproductive issues. Some of them, like a good friend of mine, feel that
Christians had it right about abortion -- before roughly 1840, when some
of the Christians suddenly got the superstitious idea that human zygotes
were imbued with a soul at the time of conception.

That may have been centuries ago, but it's not valid today. Women get way
way way better treatment than men these days, the poeple that saw women
treated worse are now fossils. I know you think 1840 Christians had it
right, but the modern Christians, the are elightened by science and reading
their Bible, now believe differently. Sorry you haven't caught up with
science or the Bible. To be honest, all that thought as you described were
not Christians, the Bible says God knew us BEFORE we were in our mothers
womb, someone that believes otherwise and claims to be a Christian is simply
a liar.

Before that time, the standard Christian idea was that there was a
"delayed ensoulment," which occurred at some time before the middle of a
term of pregnancy, and that terminating a fetus was at least marginally
acceptable until that time. This was the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, which
dominated the thinking about this and some other subjects on the part of
theistic scholars from the late 13th century until American evangelicals
got a different idea in their heads, with different sects rolling over
between 1820 and roughly 1910. The Catholic Church did the same in 1869.
English common law held roughly the same position -- abortion before
"quickening" was Ok, or at least not a crime -- and that was the law that
ruled US jurisprudence during the early days of our republic.

Nice bull****, but not at all Biblical, those who thought such foolishness
pulled their theology out of their ass.

Those PP people see themselves as the last lifeline for women who are
victims of subjugation by people like you, who want to tell them what they
can do with their bodies because of your superstitious views. They are
indeed firm supporters of the right to abortion and it's become the
symbol, for you and your ilk, of what they're about. But abortion is not
what they're about. It's women's health and rights that they're about.

That's great, then why don't they accept government funds for services that
the government covers and provide abortions for free? Because they are full
of **** and you bought into their bull****, that's why.

We've listened to your rants about abortion and the way your former wife
behaved for years. I have no way to judge your situation; we've only heard
your side of the story, and we don't know a thing about the other side. Be
that as it may, I'm not judging you or what you went through. I'll take
you at your word for that.

Just take my rants with the law, you'll find out that women are not required
to spend $0.01 of child support on the children. You'll also find out that
if a woman gets pregnant by another man, another man can be required to
support the child just because the bitch lied. Jesus said "with God nothing
is impossible" I would have to say the most difficult thing would be to make
torment in hell bad enough for the women and libtards that made laws the way
they are now. Today our justice system rules in favor of lying, cheating,
whores and rules against men that may be innocent.

But there's something missing. The only time you talk about kids is when
you tell us how much it costs you to support yours, and about the "babies"
(gestating fetuses) that are being killed. Never a word of affection, or
anything that sounds even vaguely like human concern for any of them as
human beings. It's always about you, and your wife, and the "baby
killers." It's like they aren't even humans, let alone objects of human
interest or concern.

I love my kids enough that it disgusts me that the money that is supposed to
be for them can be used for the woman to buy herself a sport car (she earned
$20K per year and received $10k (cash, after tax) per year child support)
but the kids have to work while in school because their mother spent their
money on herself.

Obviously, you're deeply embittered about what happened to you, and you
may well be justified. But your anger toward abortion providers sounds
unconnected with any feeling for the objects -- the children, or potential
children. The closest you come is clinical descriptions of abortions. You
could as well be describing taxidermy.

Yes, I'm very bitter, paying child support when the children lived with me,
being taken to court by Public Aid many times when I was ahead on support,
having arrearage taken from my pay when I was ahead on support, having the
EX ask me for more money right after she got a $340 per month increase, and
all supported by libtarded laws.

FWIW, it sounds like you want to make women pay for what's happened to
you, and this is your way of doing it. The whole thing sounds not like a
genuine interest in the lives of children, but rather an imposition of
order that you think will restore your own sense of fairness.

No, actually I want to stop making men pay for what deadbeat dads did. The
ones paying child support are being punished for the ones that didn't, and
that's pure and simple wrong.

And it's about you, not about those potential human lives. That's the
feeling I get from most religious anti-abortionists. Your talk about it is
so abstract and so focused on your own sense of propriety, which the antis
call their morality, that if one walked into the middle of their
discussions he would wonder for a few minutes what you all were talking
about.

My biggest complaints about abortion is that it's totally one sided and they
want taxpayers provide funding for the nations number one abortion provider.

As far as I'm concerned, you keep your hands off. It's not your business.
You don't have any connection to those women or their pregnancies. Those
are their business, and their doctors', should the women choose. You're
entitled to your religion but not to impose it on others.

That's great, as long as they keep their hands off taxpayer dollars. If
they choose to be whores, don't think they deserve special treatment when it
comes to public funding for their choosen lifestyle. Taxpayers are not
responsible for women that let any stiff dick in their hole.

Just so we know where we stand on this.

--
Ed Huntress

Yes, I think God's laughing that you, who were smarter than Christians at
age 13, now hold to the position of 1840 Christians and today Christians
believe in Science and the Bible! ROFLMAO!!!!

By the way, even to the disagreement of some conservatives and most
liberals, on the issue of abortion and homosexuality, science is in
agreement with the Bible.

Hmmm

RogerN

On Jun 3, 7:12*pm, "RogerN" wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

...



"RogerN" wrote in message
om...
"rangerssuck" wrote in message
....
On May 29, 7:56 pm, Winston wrote:
RogerN wrote:
wrote in message
...
rangerssuck wrote:
On May 29, 3:30 pm, wrote:

(...)

A woman went to a planned parenthood abortion mill to inquire about
an
abortion, she hadn't made up her mind but wanted to discuss it. She
was
nervous and all so they gave her some medicine to help her relax..
After
thinking it over, she decided she didn't want the abortion. They
told
her
that the medicine they gave her could harm the baby and talked her
into
the
abortion. Afterward she found out the medicine they gave her wasn't
harmful
to the baby, they lied to her to talk her into the abortion.

Without credible cites, that is nothing more than a fairy tale.

No fairy tale, it's libel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

--Winston

It's truth:

http://911babies.com/news.php?action...mments=1&id=86

Help me understand your point Roger, please?

Where in your cite does it indicate that Planned Parenthood
coerced someone into an abortion by lying to them?
It just doesn't.

The only internet cite I can see for your
story *is* your story, written by you.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2...arenthood-resp....

I agree that there is some lying going on.

--Winston-
\
\When I asked for a cite, I got, "I heard it on the radio" followed by
\a bunch of cut & paste from an anti-abortion web site. I clicked on
\one of the links and got a 404 error. That's about all the time I'm
\willing to put in to chasing Rogers "facts."

Yes, the woman telling of her experience with Planned Parenthood was on
the radio, just because she said it on the radio doesn't make it less
true or false than it being on a website. *So, I provided you with many
other similar incidents that other women experienced with Planned
Parenthood.

\Now, you need to remember that the discussion was about federal
\funding for women's health services which Roger claimed would become
\redundant under publicly funded health insurance. You also need to
\remember that I said that I had no quarrel with that, and that Roger
\then responded by going off into his all-too-familiar tirade about
\baby killing.

Many bring up the "good" services that Planned Parenthood provides, if
you search you can see that many abortions Planned Parenthood provided
were because the contraceptives they provided failed, job security I
guess. Use government money to hand out unreliable contraceptives and
make billions aborting those babies!

It's those ventilated condoms. Planned Parenthood hires a guy who shoots
the condom packs with .22 birdshot loads before they hand them out. I read
it on a Christian blog.

\Menwhile, Gunner fantasizes about being a tennis umpire...
\
\Roger: Are you also against contraception? Do you believe that
\intercourse is only for procreation?
\

Contraception is OK by me, but why does the government give PP money to
had out contraceptives and PP makes a profit if the contraceptives fail?
So, if PP gives out bad contraceptives, or bad advice, they are rewarded
by making $$$ for an abortion, no wonder they are the nations number one
abortion provider. *And why is Obama so obsessed with funding PP? *Maybe
they aborted some babies for him so he wouldn't get caught or have to pay
Child Support?

RogerN

Roger, why don't you just face the truth. Planned Parenthood is an
organization of people who feel that women have been medically
undertreated and mistreated for centuries, particularly concerning
reproductive issues. Some of them, like a good friend of mine, feel that
Christians had it right about abortion -- before roughly 1840, when some
of the Christians suddenly got the superstitious idea that human zygotes
were imbued with a soul at the time of conception.

That may have been centuries ago, but it's not valid today. *Women get way
way way better treatment than men these days, the poeple that saw women
treated worse are now fossils. *I know you think 1840 Christians had it
right, but the modern Christians, the are elightened by science and reading
their Bible, now believe differently. *Sorry you haven't caught up with
science or the Bible. *To be honest, all that thought as you described were
not Christians, the Bible says God knew us BEFORE we were in our mothers
womb, someone that believes otherwise and claims to be a Christian is simply
a liar.

Before that time, the standard Christian idea was that there was a
"delayed ensoulment," which occurred at some time before the middle of a
term of pregnancy, and that terminating a fetus was at least marginally
acceptable until that time. This was the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas, which
dominated the thinking about this and some other subjects on the part of
theistic scholars from the late 13th century until American evangelicals
got a different idea in their heads, with different sects rolling over
between 1820 and roughly 1910. The Catholic Church did the same in 1869..
English common law held roughly the same position -- abortion before
"quickening" was Ok, or at least not a crime -- and that was the law that
ruled US jurisprudence during the early days of our republic.

Nice bull****, but not at all Biblical, those who thought such foolishness
pulled their theology out of their ass.

Those PP people see themselves as the last lifeline for women who are
victims of subjugation by people like you, who want to tell them what they
can do with their bodies because of your superstitious views. They are
indeed firm supporters of the right to abortion and it's become the
symbol, for you and your ilk, of what they're about. But abortion is not
what they're about. It's women's health and rights that they're about.

That's great, then why don't they accept government funds for services that
the government covers and provide abortions for free? *Because they are full
of **** and you bought into their bull****, that's why.

We've listened to your rants about abortion and the way your former wife
behaved for years. I have no way to judge your situation; we've only heard
your side of the story, and we don't know a thing about the other side. Be
that as it may, I'm not judging you or what you went through. I'll take
you at your word for that.

Just take my rants with the law, you'll find out that women are not required
to spend $0.01 of child support on the children. *You'll also find out that
if a woman gets pregnant by another man, another man can be required to
support the child just because the bitch lied. *Jesus said "with God nothing
is impossible" I would have to say the most difficult thing would be to make
torment in hell bad enough for the women and libtards that made laws the way
they are now. *Today our justice system rules in favor of lying, cheating,
whores and rules against men that may be innocent.

But there's something missing. The only time you talk about kids is when
you tell us how much it costs you to support yours, and about the "babies"
(gestating fetuses) that are being killed. Never a word of affection, or
anything that sounds even vaguely like human concern for any of them as
human beings. It's always about you, and your wife, and the "baby
killers." It's like they aren't even humans, let alone objects of human
interest or concern.

I love my kids enough that it disgusts me that the money that is supposed to
be for them can be used for the woman to buy herself a sport car (she earned
$20K per year and received $10k (cash, after tax) per year child support)
but the kids have to work while in school because their mother spent their
money on herself.

Obviously, you're deeply embittered about what happened to you, and you
may well be justified. But your anger toward abortion providers sounds
unconnected with any feeling for the objects -- the children, or potential
children. The closest you come is clinical descriptions of abortions. You
could as well be describing taxidermy.

Yes, I'm very bitter, paying child support when the children lived with me,
being taken to court by Public Aid many times when I was ahead on support,
having arrearage taken from my pay when I was ahead on support, having the
EX ask me for more money right after she got a $340 per month increase, and
all supported by libtarded laws.

FWIW, it sounds like you want to make women pay for what's happened to
you, and this is your way of doing it. The whole thing sounds not like a
genuine interest in the lives of children, but rather an imposition of
order that you think will restore your own sense of fairness.

No, actually I want to stop making men pay for what deadbeat dads did. *The
ones paying child support are being punished for the ones that didn't, and
that's pure and simple wrong.

And it's about you, not about those potential human lives. That's the
feeling I get from most religious anti-abortionists. Your talk about it is
so abstract and so focused on your own sense of propriety, which the antis
call their morality, that if one walked into the middle of their
discussions he would wonder for a few minutes what you all were talking
about.

My biggest complaints about abortion is that it's totally one sided and they
want taxpayers provide funding for the nations number one abortion provider.

As far as I'm concerned, you keep your hands off. It's not your business.
You don't have any connection to those women or their pregnancies. Those
are their business, and their doctors', should the women choose. You're
entitled to your religion but not to impose it on others.

That's great, as long as they keep their hands off taxpayer dollars. *If
they choose to be whores, don't think they deserve special treatment when it
comes to public funding for their choosen lifestyle. *Taxpayers are not
responsible for women that let any stiff dick in their hole.

Just so we know where we stand on this.

--
Ed Huntress

Yes, I think God's laughing that you, who were smarter than Christians at
age 13, now hold to the position of 1840 Christians and today Christians
believe in Science and the Bible! *ROFLMAO!!!!

By the way, even to the disagreement of some conservatives and most
liberals, on the issue of abortion and homosexuality, science is in
agreement with the Bible.

Hmmm

RogerN

Roger. Get some help. This anger is eating you alive. Seriously, get
some help.