Pubbie v. left THUNDERDOME (apparently)

[Enoch the Red]

Is it the word 'right' that's absurd there? It's limiting the availability of abortions in the poorer demographics, but the Pubbie wisdom is that if you can't afford it, FUCK YOU, so no harm no foul.

Issue the first: Indiana's Planned Parenthood has been receiving, wait for it, private donations in order to cover operating costs, and I imagine they will continue to receive funding for the near future. Furthermore, the state not funding an organization does not mean it is destroying a right to something. By the state not funding a media outlet does it mean that the state is destroying the right to free speech?

Issue the second: State dollars can't be used to perform abortions, as GGT is so fond of pointing out, thusly it shouldn't have an effect on abortions, no? Wasn't this the direction the discussion took in the other thread where people were complaining about this very issue? That it wasn't fair to defund the organization because the money wasn't even being used for that purpose? It would appear that GGT, and others, are trying to have it both ways. Either the 'Pubbies' are evil mustachioed vaudevillains who are trying to kill women and destroy the elderly just for the sheer joy of it, or they have a legitimate claim that by defunding this organization they are limiting a practice they consider to be barbaric.

[Nessus]

Quite a few.

http://blogs.forbes.com/clareoconnor...a-energy-fight

So how hard would it be for them to come together and create a fund for women who need abortion in conservative states? The same people who can spent tens of millions in political advertising on abortion doesn't seem to want to spend those same tens of millions to help poor women obtain those abortions. I wonder why.

This is just more champagne socialist bull-shit. The idea is to provide services on the state level, no strings attached. Do you really want to argue that the poor houses of the 17th century were a superior alternative to giving some state money to the unemployed?

[Loki]

This is just more champagne socialist bull-shit. The idea is to provide services on the state level, no strings attached. Do you really want to argue that the poor houses of the 17th century were a superior alternative to giving some state money to the unemployed?

I'm not saying this would be the best alternative, but surely if you're a billionaire and you can't get the government to pay for something you believe is very important, you should get your friends and pay for it yourself? Or is being a left-wing billionaire nowadays mean that you lobby the government harder to take everyone's money while you keep yours in the Cayman's?

[Nessus]

Issue the first: Indiana's Planned Parenthood has been receiving, wait for it, private donations in order to cover operating costs, and I imagine they will continue to receive funding for the near future. Furthermore, the state not funding an organization does not mean it is destroying a right to something. By the state not funding a media outlet does it mean that the state is destroying the right to free speech?

Issue the second: State dollars can't be used to perform abortions, as GGT is so fond of pointing out, thusly it shouldn't have an effect on abortions, no? Wasn't this the direction the discussion took in the other thread where people were complaining about this very issue? That it wasn't fair to defund the organization because the money wasn't even being used for that purpose? It would appear that GGT, and others, are trying to have it both ways. Either the 'Pubbies' are evil geniuses who are trying to kill women and destroy the elderly just for the sheer joy of it, or they have a legitimate claim that by defunding this organization they are limiting a practice they consider to be barbaric.

Some Pubbies do seem to have those motives, but that's neither here or there. (Actually, they like the elderly because their votes are easily bought, and reliable)

Even given that the organization has to get out-side funds to KILL BABIES, it is the out-reach and availability of said organization that is key. There are segments of the US where poor people have to travel in excess of 500 miles to reach a facility willing to perform an abortion, for any reason. To limit that is an action decidedly against poor people.

[GGT]

Quite a few.

http://blogs.forbes.com/clareoconnor...a-energy-fight

So how hard would it be for them to come together and create a fund for women who need abortion in conservative states? The same people who can spent tens of millions in political advertising on abortion doesn't seem to want to spend those same tens of millions to help poor women obtain those abortions. I wonder why.

Seriously, you think ginormous donors mean more than the underlying philosophies? You want a country where the biggest financiers rule the rest of the country?

[Enoch the Red]

Some Pubbies do seem to have those motives, but that's neither here or there. (Actually, they like the elderly because their votes are easily bought, and reliable)

Even given that the organization has to get out-side funds to KILL BABIES, it is the out-reach and availability of said organization that is key. There are segments of the US where poor people have to travel in excess of 500 miles to reach a facility willing to perform an abortion, for any reason. To limit that is an action decidedly against poor people.

How many miles does an institution have to be away from 'the poor' before it ceases to be a right?

[GGT]

Issue the first: Indiana's Planned Parenthood has been receiving, wait for it, private donations in order to cover operating costs, and I imagine they will continue to receive funding for the near future. Furthermore, the state not funding an organization does not mean it is destroying a right to something. By the state not funding a media outlet does it mean that the state is destroying the right to free speech?

Issue the second: State dollars can't be used to perform abortions, as GGT is so fond of pointing out, thusly it shouldn't have an effect on abortions, no? Wasn't this the direction the discussion took in the other thread where people were complaining about this very issue? That it wasn't fair to defund the organization because the money wasn't even being used for that purpose? It would appear that GGT, and others, are trying to have it both ways. Either the 'Pubbies' are evil mustachioed vaudevillains who are trying to kill women and destroy the elderly just for the sheer joy of it, or they have a legitimate claim that by defunding this organization they are limiting a practice they consider to be barbaric.

Wrong thread.

[Enoch the Red]

Wrong thread.

Right thread?

[Nessus]

I'm not saying this would be the best alternative, but surely if you're a billionaire and you can't get the government to pay for something you believe is very important, you should get your friends and pay for it yourself? Or is being a left-wing billionaire nowadays mean that you lobby the government harder to take everyone's money while you keep yours in the Cayman's?

I am not a left-wing billionaire (), why am I supposed to defend them? Your endless crusade against perceived hypocrisy is well-known (is that a 'one-liner', by the way?), but guilt by association is I believe a form of logical fallacy.

Given how much the Koch brothers are able to do with their billions, I'd wager Ohm's law says left-wing billionaires (the pink unicorns that they are) would be better off trying to buy the Pubbies than straight out trying to give money to people. You're just straight-up offering libertarian fallacies at me now; the whole point of the exercise is that there's a single agency (the government) that funds and directs aid and funds, instead of everyone having to pay for their charity of choice, investigating which charity is best, so on and so forth, it's an argument for efficiency. (lol government isn't efficient in the US!)

[Nessus]

How many miles does an institution have to be away from 'the poor' before it ceases to be a right?

That's a good question, we have rural areas in Finland where response time by police is above 20 minutes due to geography alone. Wild North, eh?

[Loki]

You seem to be forgetting that in a democracy, the government acts with the consent of the governed, which means many things that we wish the government would do (or wouldn't do) simply won't get done (or will) due to a lack of a majority to support the measure. In those circumstances, I would argue that you're better off trying to get like-minded individuals to provide that service privately instead of whining about the evil majority that doesn't respect people's rights. Even if the latter is true, whining isn't going to help anyone.

[GGT]

Right thread?

Right thread for discussing.....what, exactly? Planned Parenthood's federal dollars? Abortion services and rights? Or just any public service like fire or police protection? There's also a thread about Federal Disaster assistance, if you want to go there.....

[Enoch the Red]

More to the point, I personally find this decision to be a disturbing and dangerous precedent. If a 'good' citizen is expected to get on their belly and assume the position whenever a person claiming to be the police bursts into their home, how long will it be until some enterprising members of the Hot Cops decides it's an easier way of making a buck or two.

I seem to recall a similar incident happening recently in another state, where criminals were pretending to be police executing no knock warrants. (Guess which state recently allowed police officers to execute no knock-warrant at their discretion without a judges permission?)

Right thread for discussing.....what, exactly? Planned Parenthood's federal dollars? Abortion services and rights? Or just any public service like fire or police protection? There's also a thread about Federal Disaster assistance, if you want to go there.....

The right thread in that you were the one bringing these issues up here? I'm sorry, it was, and is, an absurd claim that you are making. I don't think it matters where it's posted.

[Nessus]

You seem to be forgetting that in a democracy, the government acts with the consent of the governed, which means many things that we wish the government would do (or wouldn't do) simply won't get done (or will) due to a lack of a majority to support the measure. In those circumstances, I would argue that you're better off trying to get like-minded individuals to provide that service privately instead of whining about the evil majority that doesn't respect people's rights. Even if the latter is true, whining isn't going to help anyone.

See, you're making a loaded statement there (whining) to support your cause. And the same people whose money directs Pubbie votes buys the media narrative for the most part, so the governed have to work rather hard to actually be informed. I'm sure many Pubbie voters are just heinous human beings, but never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity, what ho!

[Loki]

Erm, right, that nefarious right-wing media brain-washing the masses to hate the Democratic party.

[Nessus]

Erm, right, that nefarious right-wing media brain-washing the masses to hate the Democratic party.

Anyway, back to "whining", legitimacy and realism; any Soviet citizen didn't have much choice in how shitty life was, and trying to change that (whining) would usually result in harsh reprimand. In the US, what is the down-side to the whining? Your annoyance? That's not incentive enough for anyone to cease protesting perceived injustice, god you may be.

[GGT]

More to the point, I personally find this decision to be a disturbing and dangerous precedent. If a 'good' citizen is expected to get on their belly and assume the position whenever a person claiming to be the police bursts into their home, how long will it be until some enterprising members of the Hot Cops decides it's an easier way of making a buck or two.

I seem to recall a similar incident happening recently in another state, where criminals were pretending to be police executing no knock warrants. (Guess which state recently allowed police officers to execute no knock-warrant at their discretion without a judges permission?)

The right thread in that you were the one bringing these issues up here? I'm sorry, it was, and is, an absurd claim that you are making. I don't think it matters where it's posted.

Then you'll understand why women, who are NOT criminals, feel they're being victimized by the gov't when told which situations they can lie down on their backs, and for which purpose?

[Enoch the Red]

Then you'll understand why women, who are NOT criminals, feel they're being victimized by the gov't when told which situations they can lie down on their backs, and for which purpose?

I don't understand that, no. The women I know are much too strong to be 'victimized' by the state government not providing funding to an organization. I believe, and would hope that is true of the majority of women.

[Nessus]

I don't understand that, no. The women I know are much too strong to be 'victimized' by the state government not providing funding to an organization. I believe, and would hope that is true of the majority of women.

I.e. if you can't pay for [whatever], FUCK YOU.

[Enoch the Red]

If you can't pay for something, you are a victim?

[GGT]

I don't understand that, no. The women I know are much too strong to be 'victimized' by the state government not providing funding to an organization. I believe, and would hope that is true of the majority of women.

But you're more than willing to accept the idea that "property owners" can be exploited by police, or those making policy and taking away their "rights"?

All the while claiming women have some magical force over their bodies that's more powerful than a shotgun at the front door against police that have no-knock warrant power?

What?

[Enoch the Red]

But you're more than willing to accept the idea that "property owners" can be exploited by police, or those making policy and taking away their "rights"?

All the while claiming women have some magical force over their bodies that's more powerful than a shotgun at the front door against police that have no-knock warrant power?

What?

What indeed. What, exactly, are you talking about?

To be precise: Where have I ever claimed a woman has a magical force over their body that is more powerful than a shotgun? How is this relevant to the conversation? And what does it have to do with the price of Uranium in Nippon?

[GGT]

What indeed. What, exactly, are you talking about?

I am asking you to explain how you can defend "personal property rights" when it comes to businesses or gun ownership. It's clear you'd sway toward the individual, and would expect the government to protect and defend the individual's rights.

But then you'd abrogate the same principles when it comes to a woman exercising "personal property rights" of her own body, if it means abortion? And wouldn't expect the government to protect and defend her individual rights?

[Enoch the Red]

I am asking you to explain how you can defend "personal property rights" when it comes to businesses or gun ownership. It's clear you'd sway toward the individual, and would expect the government to protect and defend the individual's rights.

But then you'd abrogate the same principles when it comes to a woman exercising "personal property rights" of her own body, if it means abortion? And wouldn't expect the government to protect and defend her individual rights?

The government seems to do very little in the way of protecting and defending individual rights. It certainly is not in the habit of doing so. So, no, my expectation is not that the government would do any such thing.

Secondly, I haven't and don't believe women, men, or organizations have a right to state coffers. You certainly have the right to do with your body as you will, I, however, don't have to subsidize it. What is more, you seem to be of the opinion that you have a right to whatever medical procedure your heart desires, on the governments dime; I do not.

Your belief seems to be that any efforts to remove subsidies somehow constitutes an infringement of rights.

By that logic, by removing subsidies and tax breaks to oil companies, are we infringing on their right to drill?

[GGT]

The government seems to do very little in the way of protecting and defending individual rights. It certainly is not in the habit of doing so. So, no, my expectation is not that the government would do any such thing.

I doubt you've just given up on the whole thing, though.

Secondly, I haven't and don't believe women, men, or organizations have a right to state coffers. You certainly have the right to do with your body as you will, I, however, don't have to subsidize it. You seem to be of the opinion that you have a right to whatever medical procedure your heart desires, on the governments dime; I do not. Furthermore, your belief seems to be that any efforts to remove subsidies somehow constitutes an infringement of rights.

You're mixing protection of Rights with state coffers. Are you also placing a higher value to things like guns over uteruses? You certainly have the right to buy and carry a firearm, and I DO expect some portion of our tax dollars (subsidy) will pay for a registration and regulatory agency of your firearm. But no one is born with a gun in their hand, like women are born with a uterus. You may have a "Right" to buy or carry a gun, but that shouldn't compare to females born with a uterus.

By removing subsidies and tax breaks to oil companies, are we infringing on their right to drill?

No.

[Enoch the Red]

You're mixing protection of Rights with state coffers. Are you also placing a higher value to things like guns over uteruses? You certainly have the right to buy and carry a firearm, and I DO expect some portion of our tax dollars (subsidy) will pay for a registration and regulatory agency of your firearm. But no one is born with a gun in their hand, like women are born with a uterus. You may have a "Right" to buy or carry a gun, but that shouldn't compare to females born with a uterus.

This simply doesn't make sense. When you can make it cogent I'll be more than happy to reply.

No.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

[GGT]

This doesn't simply make sense. When you can make it cogent I'll be more than happy to reply.

It's perfectly sensible. Our founding fathers took special care to talk about freedoms, and all men being created equal. But it also took much longer to interpret "men" meaning all people, including blacks and women. I find it both fascinating and frustrating that certain states would push so hard for the Right to own and carry a firearm, but take the opposite approach toward women having the Right to birth control and abortion.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

Difference being you're not born with a gun in your belly, or an oil well in your testicles, like women are born with a uterus.

[Enoch the Red]

It's perfectly sensible. Our founding fathers took special care to talk about freedoms, and all men being created equal. But it also took much longer to interpret "men" meaning all people, including blacks and women. I find it both fascinating and frustrating that certain states would push so hard for the Right to own and carry a firearm, but take the opposite approach toward women having the Right to birth control and abortion.

That's all well and good. That's also not the position I took, and it certainly has nothing to do with the Indiana law. Nobodies right to have birth control or an abortion is impacted by a state defunding Planned Parenthood. Full stop.

Difference being you're not born with a gun in your belly, or an oil well in your testicles, like women are born with a uterus.

So? Rights only extend to that which you are born with? Speech, property, and the franchise need not apply? In fact just because I'm born with a pair of testicles doesn't mean I have a right to a vasectomy bought and paid for on the tax payers dime.

[Nessus]

If you can't pay for something, you are a victim?

If I can't pay for cabbage, I'm not that much of a victim. If I can't pay for someone to keep me from being beaten, raped and put into a tiny box for 28 years, yeah then I'm more of a victim. Your question doesn't really make sense. My fault, with the [whatever], I suppose, I should have been more adamant with the abortion line. Fie on ye, semantics, your incessant aid to Pubbies does not go unnoticed!

[agamemnus]

(back to the initial topic for a moment...)

Yes Nessus, I am pretty sure that unlawful police entry into a home is... unlawful.

The court agrees that it's still unlawful, but says that you just can't attack the police even if they are violating your constitutional rights, in the guise of protecting such a situation from getting out of control -- creating injuries or deaths of the police or others. Interesting reasoning, but inherently flawed and constitutionally incorrect.

If an armed intruder walks into your house, do you politely give him all your stuff, let him do whatever s/e wants, and then call the police and/or your lawyer? What's so different about an armed intruder in a policeman's uniform, who happens to be a policeman?

Reasonable people expect to be served with a search warrant or informed of probable cause. If neither is shown or offered, and it is found that the police officer used force against a resisting individual, then he should be fully within his rights to sue both the police officer and the department... and I would say that all this would stem from the Constitution.