Reid says Republicans want shutdown to close clinics

[Zero Sum 305]

Dude, your logic is more twisted than a pigs tail. You quoted me and said the GOP was talking political rhetoric right after I refuted that post. If you can't keep up then go sit in the corner.

Wait, whaaaaaaaaat?

Did you actually read the post history in this thread? Hurry and do it before the meltdown sets in!

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Essentially, yes. They also want pregnancies that are supported by PP - via prenatal care, infertility treatments, etc. - to go without that support. And they don't like women receiving cancer screenings. They want STDs to go undiagnosed and untreated so they can spread some more.

Let me understand you on this. If this was so important to the dems then why didnt' they pass a budget with full funding for PP? If it was really so important to them then why didn't they pass SP? It seems the dems are the ones that want "STDs to go undiagnosed and untreated so they can spread some more".

[mawilson 2,133]

Essentially, yes. They also want pregnancies that are supported by PP - via prenatal care, infertility treatments, etc. - to go without that support. And they don't like women receiving cancer screenings. They want STDs to go undiagnosed and untreated so they can spread some more.

Now a serious question. Why is PP funded by our tax dollars?

Keep in mind, I fully support Planned Parenthood and the services they provide.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Wait, whaaaaaaaaat?

Did you actually read the post history in this thread? Hurry and do it before the meltdown sets in!

I read it, it is you that is melting down. Sorry if you can't grasp simple conversation flow. You really need to pay attention. But then again all you were doing was butting in without contributing.

[Zero Sum 305]

I read it, it is you that is melting down. Sorry if you can't grasp simple conversation flow. You really need to pay attention. But then again all you were doing was butting in without contributing.

Pay attention to what John? I really want to know where it is that I am supposed to be in this conversation, because seriously, is there some hidden first post of mine here that is attacking you or is it true you're just having a hissy fit?

[Zero Sum 305]

Let me understand you on this. If this was so important to the dems then why didnt' they pass a budget with full funding for PP? If it was really so important to them then why didn't they pass SP? It seems the dems are the ones that want "STDs to go undiagnosed and untreated so they can spread some more".

I could follow your logic- you're basing what was done and wasn't done in the past as an excuse to criticize what is done or isn't done now? You do understand we're talking effectively about two different sessions of Congress, with different members, right?

For what its worth, I too was disappointed in the lack of work (on ALL sides- reminding you too that the GOP went out of its way in the last term to be as obstructionist as possible) executed in Congress last year.

But if you can't grab the contents of one thread I can't be too optimistic about you having a complete picture of an entire year's historical record in Congress... no insult intended.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Pay attention to what John? I really want to know where it is that I am supposed to be in this conversation, because seriously, is there some hidden first post of mine here that is attacking you or is it true you're just having a hissy fit?

Ok, I will take it slow just for you.

You said,

Oh, if you say so.

I think you are right. It is partisan hack rhetoric. The GOP wants to do away with something based on partisan hack rhetoric. Thanks for pointing that out.

.

Clearly you were referring to my post since you thanked me for it. In addition my post was in your quote. You made a failed attempt to turn around my point that the dems position was partisan hack rhetoric and so was Dogs response to it. Get it yet?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I could follow your logic- you're basing what was done and wasn't done in the past as an excuse to criticize what is done or isn't done now? You do understand we're talking effectively about two different sessions of Congress, with different members, right?

For what its worth, I too was disappointed in the lack of work (on ALL sides- reminding you too that the GOP went out of its way in the last term to be as obstructionist as possible) executed in Congress last year.

But if you can't grab the contents of one thread I can't be too optimistic about you having a complete picture of an entire year's historical record in Congress... no insult intended.

Don't you get my point yet? How else can I make it simple for you? If the dems would have done their job when they had the chance then all of the stuff that is happening today would not be happening. Yes they are two different congress's. That is my whole point. The dems are now attacking the reps for something that they could have 100% avoided by just doing their job. They are now complaining about the way the reps are trying to doing things when they had the chance to do it themselves.

Edited April 8, 2011 by JohnSmith2007

[Zero Sum 305]

Ok, I will take it slow just for you.

You said, .

Clearly you were referring to my post since you thanked me for it. In addition my post was in your quote. You made a failed attempt to turn around my point that the dems position was partisan hack rhetoric and so was Dogs response to it. Get it yet?

Oh Lord. Turn around your point? Don't get so hissy about your own political bias. I think what I probably should have said is that both sides are being hacks, on Capitol Hill. Mr Big Dog's points are separate and VERY much accurate.

So we make it to the crux of the problem with what you write above.

Do you deny the GOP wants to defund PP on financial reasons ONLY?

Mind you its probably necessary for you to bring proof to the table based on contextual discussions on Capitol Hill to prove your assertion.

The GOP has usually objected to PP funding based merely on its anti-abortion stance. This latest example is no difference- and they're willing to throw other reproductive health services for women under the bus for that reason alone. Of course, if you add to the logic that even some in the GOP are also against birth control due to religious reasons, then the tide rises even more against a purely fiscal reason for the GOP being so insistent on cutting PP funding and not in going after big expenditures that would make more fiscal sense to cut.

[Zero Sum 305]

Don't you get my point yet? How else can I make it simple for you? If the dems would have done their job when they had the chance then all of the stuff that is happening today would not be happening. Yes they are two different congress's. That is my whole point. The dems are now attacking the reps for something that they could have 100% avoided by just doing their job. They are now complaining about the way the reps are trying to doing things when they had the chance to do it themselves.

I think the Dems [now] are attacking the GOP [now] because the GOP wants it their way, and their way only. This is called context. Check what that means. Then brush up on what was going on internally with the Dems in the last session of Congress (glad you realized that) at the same time the GOP was doing everything it could to obstruct. Amazing you only want to see what you want to see.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Sigh.. Never mind zero. You don't seem to want to understand.

[Zero Sum 305]

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I think the Dems [now] are attacking the GOP [now] because the GOP wants it their way, and their way only. This is called context. Check what that means. Then brush up on what was going on internally with the Dems in the last session of Congress (glad you realized that) at the same time the GOP was doing everything it could to obstruct. Amazing you only want to see what you want to see.

which was pretty much nothing.

For the GOP to 'obstruct' it took help from the Dems last session....

[Zero Sum 305]

which was pretty much nothing.

For the GOP to 'obstruct' it took help from the Dems last session....

No argument from me on that one. Think of it as 2 + 1 = 3.

Although of course, we would be lying to ourselves if we denied the obstructionism in favor of internal bickering amongst Dems. The GOP is apparently going through some of that now with the Tea Party GOPers.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Lets look at this shall we? In the two years that the dems controlled the government they didn't pass a budget. So now that they no longer control the government it is the fault of the reps that the snag is because of PP? If they had done their job this wouldn't be an issue. Additionally, if the dems would have given us SP when they had the chance we wouldn't even need PP. Tell me again how you think that Reids statement makes any sense? Who is really wanting women to not get cancer screenings? Yeah, thanks for answering my question yet again. Have another glass of kool-aid.

Wait, what? The Democrats have controlled Congress from Jan 2007 - Jan 2011. They were, as such, in charge to pass the budget for FY 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. That's 4 years and hence 4 budgets. Now, aside from 2011, out those 4 years, which other year did Congress fail to pass the budget? The 2010 budget passed in early 2009. The 2009 budget passed in mid 2008. The 2008 budget passed Congress in mid 2007.

As to your question who it is that wants to cut womens access to cancer screenings and other health services? The answer is simple: Those that are stubbornly trying to defund the organization that provides the services. That would be the GOP. To turn around and suggest that those that failed to introduce Single payer healthcare are at fault, that would be both the GOP and the Dems. Or have I missed where the GOP introduced a Single Payer initiative that the Dem majority voted down?