Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Now it is brazen

Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:01:07 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.

Well... One, that is 20m to the election cycle, not Hillary. Two, who do you expect them to support? A republican? Three, very happy to here this.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:13:09 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.

Well... One, that is 20m to the election cycle, not Hillary.

Potato - potahto

Two, who do you expect them to support? A republican? Three, very happy to here this.

If you need donated money from the government to fund your business, I expect you not to support anyone. It is called a kickback and a conflict of interest.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:14:15 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:13:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.

Well... One, that is 20m to the election cycle, not Hillary.

Potato - potahto

Two, who do you expect them to support? A republican? Three, very happy to here this.

If you need donated money from the government to fund your business, I expect you not to support anyone. It is called a kickback and a conflict of interest.

Then I am sure you have a problem with all cash donated by all Christian organizations, right? All right-wing non-profits?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:16:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:13:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.

Well... One, that is 20m to the election cycle, not Hillary.

Potato - potahto

Two, who do you expect them to support? A republican? Three, very happy to here this.

If you need donated money from the government to fund your business, I expect you not to support anyone. It is called a kickback and a conflict of interest.

-takes a quick look at the rather recent financial history of the US, then quirks a brow-

Citizens United, Citi, BoA, Wells Fargo, the former Smith Barney...
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:16:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:14:15 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:13:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.

Well... One, that is 20m to the election cycle, not Hillary.

Potato - potahto

Two, who do you expect them to support? A republican? Three, very happy to here this.

If you need donated money from the government to fund your business, I expect you not to support anyone. It is called a kickback and a conflict of interest.

Then I am sure you have a problem with all cash donated by all Christian organizations, right? All right-wing non-profits?

I would be equally outraged if a conservative organization was given a grant and that same organization funded somebody's re-election.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:22:23 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:16:08 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:13:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.

Well... One, that is 20m to the election cycle, not Hillary.

Potato - potahto

Two, who do you expect them to support? A republican? Three, very happy to here this.

If you need donated money from the government to fund your business, I expect you not to support anyone. It is called a kickback and a conflict of interest.

-takes a quick look at the rather recent financial history of the US, then quirks a brow-

Citizens United, Citi, BoA, Wells Fargo, the former Smith Barney...

You'll have to provide more info. Sorry, but not being American means I miss some of the stuff. From a quick review, I see lots from employees of those organizations making donations, but not from the actual organizations themselves.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:23:03 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:16:59 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:14:15 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:13:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.

Well... One, that is 20m to the election cycle, not Hillary.

Potato - potahto

Two, who do you expect them to support? A republican? Three, very happy to here this.

If you need donated money from the government to fund your business, I expect you not to support anyone. It is called a kickback and a conflict of interest.

Then I am sure you have a problem with all cash donated by all Christian organizations, right? All right-wing non-profits?

I would be equally outraged if a conservative organization was given a grant and that same organization funded somebody's re-election.

Then look right at the church.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:37:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:23:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:16:59 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:14:15 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:13:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.

Well... One, that is 20m to the election cycle, not Hillary.

Potato - potahto

Two, who do you expect them to support? A republican? Three, very happy to here this.

If you need donated money from the government to fund your business, I expect you not to support anyone. It is called a kickback and a conflict of interest.

Then I am sure you have a problem with all cash donated by all Christian organizations, right? All right-wing non-profits?

I would be equally outraged if a conservative organization was given a grant and that same organization funded somebody's re-election.

Then look right at the church.

Sure, give me a link.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:41:10 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:37:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:23:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:16:59 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:14:15 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:13:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.

Well... One, that is 20m to the election cycle, not Hillary.

Potato - potahto

Two, who do you expect them to support? A republican? Three, very happy to here this.

If you need donated money from the government to fund your business, I expect you not to support anyone. It is called a kickback and a conflict of interest.

Then I am sure you have a problem with all cash donated by all Christian organizations, right? All right-wing non-profits?

I would be equally outraged if a conservative organization was given a grant and that same organization funded somebody's re-election.

Then look right at the church.

Sure, give me a link.

http://www.pewforum.org...

Yup. Religious based lobbying is among the top.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:52:30 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:41:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:37:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:23:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:16:59 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:14:15 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:13:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.

Well... One, that is 20m to the election cycle, not Hillary.

Potato - potahto

Two, who do you expect them to support? A republican? Three, very happy to here this.

If you need donated money from the government to fund your business, I expect you not to support anyone. It is called a kickback and a conflict of interest.

Then I am sure you have a problem with all cash donated by all Christian organizations, right? All right-wing non-profits?

I would be equally outraged if a conservative organization was given a grant and that same organization funded somebody's re-election.

Then look right at the church.

Sure, give me a link.

http://www.pewforum.org...

Yup. Religious based lobbying is among the top.

From a quick look I didn't see any donations to a presidential candidate, or even a senator/congressman.

Advocacy Methods: More than nine-in-ten groups that completed a questionnaire about their activities say that informing their constituents and the general public is among their advocacy methods or strategies. (For more information on the questionnaire, see the Methodology.) And about four-in-ten of the groups that filled out the questionnaire (41%) report that educating constituents on issues " rather than directly approaching policymakers " is the activity they engage in most often.

Eight-in-ten of the groups for which staffing data were available employ 12 or fewer people in the Washington area.


Wow!! That is totally the same as giving one candidates campaign $20,000,000. Advocating for a position and having people who raise these issues is completely different than supporting a political candidate who is intent on making sure your organization receives copious amounts of government grant money.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 5:55:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:52:30 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:41:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:37:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:23:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:16:59 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:14:15 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:13:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.

Well... One, that is 20m to the election cycle, not Hillary.

Potato - potahto

Two, who do you expect them to support? A republican? Three, very happy to here this.

If you need donated money from the government to fund your business, I expect you not to support anyone. It is called a kickback and a conflict of interest.

Then I am sure you have a problem with all cash donated by all Christian organizations, right? All right-wing non-profits?

I would be equally outraged if a conservative organization was given a grant and that same organization funded somebody's re-election.

Then look right at the church.

Sure, give me a link.

http://www.pewforum.org...

Yup. Religious based lobbying is among the top.

From a quick look I didn't see any donations to a presidential candidate, or even a senator/congressman.

Advocacy Methods: More than nine-in-ten groups that completed a questionnaire about their activities say that informing their constituents and the general public is among their advocacy methods or strategies. (For more information on the questionnaire, see the Methodology.) And about four-in-ten of the groups that filled out the questionnaire (41%) report that educating constituents on issues " rather than directly approaching policymakers " is the activity they engage in most often.

Eight-in-ten of the groups for which staffing data were available employ 12 or fewer people in the Washington area.


Wow!! That is totally the same as giving one candidates campaign $20,000,000. Advocating for a position and having people who raise these issues is completely different than supporting a political candidate who is intent on making sure your organization receives copious amounts of government grant money.

Geogeer. Religious organizations have been directly and indirectly involved in politics since the founding of the country. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears, fine, but its not changing anything.

I don't care for one bit that a fund separate from PP has raised money and is going to give it to a political party. You can get all bent out of shape about it if you like. It seems completely understandable to me.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 6:05:18 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:52:30 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:41:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:37:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:23:03 PM, TBR wrote:

Then look right at the church.

Sure, give me a link.

http://www.pewforum.org...

Yup. Religious based lobbying is among the top.

From a quick look I didn't see any donations to a presidential candidate, or even a senator/congressman.

Advocacy Methods: More than nine-in-ten groups that completed a questionnaire about their activities say that informing their constituents and the general public is among their advocacy methods or strategies. (For more information on the questionnaire, see the Methodology.) And about four-in-ten of the groups that filled out the questionnaire (41%) report that educating constituents on issues " rather than directly approaching policymakers " is the activity they engage in most often.

Eight-in-ten of the groups for which staffing data were available employ 12 or fewer people in the Washington area.


Wow!! That is totally the same as giving one candidates campaign $20,000,000. Advocating for a position and having people who raise these issues is completely different than supporting a political candidate who is intent on making sure your organization receives copious amounts of government grant money.

Replacing costly, and difficult to build, campaign elements, as churches often do, does more to benefit politicians than flat money donations. I wouldn't have a problem if the government didn't support 'faith based initiatives', but they do, so it's just as flagrant an abuse as what PP has done. The right can't really complain about this one without looking a bit hypocritical.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 6:19:13 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 6:05:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:52:30 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:41:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:37:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:23:03 PM, TBR wrote:

Then look right at the church.

Sure, give me a link.

http://www.pewforum.org...

Yup. Religious based lobbying is among the top.

From a quick look I didn't see any donations to a presidential candidate, or even a senator/congressman.

Advocacy Methods: More than nine-in-ten groups that completed a questionnaire about their activities say that informing their constituents and the general public is among their advocacy methods or strategies. (For more information on the questionnaire, see the Methodology.) And about four-in-ten of the groups that filled out the questionnaire (41%) report that educating constituents on issues " rather than directly approaching policymakers " is the activity they engage in most often.

Eight-in-ten of the groups for which staffing data were available employ 12 or fewer people in the Washington area.


Wow!! That is totally the same as giving one candidates campaign $20,000,000. Advocating for a position and having people who raise these issues is completely different than supporting a political candidate who is intent on making sure your organization receives copious amounts of government grant money.

Replacing costly, and difficult to build, campaign elements, as churches often do, does more to benefit politicians than flat money donations. I wouldn't have a problem if the government didn't support 'faith based initiatives', but they do, so it's just as flagrant an abuse as what PP has done. The right can't really complain about this one without looking a bit hypocritical.

The government supports faith based initiatives because due to the nature of Churches it is possible for them to accomplish more with less. It is a means for the government to harness the churches' desire to take care of the disadvantaged in a win-win scenario. This works because Churches are not allowed (to my understanding of US Law) to endorse a party or candidate. Thus the government is getting more for its money, and the churches have a means for their parishioners to carry out their social obligations.

On the other hand, Planned Parenthood is a for profit organization that receives money for an activity which any competent medical personnel could complete for the same cost. They are then endorsing and contributing to the political campaign of one presidential candidate who is going to continue to fund their for profit organization.

I see a significant difference between the two.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 6:55:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:55:55 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:52:30 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:41:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:37:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:23:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:16:59 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:14:15 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:13:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.

Well... One, that is 20m to the election cycle, not Hillary.

Potato - potahto

Two, who do you expect them to support? A republican? Three, very happy to here this.

If you need donated money from the government to fund your business, I expect you not to support anyone. It is called a kickback and a conflict of interest.

Then I am sure you have a problem with all cash donated by all Christian organizations, right? All right-wing non-profits?

I would be equally outraged if a conservative organization was given a grant and that same organization funded somebody's re-election.

Then look right at the church.

Sure, give me a link.

http://www.pewforum.org...

Yup. Religious based lobbying is among the top.

From a quick look I didn't see any donations to a presidential candidate, or even a senator/congressman.

Advocacy Methods: More than nine-in-ten groups that completed a questionnaire about their activities say that informing their constituents and the general public is among their advocacy methods or strategies. (For more information on the questionnaire, see the Methodology.) And about four-in-ten of the groups that filled out the questionnaire (41%) report that educating constituents on issues " rather than directly approaching policymakers " is the activity they engage in most often.

Eight-in-ten of the groups for which staffing data were available employ 12 or fewer people in the Washington area.


Wow!! That is totally the same as giving one candidates campaign $20,000,000. Advocating for a position and having people who raise these issues is completely different than supporting a political candidate who is intent on making sure your organization receives copious amounts of government grant money.

Geogeer. Religious organizations have been directly and indirectly involved in politics since the founding of the country. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears, fine, but its not changing anything.

I have no problem with them being involved in politics to the extent that they espouse their ideology and is a small percentage of their total works.

I don't care for one bit that a fund separate from PP has raised money and is going to give it to a political party. You can get all bent out of shape about it if you like. It seems completely understandable to me.

So you think for profit (yes I know it is officially a non-profit, but with "surpluses" of over a $100,000,000 and a CEO who makes over $500,000 doesn't cut it) organizations that receive monetary grants from the government should be able to use government money to back political candidates?
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 7:03:05 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.

It's really brilliant on Planned Murderhood's part - if you think about it.

They take and use millions of tax payer dollars to provide cheap and even "free" marginal (at best) birth control to the sheeple. While telling them up front not to worry about if the birth control fails because they can help with that too (for 350$ or so) and then they use all the controversy caused by that to lobby for even more.

They are literally pimping out women and making huge profits by keeping the sex trade and other human trafficking enterprises alive and it's pretty much a win win for all those involved.

Well, except maybe for the aborted children but who cares about them?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 7:39:35 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 6:55:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:55:55 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:52:30 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:41:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:37:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:23:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:16:59 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:14:15 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:13:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.

Well... One, that is 20m to the election cycle, not Hillary.

Potato - potahto

Two, who do you expect them to support? A republican? Three, very happy to here this.

If you need donated money from the government to fund your business, I expect you not to support anyone. It is called a kickback and a conflict of interest.

Then I am sure you have a problem with all cash donated by all Christian organizations, right? All right-wing non-profits?

I would be equally outraged if a conservative organization was given a grant and that same organization funded somebody's re-election.

Then look right at the church.

Sure, give me a link.

http://www.pewforum.org...

Yup. Religious based lobbying is among the top.

From a quick look I didn't see any donations to a presidential candidate, or even a senator/congressman.

Advocacy Methods: More than nine-in-ten groups that completed a questionnaire about their activities say that informing their constituents and the general public is among their advocacy methods or strategies. (For more information on the questionnaire, see the Methodology.) And about four-in-ten of the groups that filled out the questionnaire (41%) report that educating constituents on issues " rather than directly approaching policymakers " is the activity they engage in most often.

Eight-in-ten of the groups for which staffing data were available employ 12 or fewer people in the Washington area.


Wow!! That is totally the same as giving one candidates campaign $20,000,000. Advocating for a position and having people who raise these issues is completely different than supporting a political candidate who is intent on making sure your organization receives copious amounts of government grant money.

Geogeer. Religious organizations have been directly and indirectly involved in politics since the founding of the country. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears, fine, but its not changing anything.

I have no problem with them being involved in politics to the extent that they espouse their ideology and is a small percentage of their total works.

I don't care for one bit that a fund separate from PP has raised money and is going to give it to a political party. You can get all bent out of shape about it if you like. It seems completely understandable to me.

So you think for profit (yes I know it is officially a non-profit, but with "surpluses" of over a $100,000,000 and a CEO who makes over $500,000 doesn't cut it) organizations that receive monetary grants from the government should be able to use government money to back political candidates?

It id not government money, or surplus.

I think you are either disingenuous, or being stupid.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,807
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 7:40:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:41:10 PM, TBR wrote:

http://www.pewforum.org...

Yup. Religious based lobbying is among the top.

except that they aren't receiving tax payer money are they? that makes it a kickback, unless you find a loophole (ZING!!!) lol
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 7:59:21 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 7:39:35 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 6:55:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:55:55 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:52:30 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:41:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:37:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:23:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:16:59 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:14:15 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:13:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.

Well... One, that is 20m to the election cycle, not Hillary.

Potato - potahto

Two, who do you expect them to support? A republican? Three, very happy to here this.

If you need donated money from the government to fund your business, I expect you not to support anyone. It is called a kickback and a conflict of interest.

Then I am sure you have a problem with all cash donated by all Christian organizations, right? All right-wing non-profits?

I would be equally outraged if a conservative organization was given a grant and that same organization funded somebody's re-election.

Then look right at the church.

Sure, give me a link.

http://www.pewforum.org...

Yup. Religious based lobbying is among the top.

From a quick look I didn't see any donations to a presidential candidate, or even a senator/congressman.

Advocacy Methods: More than nine-in-ten groups that completed a questionnaire about their activities say that informing their constituents and the general public is among their advocacy methods or strategies. (For more information on the questionnaire, see the Methodology.) And about four-in-ten of the groups that filled out the questionnaire (41%) report that educating constituents on issues " rather than directly approaching policymakers " is the activity they engage in most often.

Eight-in-ten of the groups for which staffing data were available employ 12 or fewer people in the Washington area.


Wow!! That is totally the same as giving one candidates campaign $20,000,000. Advocating for a position and having people who raise these issues is completely different than supporting a political candidate who is intent on making sure your organization receives copious amounts of government grant money.

Geogeer. Religious organizations have been directly and indirectly involved in politics since the founding of the country. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears, fine, but its not changing anything.

I have no problem with them being involved in politics to the extent that they espouse their ideology and is a small percentage of their total works.

I don't care for one bit that a fund separate from PP has raised money and is going to give it to a political party. You can get all bent out of shape about it if you like. It seems completely understandable to me.

So you think for profit (yes I know it is officially a non-profit, but with "surpluses" of over a $100,000,000 and a CEO who makes over $500,000 doesn't cut it) organizations that receive monetary grants from the government should be able to use government money to back political candidates?

It id not government money, or surplus.

In their most recent annual report Planned Parenthood reported revenue of $1.3 billion.1

$528 million of this revenue is from "government health services, grants, and reimbursements."2 This means government funding makes up 41 percent of Planned Parenthood"s revenues.3

During the 2013-2014 reporting year, Planned Parenthood reported $127 million in net income and reported holding $1.4 billion in assets.4


https://oversight.house.gov...

I think you are either disingenuous, or being stupid.

Completely true.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 8:37:41 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 7:59:21 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 7:39:35 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 6:55:14 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:55:55 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:52:30 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:41:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:37:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:23:03 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:16:59 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:14:15 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:13:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.

Well... One, that is 20m to the election cycle, not Hillary.

Potato - potahto

Two, who do you expect them to support? A republican? Three, very happy to here this.

If you need donated money from the government to fund your business, I expect you not to support anyone. It is called a kickback and a conflict of interest.

Then I am sure you have a problem with all cash donated by all Christian organizations, right? All right-wing non-profits?

I would be equally outraged if a conservative organization was given a grant and that same organization funded somebody's re-election.

Then look right at the church.

Sure, give me a link.

http://www.pewforum.org...

Yup. Religious based lobbying is among the top.

From a quick look I didn't see any donations to a presidential candidate, or even a senator/congressman.

Advocacy Methods: More than nine-in-ten groups that completed a questionnaire about their activities say that informing their constituents and the general public is among their advocacy methods or strategies. (For more information on the questionnaire, see the Methodology.) And about four-in-ten of the groups that filled out the questionnaire (41%) report that educating constituents on issues " rather than directly approaching policymakers " is the activity they engage in most often.

Eight-in-ten of the groups for which staffing data were available employ 12 or fewer people in the Washington area.


Wow!! That is totally the same as giving one candidates campaign $20,000,000. Advocating for a position and having people who raise these issues is completely different than supporting a political candidate who is intent on making sure your organization receives copious amounts of government grant money.

Geogeer. Religious organizations have been directly and indirectly involved in politics since the founding of the country. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears, fine, but its not changing anything.

I have no problem with them being involved in politics to the extent that they espouse their ideology and is a small percentage of their total works.

I don't care for one bit that a fund separate from PP has raised money and is going to give it to a political party. You can get all bent out of shape about it if you like. It seems completely understandable to me.

So you think for profit (yes I know it is officially a non-profit, but with "surpluses" of over a $100,000,000 and a CEO who makes over $500,000 doesn't cut it) organizations that receive monetary grants from the government should be able to use government money to back political candidates?

It id not government money, or surplus.

In their most recent annual report Planned Parenthood reported revenue of $1.3 billion.1

$528 million of this revenue is from "government health services, grants, and reimbursements."2 This means government funding makes up 41 percent of Planned Parenthood"s revenues.3

During the 2013-2014 reporting year, Planned Parenthood reported $127 million in net income and reported holding $1.4 billion in assets.4


https://oversight.house.gov...

I think you are either disingenuous, or being stupid.

Completely true.

Just to add to this. Minneapolis has a budget of $1.4B. The mayor makes about $110,000.

http://www.minnesotamonthly.com...

http://www.somalinet.com...
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 8:48:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Gotta love how religion opponents can't use empiricism to get their point across.

Instead, they depend on indirect evidence that doesn't even validate the point while making an appeal to common sense.

Give me a break. lol
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 8:52:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 6:05:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Replacing costly, and difficult to build, campaign elements, as churches often do, does more to benefit politicians than flat money donations. I wouldn't have a problem if the government didn't support 'faith based initiatives', but they do, so it's just as flagrant an abuse as what PP has done. The right can't really complain about this one without looking a bit hypocritical.

+1
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 10:14:30 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 8:52:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/12/2016 6:05:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Replacing costly, and difficult to build, campaign elements, as churches often do, does more to benefit politicians than flat money donations. I wouldn't have a problem if the government didn't support 'faith based initiatives', but they do, so it's just as flagrant an abuse as what PP has done. The right can't really complain about this one without looking a bit hypocritical.

+1

So presidential candidates should be telling organizations "I will always have your back?"

http://www.cnn.com...

If someone like Trump told investment banks "I will always have your back," after receiving a large donation there wouldn't be a colossal snit storm?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 10:17:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 10:14:30 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 8:52:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/12/2016 6:05:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Replacing costly, and difficult to build, campaign elements, as churches often do, does more to benefit politicians than flat money donations. I wouldn't have a problem if the government didn't support 'faith based initiatives', but they do, so it's just as flagrant an abuse as what PP has done. The right can't really complain about this one without looking a bit hypocritical.

+1

So presidential candidates should be telling organizations "I will always have your back?"

http://www.cnn.com...

If someone like Trump told investment banks "I will always have your back," after receiving a large donation there wouldn't be a colossal snit storm?

As long as he doesn't say "I will have your wetbacks."
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 10:24:50 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 10:17:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/12/2016 10:14:30 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 8:52:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/12/2016 6:05:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Replacing costly, and difficult to build, campaign elements, as churches often do, does more to benefit politicians than flat money donations. I wouldn't have a problem if the government didn't support 'faith based initiatives', but they do, so it's just as flagrant an abuse as what PP has done. The right can't really complain about this one without looking a bit hypocritical.

+1

So presidential candidates should be telling organizations "I will always have your back?"

http://www.cnn.com...

If someone like Trump told investment banks "I will always have your back," after receiving a large donation there wouldn't be a colossal snit storm?

As long as he doesn't say "I will have your wetbacks."

Huh. There's a new term I'd never heard before... Live and learn.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 10:46:40 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 5:22:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:16:08 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:13:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.

Well... One, that is 20m to the election cycle, not Hillary.

Potato - potahto

Two, who do you expect them to support? A republican? Three, very happy to here this.

If you need donated money from the government to fund your business, I expect you not to support anyone. It is called a kickback and a conflict of interest.

-takes a quick look at the rather recent financial history of the US, then quirks a brow-

Citizens United, Citi, BoA, Wells Fargo, the former Smith Barney...

You'll have to provide more info. Sorry, but not being American means I miss some of the stuff. From a quick review, I see lots from employees of those organizations making donations, but not from the actual organizations themselves.

The Citizen's United ruling was a Supreme Court ruling that allowed private companies to donate pretty much whatever they want to whatever candidate they want as part of a corporations "right" to free speech. This meant that companies could essentially sponsor candidates for friendly legislation later in the form of tax breaks, benefits, potential public works programs, etc. Citi bank, Bank of America, Wells Fargo... before the 'melt down' they donated to both sides of the aisle, hoping their well connected winners would grant them legislation. For some, it did, money was given to keep some banks afloat, but not others. In some strange instances, money was given to one bank that was later absorbed/merged into another bank, liquid assets included.

The short explanation is that donating to candidates is the opposite of conflict of interested, and given the tax laws and government initiatives in this country that blend economy and government, the 2 are some times so connected its hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 11:02:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 10:46:40 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:22:23 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:16:08 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:13:09 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:01:07 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 4:52:02 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Planned Parenthood receives $533 million from government in funding... and gives $20 million to Hillary.

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org...

Now the kickback are brazenly in your face and nobody will say anything.

Well... One, that is 20m to the election cycle, not Hillary.

Potato - potahto

Two, who do you expect them to support? A republican? Three, very happy to here this.

If you need donated money from the government to fund your business, I expect you not to support anyone. It is called a kickback and a conflict of interest.

-takes a quick look at the rather recent financial history of the US, then quirks a brow-

Citizens United, Citi, BoA, Wells Fargo, the former Smith Barney...

You'll have to provide more info. Sorry, but not being American means I miss some of the stuff. From a quick review, I see lots from employees of those organizations making donations, but not from the actual organizations themselves.


The Citizen's United ruling was a Supreme Court ruling that allowed private companies to donate pretty much whatever they want to whatever candidate they want as part of a corporations "right" to free speech. This meant that companies could essentially sponsor candidates for friendly legislation later in the form of tax breaks, benefits, potential public works programs, etc. Citi bank, Bank of America, Wells Fargo... before the 'melt down' they donated to both sides of the aisle, hoping their well connected winners would grant them legislation. For some, it did, money was given to keep some banks afloat, but not others. In some strange instances, money was given to one bank that was later absorbed/merged into another bank, liquid assets included.

The short explanation is that donating to candidates is the opposite of conflict of interested, and given the tax laws and government initiatives in this country that blend economy and government, the 2 are some times so connected its hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.

When you are donating to the person who writes your checks it certainly is a conflict of interest. We aren't even talking tax breaks that favour certain activities, we are talking direct grants to complete a service by a non-profit who produces surpluses in the range of $300 over the last 4 or so years.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 11:05:44 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 6:19:13 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 6:05:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:52:30 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:41:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:37:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:23:03 PM, TBR wrote:

Then look right at the church.

Sure, give me a link.

http://www.pewforum.org...

Yup. Religious based lobbying is among the top.

From a quick look I didn't see any donations to a presidential candidate, or even a senator/congressman.

Advocacy Methods: More than nine-in-ten groups that completed a questionnaire about their activities say that informing their constituents and the general public is among their advocacy methods or strategies. (For more information on the questionnaire, see the Methodology.) And about four-in-ten of the groups that filled out the questionnaire (41%) report that educating constituents on issues " rather than directly approaching policymakers " is the activity they engage in most often.

Eight-in-ten of the groups for which staffing data were available employ 12 or fewer people in the Washington area.


Wow!! That is totally the same as giving one candidates campaign $20,000,000. Advocating for a position and having people who raise these issues is completely different than supporting a political candidate who is intent on making sure your organization receives copious amounts of government grant money.

Replacing costly, and difficult to build, campaign elements, as churches often do, does more to benefit politicians than flat money donations. I wouldn't have a problem if the government didn't support 'faith based initiatives', but they do, so it's just as flagrant an abuse as what PP has done. The right can't really complain about this one without looking a bit hypocritical.

The government supports faith based initiatives because due to the nature of Churches it is possible for them to accomplish more with less. It is a means for the government to harness the churches' desire to take care of the disadvantaged in a win-win scenario. This works because Churches are not allowed (to my understanding of US Law) to endorse a party or candidate. Thus the government is getting more for its money, and the churches have a means for their parishioners to carry out their social obligations.

On the other hand, Planned Parenthood is a for profit organization that receives money for an activity which any competent medical personnel could complete for the same cost. They are then endorsing and contributing to the political campaign of one presidential candidate who is going to continue to fund their for profit organization.

I see a significant difference between the two.

I am asking seriously now. Are you being na"ve or deceptive? PP is NOT giving this money, it is another organization associated, but not PP.

Either you are ignoring, or trying to de deceptive.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 11:13:51 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 10:24:50 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 10:17:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/12/2016 10:14:30 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 8:52:14 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 1/12/2016 6:05:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Replacing costly, and difficult to build, campaign elements, as churches often do, does more to benefit politicians than flat money donations. I wouldn't have a problem if the government didn't support 'faith based initiatives', but they do, so it's just as flagrant an abuse as what PP has done. The right can't really complain about this one without looking a bit hypocritical.

+1

So presidential candidates should be telling organizations "I will always have your back?"

http://www.cnn.com...

If someone like Trump told investment banks "I will always have your back," after receiving a large donation there wouldn't be a colossal snit storm?

As long as he doesn't say "I will have your wetbacks."

Huh. There's a new term I'd never heard before... Live and learn.

Thanks. The Republicans can all go to hell.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2016 11:26:23 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/12/2016 11:05:44 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 6:19:13 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 6:05:18 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:52:30 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:41:10 PM, TBR wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:37:33 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/12/2016 5:23:03 PM, TBR wrote:

Then look right at the church.

Sure, give me a link.

http://www.pewforum.org...

Yup. Religious based lobbying is among the top.

From a quick look I didn't see any donations to a presidential candidate, or even a senator/congressman.

Advocacy Methods: More than nine-in-ten groups that completed a questionnaire about their activities say that informing their constituents and the general public is among their advocacy methods or strategies. (For more information on the questionnaire, see the Methodology.) And about four-in-ten of the groups that filled out the questionnaire (41%) report that educating constituents on issues " rather than directly approaching policymakers " is the activity they engage in most often.

Eight-in-ten of the groups for which staffing data were available employ 12 or fewer people in the Washington area.


Wow!! That is totally the same as giving one candidates campaign $20,000,000. Advocating for a position and having people who raise these issues is completely different than supporting a political candidate who is intent on making sure your organization receives copious amounts of government grant money.

Replacing costly, and difficult to build, campaign elements, as churches often do, does more to benefit politicians than flat money donations. I wouldn't have a problem if the government didn't support 'faith based initiatives', but they do, so it's just as flagrant an abuse as what PP has done. The right can't really complain about this one without looking a bit hypocritical.

The government supports faith based initiatives because due to the nature of Churches it is possible for them to accomplish more with less. It is a means for the government to harness the churches' desire to take care of the disadvantaged in a win-win scenario. This works because Churches are not allowed (to my understanding of US Law) to endorse a party or candidate. Thus the government is getting more for its money, and the churches have a means for their parishioners to carry out their social obligations.

On the other hand, Planned Parenthood is a for profit organization that receives money for an activity which any competent medical personnel could complete for the same cost. They are then endorsing and contributing to the political campaign of one presidential candidate who is going to continue to fund their for profit organization.

I see a significant difference between the two.

I am asking seriously now. Are you being na"ve or deceptive? PP is NOT giving this money, it is another organization associated, but not PP.

From the PP press release that I included:

Planned Parenthood advocacy and political organizations have plans to spend at least $20 million in the upcoming election cycle, and will target key states in the Presidential and Senate races such as New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada.

Now I had assumed that the political organizations were PP affiliated organizations (which I admit may be an error). PP is clearly noted in the release.

Either you are ignoring, or trying to de deceptive.

So to the best of my knowledge I'm being pretty darned accurate.