Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 152

Thread: Komen Reverses Decision On Funding PP

  1. #141
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Komen Reverses Decision On Funding PP

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    What? Where did I claim I didn't mistake your opinion for fact? I absolutely thought you were trying to state a fact, not an opinion, by the tone of your post. ONCE you stated clearly otherwise that you were making an opinionated statement, not one of fact, I didn't ask you to "prove" anything. See post #133, my response to you after you finally clarified that your statement was one of opinion and not of fact.

    Please, quote the point whre I stated that I didn't mistake your opinion for fact originally?
    So you admit that you did mistake my opinion for fact?

    Then why are you trying to blame me for doing the same?
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  2. #142
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Komen Reverses Decision On Funding PP

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    So you admit that you did mistake my opinion for fact?
    Absolutely. If you're clear in stating that its your opinion it was political, and not a fact that it was, I was mistaken. I have no issue claiming it.

    Then why are you trying to blame me for doing the same?
    Where am I trying to blame you for doing the same? My blame on you is for claiming I applied a different burden of proof on you than I expect on myself (something demonstratably untrue). I am also blaming you for stating that my post stated that I believed it to be apolitical, which is not an opinion but you making a statement of fact about me. One can go back to my original post and clearly see, MULITPLE TIMES, that I indicated it very well COULD be politically motivated.

  3. #143
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Komen Reverses Decision On Funding PP

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Absolutely. If you're clear in stating that its your opinion it was political, and not a fact that it was, I was mistaken. I have no issue claiming it.



    Where am I trying to blame you for doing the same? My blame on you is for claiming I applied a different burden of proof on you than I expect on myself (something demonstratably untrue). I am also blaming you for stating that my post stated that I believed it to be apolitical, which is not an opinion but you making a statement of fact about me. One can go back to my original post and clearly see, MULITPLE TIMES, that I indicated it very well COULD be politically motivated.
    I have already pointed out that my posts are opinion, so your pretending that I haven't done so is dishonest.

    And here is where you asked me to prove my opinion

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Correlation doesn't equal causation.

    Do you have any kind of proof in this what so ever that the action was done because of political motivations and not because of what the Komen rules regarding funding stated? Simply pointing to an individual in power who holds a political position does not prove, nor indicate clearly, that the move was done for political motivations.
    You expect me to "prove" my opinions, but when it comes to your opinions, no proof is required
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #144
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Komen Reverses Decision On Funding PP

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    I have already pointed out that my posts are opinion, so your pretending that I haven't done so is dishonest.
    Sigh.

    I haven't pretended any such thing. I've stated multiple times you've clarified it was your opinion not a fact. You made it clear in post #131. In post
    #133, 136, 140, and 142 I acknowledged the fact you had now made it clear in post #131 that it was a statement of opinion. Where in the world are you getting this factually incorrect notion that I'm pretending your post was not an opinion after the point where you made it clear it was

    And here is where you asked me to prove my opinion
    You expect me to "prove" my opinions, but when it comes to your opinions, no proof is required[/QUOTE]

    Correct, in post #113....a full 18 posts before you finally clarify that it was opinion, not fact....I asked for you to prove your statement.

    When you finally actually admitted your statement was Opinion, not fact, in post #131 my very next post to you stated in regards to it being your opinion:

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Okay, so its just your opinion that she acted political in nature.

    Okay, more power to you.
    Note, that was not me asking for you to provide facts to back it up but acknowledging that you meant it as opinion and accepting that without additional facts required.

    You're simply not making sense.

  5. #145
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Komen Reverses Decision On Funding PP

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Sigh.

    I haven't pretended any such thing. I've stated multiple times you've clarified it was your opinion not a fact. You made it clear in post #131. In post
    #133, 136, 140, and 142 I acknowledged the fact you had now made it clear in post #131 that it was a statement of opinion. Where in the world are you getting this factually incorrect notion that I'm pretending your post was not an opinion after the point where you made it clear it was



    You expect me to "prove" my opinions, but when it comes to your opinions, no proof is required
    Correct, in post #113....a full 18 posts before you finally clarify that it was opinion, not fact....I asked for you to prove your statement.

    When you finally actually admitted your statement was Opinion, not fact, in post #131 my very next post to you stated in regards to it being your opinion:



    Note, that was not me asking for you to provide facts to back it up but acknowledging that you meant it as opinion and accepting that without additional facts required.

    You're simply not making sense.[/QUOTE]

    I'll try to make it simple for you

    I posted my opinon. You mistook it for fact, and asked me for proof.

    Later on, you accused me of mistaking your opinion for fact (when that was you who did that) and accused me of demanding that you prove your opinion (again, that was you who did that). Here's where you accused me

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    You mistook my statement of opinion for fact. You asked for proof.
    You accuse me of mistaking YOUR opinion for fact and asking you for proof when it was YOU who mistook MY opinion for fact and asked ME for proof.


    I responded by pointing out that it was you who did what you were accusing me of:
    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Your prior posts contradict your current claims



    No, that was you




    No, that was you

    Since you've begun with so many dishonest claims that ignore your own words, I see no reason to address the rest of your fictions
    And you responded by denying the truth and accused me of being dishonest:
    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    In other words you'll chop up my post to suggest I said something I didn't, and dishonestly deal with the misrepresented edited version you created to fit your particular view point rather than what I said.

    Well, if you want to go that route nothing I can really do to stop you. Anything I'd try you'd probably just edit down, misrepresent, and then disregard.

    In this post I just quoted, you deny saying what you are now admitting you said. Which is it?

    Did you mistake my opinion or fact, or did you not?
    Last edited by sangha; 02-09-12 at 06:17 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  6. #146
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Komen Reverses Decision On Funding PP

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Oh, so she was acting as Govenor of Komen? Oh, wait...no, that was a quote when she was running for governor of GEORGIA. Sorry, I must've made the same mistake as you.
    What mistake? I said that she said it when she was governor. It's too bad you prefer snide remarks than actual debate.

    I never denied for a moment the woman dislikes Planned Parenthood and isn't extremely pro-life. She absolutely is. That still doesn't prove this was done for political reasons and not due to the policies already in place at Komen.
    I didn't say it was "damning proof". I used it as evidence. It's too bad that you prefer putting words in my mouth to actual debate.

    You're posting up anecdotal evidence and suggesting its damning proof.
    You do realize that, in this case, 'anecdotal evidence' is the only evidence that would show SGK acted for political reasons right?

    And here we finally come to something worth while and possibly useful. Now, I have heard that Planned Parenthoods contract came up and thus they did not renew it due to this rule. Is it true that Planned Parenthoods contract came up? Has Penn State or the Parkland Memorial Hospital contracts come up during the point in which they were under investigation? If so, then I would agree it would appear that action was taken for political reasons.

    In which case.....see my earlier post in this thread where I repeatedly stated my feelings in regards to peoples response to this whether or not it was done for political reasons or not.
    Oh so now you're changing the goalposts. First you asked, "Is there any proof that SGK wasn't just cutting funding to PP because of their rule about not funding organizations under investigation?" Now, it's, "Is there any proof that SGK wasn't just cutting funding because of the rule AND the end of the contract?"

    Whatever, dude. Your games aren't amusing anymore.

  7. #147
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Question, because I honestly don't know....

    What are "emergency contraception kits"? If its the "morning after pill" then that somewhat skews the numbers as that is one of those things that is a bit controversial in regards to whether or not its viewed as a "contraceptive" or if its viewed as "abortion".

    IF that is what those "emergency contraception kits" are...and as I said, I'm not versed on this enough to know for sure which is why I'm asking...then that skews things a bit. For those that view any killing after conception, such as the morning after pill, as "abortoin" and not contraception then it'd move those emergency kits from Contraception to Abortion services. That changes the numbers as such...

    Contraception would becoming 21.7% of their total 2008 costs where as Abortion services would make up 16.1%. Still a smaller fraction than their contraceptive, STD, and cancer screening expenditures, but significantly more than the 3% that is being presented.

    Also, since I saw it mentioned...in 2008 their resources spent in regards to adoption is was .02% of their total funds.

    I disagree with the notion that planned parenthood is primarily about abortion, and I have no issues with contraception being provided...but I do think its worth while to paint an honest picture based on the mentality and views of BOTH SIDES regarding their expenditures if that $1.5 million of emergency contraception kits actually is the morning after pill.

    If this definition of "abortion" to include any contraceptive that kills a fertilized egg were used for all clinics, then Planned Parenthood would not be the only one to be investigated for what they do with their federal funding, whether they were used for "abortion". Contraceptives that kill fertilized eggs also include IUD.
    Quote Originally Posted by Free_Radical View Post

    And I wasn't making an appeal to authority, I was making an appeal to the philosophical body of work of the founders, the worth and content of which should be well-known to anyone with a cursory understanding of basic history and philosophy.

    Brian

  8. #148
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickieboy View Post
    While I’ve heard all the ruckus in this thread about cancer/abortion accusations my understanding about the specifics have little to do with it. True the players have underlying agendas but on face they seem legitimate. Consider:

    Allegiance Defense Fund sent a report to Cliff Stearns that stating “These ten state audits found numerous improper practices resulting in significant Title XIX-Medicaid overpayments of nearly $8 million to Planned Parenthood affiliates for family planning and reproductive health services claims,” the report said. “Furthermore, thirty-eight federal audits of state family planning programs by HHS-OIG found between $88 million and $99 million in overbilling.” I have yet to find these HHS reports but 38 sounds pretty compelling.

    One in Five Planned Parenthood Affiliates Face Financial Controversy, Report Says | CNSnews.com

    Cliff Stearns initiated an investigation and sent a letter to PP stating ‘The Committee has questions about the policies in place and actions undertaken by PPFA and its affiliates relating to its use of federal funding and its compliance with federal restrictions on the funding of abortion’. Further they request information that details ‘how much PPFA and each affiliate expended and received in Title XIX Medicaid funding…”.

    http://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/u...estivation.pdf

    Notwithstanding the additional funding restrictions of abortion this would appear a legitimate investigation considering the allegations specific to the misuse of Medicaid funds.

    SGK stated their ‘cutoff results from the charity's newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities’

    Cancer charity halts Planned Parenthood grants - CBS News

    Again, while I understand the presumed underlying agenda if this investigation was allowed to proceed to fruition AND nothing was found one could presume that SGK would reinstate the grant monies as if they didn't it would look very hypocritical. If on the other hand PP was found guilty of whatever it would legitimize SGK’s denial of the grant. Ultimately what is PP afraid of if they are innocent? Personally I could care less but $88-99 million in overbilling is a pretty large chunk of change...

    Who said Planned Parenthood is afraid? Did you ask the Planned Parenthood board? The investigation cited for the Komen foundation's decision to withdraw funding was one over whether Planned Parenthood had used Federal funding for abortion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Free_Radical View Post

    And I wasn't making an appeal to authority, I was making an appeal to the philosophical body of work of the founders, the worth and content of which should be well-known to anyone with a cursory understanding of basic history and philosophy.

    Brian

  9. #149
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Komen reverses move to cut Planned Parenthood funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    I understood the English; it just didn't say anything.
    If you think you can understand English, then try re-reading the thread again and again until you finally do understand it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Free_Radical View Post

    And I wasn't making an appeal to authority, I was making an appeal to the philosophical body of work of the founders, the worth and content of which should be well-known to anyone with a cursory understanding of basic history and philosophy.

    Brian

  10. #150
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Komen Reverses Decision On Funding PP

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Oh, so she was acting as Govenor of Komen? Oh, wait...no, that was a quote when she was running for governor of GEORGIA. Sorry, I must've made the same mistake as you.

    I never denied for a moment the woman dislikes Planned Parenthood and isn't extremely pro-life. She absolutely is. That still doesn't prove this was done for political reasons and not due to the policies already in place at Komen. You're posting up anecdotal evidence and suggesting its damning proof.



    And here we finally come to something worth while and possibly useful. Now, I have heard that Planned Parenthoods contract came up and thus they did not renew it due to this rule. Is it true that Planned Parenthoods contract came up? Has Penn State or the Parkland Memorial Hospital contracts come up during the point in which they were under investigation? If so, then I would agree it would appear that action was taken for political reasons.

    In which case.....see my earlier post in this thread where I repeatedly stated my feelings in regards to peoples response to this whether or not it was done for political reasons or not.

    There's 2 very simple facts: 1. the rules aren't "established", it's a new rule. 2. the rule is only enforced against Planned Parenthood.

    The Komen foundation's board can decide to act for political reason all they want, they have a right to do so, who's to say that their decision to reverse the previous decision is not political in nature? So are the people who think the first decision was stupid and let them know it. The Komen Foundation made a decision, they suffered the repercussion, they reversed the decision.
    Quote Originally Posted by Free_Radical View Post

    And I wasn't making an appeal to authority, I was making an appeal to the philosophical body of work of the founders, the worth and content of which should be well-known to anyone with a cursory understanding of basic history and philosophy.

    Brian

Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 513141516 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •