• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama vows to veto short-term bill(edited)

Congress Strikes a Budget Deal, Averts Shutdown

House Speaker John Boehner, speaking briefly to reporters after talks had concluded, said the plan was to pass one last short-term spending resolution Friday night to buy lawmakers the time needed to prepare and pass the final budget bill.

I guess Obama will veto this, and the government will shut down???

Read below, as well as review the linked video herein...

I'm not sure it's the long-term bill that goes through the end of this fiscal year that was agreed upon. I think the President will sign a 6 or 7 day CR to fund the government only with the stipulation that the last minute issues can be ironed out (non-EPA/healthcare funding rider and funding for Planned Parenthood taken up in the actual bill) and that the final budget is voted on and passed immediately after the extension period expires.

In short, I'd say everybody got what they wanted out of this standoff.

Reps got to cut significant spending.

Dems got to preserve funding for some of the programs they believe are important for the immediate and long-term future for the country.

The President got to avoid a government shutdown on his watch (for now...until the next budget battle looms).

The nation gets to see their government at work and finding common ground for a change.

Everybody wins!

And like it or not, but the President did show excellent leadership here. I don't think anyone can deny that without his intervention a compromise wouldn't have been reached because both sides were so far at odds with one another. Admit it, the President stepped up and allowed both sides to find common ground.
 
Last edited:
1. what the american people see---while one side is working its bright orange butt off trying to cut spending, the other is resorting to hate speech (trying to kill women, like bombing innocent civilians, the equivalent of the civil war) to protect one of its sacred porky pigs

2. what the american people see---in times like these, any govt employee deemed non essential shouldn't be shutdown for a day or a week but must instead be eliminated permanently

3. how can any party in power contemplate for an instant the consideration of our soldiers as non essential, especially at a time when we have been committed to the waging of three wars overseas

4. that said, congratulations to president obama on this past-midnite resolution of the budget it was his responsibility to do a year ago, his victory lap address at 11:30 last nite was resonant, congrats on this "biggest annual spending cut in history," and your testimonial to yourself about overseeing the new years eve extension of the bush tax cuts for all americans including the rich was your coup de grace

5. so forward we go---what will be your position, mr president, when the upcoming fights over the debt ceiling and the 2012 budget approach their midnites

6. you know where the bright orange dude and his nerdy budget chair will be, they're constant

7. it's the sign of the times, keynes is kaput, draconian cuts are chichi, from albany to sacto there's no stopping em

8. the president's 2012 budget proposal published in february is, therefore, precisely the wrong recipe for the age

9. the guarantee of an up-or-down floor vote in the senate on hr2, repeal of obamacare, conceded by mr reid as part of the outline agreed upon for october, just might cost a senator like claire mccaskill her job, what's a man like joe manchin, for example gonna do who campaigned in west virginia on repeal, a stiffneck like nebraska's ben nelson is practically gonna have to vote to kill it or change parties or resign

10. and the stand-alone vote on planned parenthood, a very seamy organization, also promised by reid, aint gonna be pretty---what will americans see when senator schumer swears never, never, never will he cut the quarter billion per while mom and pop are boiling up another bag of top ramen for tommy and tess for the twentieth nite in a row

it was a good nite

americans are finally seeing at least a little leadership out of washington
 
Killing unwanted babies for fun and profit then???

Abortion services are 3% of their total services - they don't make much money off of that so your comment about profit is irrelevant since I assume they make more money with their cancer screenings and prevention services that make up 16% of their total services.

I also don't see abortion as "killing" and I have never known anyone to perceive it as "fun" so your comment is irrelevant on that level too.

Nonetheless, this topic is about the budget and not abortion, so I suggest you stick to it and stop harping on something just so you can talk about your feelings.
 
So with all this discussion over PP...

Republicans risked a shut down of the Federal government to satisfy their social conservative agenda.

It was quite funny throughout the day when they would interview republicans and ask "is this about abortion" talking point time "this is about cuttin spending"

And then when someone would challenge them on the PP spending, they would begin their talking points on PP abortions...

So what was it about then?

I think both sides are arguing over funding what they both think is important, no? You could just as easily say that the Democrats risk a government shutdown over their own liberal agenda.
 
These conservatives need to leave their frigging dogma out of my damn politics. You wanna do morals? Do it in a church where it belongs and don't try to do it on my dime.


Oh and someone may have already said it but if they are so damn concerned about the killed babies? Then they need to adopt a bunch of babies and children that have been given up by their mothers. Since they want these "babies" to be born? Let em pay for it out their own damn pockets-not mine.

Plus do they not understand that birthcontrol and abortion saves us all money? I mean hello:roll:

It doesn't seem to bother you to inject your morals into our damn politics.
 
Abortion services are 3% of their total services - they don't make much money off of that so your comment about profit is irrelevant since I assume they make more money with their cancer screenings and prevention services that make up 16% of their total services.

I also don't see abortion as "killing" and I have never known anyone to perceive it as "fun" so your comment is irrelevant on that level too.

Nonetheless, this topic is about the budget and not abortion, so I suggest you stick to it and stop harping on something just so you can talk about your feelings.

They provide abortion services. They deserve no public funding.
 
They provide abortion services. They deserve no public funding.

The don't get funded for abortion. Also, I don't have a problem with abortion, so they can get whatever they want - not everybody in the country is a selective Christian.
 
The don't get funded for abortion. Also, I don't have a problem with abortion, so they can get whatever they want - not everybody in the country is a selective Christian.

It doesn't matter. The organization provides abortions and should not be funded in anyway by tax dollars. If there was an organization that provided welfare medical services to white kids but denied black kids (or vice versa)...should they be funded with tax dollars because they are helping some people?
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter. The organization provides abortions and should not be funded in anyway by tax dollars. If there was an organization that provided welfare medical services to white kids but denied black kids (or vice versa)...should they be funded with tax dollars because they are helping some people?
That analogy has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Who is planned parenthood discriminating against?
 
That analogy has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Who is planned parenthood discriminating against?

Discrimination is not the analogy. The analogy is should an organization be funded that does something good (which I agree they do) if they also do something bad (which you don't agree they do.) So, those of us that have a moral objection to abortion (like the great majority of the GOP) wish to defund them because they do some bad things.

The honest fix here, since abortion is such a small percentage of their services (as you so often claim) is for PP to dump abortion and thereby assure funding for the great majority of their services. Why aren't they even considering that as an option?

There is a rank hypocrisy here that you are either unable or unwilling to see. Is planned parenthood able to dictate it's services and demand its funding? Are religious adoption agencies allowed to do the same? I.E. should Catholic services that receive government funding be able to refuse services to homosexuals and continue to receive funding?
 
Last edited:
Discrimination is not the analogy. The analogy is should an organization be funded that does something good (which I agree they do) if they also do something bad (which you don't agree they do.) So, those of us that have a moral objection to abortion (like the great majority of the GOP) wish to defund them because they do some bad things.
Your moral objection to abortion is the same as someone else's moral objection to contraception. It has no place in denying medical services to people who need or want them.

The honest fix here, since abortion is such a small percentage of their services (as you so often claim) is for PP to dump abortion and thereby assure funding for the great majority of their services.
1. The honest fix here is for PP to not receive funding for abortion - which they don't.
2. I don't "claim" it's a small percentage - it is a small percentage. I can see you have an aversion to facts.
3. They won't dump abortion because its status as "killing babies" is not a scientific one. There's no medical reason for them to stop providing the service.

Why aren't they even considering that as an option?
They won't consider the option because your subjective morality is irrelevant to them.

There is a rank hypocrisy here that you are either unable or unwilling to see. Is planned parenthood able to dictate it's services and demand its funding? Are religious adoption agencies allowed to do the same? I.E. should Catholic services that receive government funding be able to refuse services to homosexuals and continue to receive funding?

Nah - it's not hypocrisy. Planned Parenthood provides services to all women and does not discriminate. The problem you have with them is that they do something that you don't like and you believe that others should uphold your non-scientific moral beliefs.

Religious organizations that discriminate should not be given public funding.

Discrimination =/= Doing something you morally disagree with that has no scientific basis.
 
Speaking of moral objection to contraceptions? Will the extreme right be trying to cut birthcontrol from Health Departments next:confused::(
 
Speaking of moral objection to contraceptions? Will the extreme right be trying to cut birthcontrol from Health Departments next:confused::(

With any luck they will completely eliminate the federal Health Departments and return control (and budgeting) to the states where they belong. Ive got MY fingers crossed...
 
Your moral objection to abortion is the same as someone else's moral objection to contraception. It has no place in denying medical services to people who need or want them.

I agree, you can leave abortion out and accomplish that.

1. The honest fix here is for PP to not receive funding for abortion - which they don't.
2. I don't "claim" it's a small percentage - it is a small percentage. I can see you have an aversion to facts.
3. They won't dump abortion because its status as "killing babies" is not a scientific one. There's no medical reason for them to stop providing the service.

PP is the single largest provider of abortions in the United States of America. Word smith that any way you damn well please.

They won't consider the option because your subjective morality is irrelevant to them.

As is your's to me. Where's that leave us? Fighting over what get's funded. You're a bright one.

Nah - it's not hypocrisy. Planned Parenthood provides services to all women and does not discriminate. The problem you have with them is that they do something that you don't like and you believe that others should uphold your non-scientific moral beliefs.

Religious organizations that discriminate should not be given public funding.

It very much is hypocrisy. Your morals are no more valid than anyone else's, and yet you are so arrogant that you think they are.

Discrimination =/= Doing something you morally disagree with that has no scientific basis.

You're to dim to get beyond the discrimination which was not the point. You're morals say abortion is ok, while mine say it's not. Your morals are not more valid than mine. Smell the coffee, Einstein.
 
Speaking of moral objection to contraceptions? Will the extreme right be trying to cut birthcontrol from Health Departments next:confused::(

That has nothing to do with anything. The PP opposition is abortion, not contraception. Try again.
 
The don't get funded for abortion. Also, I don't have a problem with abortion, so they can get whatever they want - not everybody in the country is a selective Christian.

They commit medicaid fraud so to say they do not use tax money for abortions is not believable.
 
Obama thought better of it and signed the short term agreement. They have another week
 
So with all this discussion over PP...

Republicans risked a shut down of the Federal government to satisfy their social conservative agenda.

It was quite funny throughout the day when they would interview republicans and ask "is this about abortion" talking point time "this is about cuttin spending"

And then when someone would challenge them on the PP spending, they would begin their talking points on PP abortions...

So what was it about then?

You could also say the Dems risked a government shut down to protect their precious Planned Parenthood. It was quite funny all the pro-choicers talking about "womens health services " all day, when they really meant "abortions"

The Republicans had to at least try to defund that sleazy organization. PP doesn't deserve a dime, much less 350 million.
 
These conservatives need to leave their frigging dogma out of my damn politics. You wanna do morals? Do it in a church where it belongs and don't try to do it on my dime.


Oh and someone may have already said it but if they are so damn concerned about the killed babies? Then they need to adopt a bunch of babies and children that have been given up by their mothers. Since they want these "babies" to be born? Let em pay for it out their own damn pockets-not mine.

You'd be surprised at how many people would take them up on that offer. I've never heard of anyone getting an abortion because she couldn't find anyone who would absolutely love to adopt the baby.
 
They count services performed as it should be. If they perform 100 abortions it doesn't matter if it was on 2 women of 100 women. They performed 100 abortion services.

Why are you counting labwork and BC as an abortion procedure in your 11% number?
One client can rack up a lot of services in one year. PP averages over 10 million services in a year. If she only goes in for birth controll pills once a month, thats still 12 services. Plus they get to add all the services (except the abortion procedure) from the pregnant lady to their "services." So you see, it is quite easy to rack up tons of services that make their abortion business look like nothing at all.
It's when you count the clients, that you get the real picture.

These are both true statements.

"3% of Planned Parenthood services are abortions"

"For every 100 clients 11 get abortions." That's 11%


Planned parenthood prefers to use the first statement.
 
PP is the single largest provider of abortions in the United States of America. Word smith that any way you damn well please.
Never said they weren't. I said abortions are 3% of their services - meaning abortion isn't their agenda or main service to the population.

As is your's to me. Where's that leave us? Fighting over what get's funded. It very much is hypocrisy. Your morals are no more valid than anyone else's, and yet you are so arrogant that you think they are.
The absence of a moral position (me) is not the same as the imposition of a moral position (you). I can't force my moral take on abortion if I don't have one. Show me a scientific reason to take a moral stance and I'll take one (positive or negative). As for now, morality seems as out of place in this discussion as someone else's moral objection to taking medicine.

I'm leaving morality to the individual - make medicine available so those who don't consider taking it a moral issue can take it; make abortion available so those who don't consider it a moral issue can have one. YOU impose your morality by regulating other people's behaviors. I do not impose my morality because I am letting people chose their own behavior. This is the difference. Arrogance comes in when you try to tell other people what to do. Pro-choicers aren't telling anyone what to do - we let people make their own moral decisions and you take offense to that because you think that other people should not be allowed to make choices that don't agree with your morality.

As for others - some pro-choicers do believe that abortion is morally wrong, but they keep their morality out of it. That's the whole point of pro-choice - to let women make their own moral and practical decisions about it.

the discrimination was not the point. You're morals say abortion is ok, while mine say it's not. Your morals are not more valid than mine.
Then provide examples without discrimination. The reason the examples you highlighted are problems is because they are examples of discrimination - there is NO other reason religious organizations should not receive funding - because their ideas of morality lead to discrimination. PP doesn't discriminate to your examples are irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
I guess this thread is moot now.
 
You'd be surprised at how many people would take them up on that offer. I've never heard of anyone getting an abortion because she couldn't find anyone who would absolutely love to adopt the baby.

indeed. there are many couples desperate to adopt babies. what there aren't is many doctors trained to do anything except recommend abortion. :(
 
Back
Top Bottom