First Official GOP President Announcement

They received far more than that in federal tax dollars.
A lot more

Edit: Again, just to reiterate. Federal tax dollars have not been spent on funding abortions. Saying that they got more in contributions and grants than they had in expenses does not sow that either. You've still proven nothing lol.

I do love How Rav has jumped ship on the funding other parts of the business now to glomming on to KN's failed attempt to show they're directly funding em now though.

Well, you might want to tackle King's most recent point to prove that it isn't, then. As it stands, you're only arguing against me in principle when there's actual evidence to argue against in front of your face.

Well given that it only takes 10 minutes to go through all 74 pages and about half way through you find the listing of grants and you see line item listings of where grants come from then you scratch your head given the individual claiming the total amount comes from one entity.

You haven't even looked into it at all. You're banking on KN being right when he isn't.

What's to argue? All tax exempt organizations submit them, they're public record, and planned parenthood's says they don't use federal funds to finance abortive procedures.

You guys want to argue that any money they get could allow them to perform procedures they wouldn't be able to without it, and that's fine. But, don't pretend that one small facet of their business model is the entirety of their business or that there aren't just as many organizations you feel fine giving tax money to that don't do objectionable things.

No, I stand by my original point. You're putting words in my mouth... again. But if King's wrong, then prove it.

Who is saying that? The strawman by your computer that represents the people in here you don't like?

The morons you're defending.

I'm defending someone who says that? Is there another Ravael in here saying things in my place? I swear you're not even talking to me.

There was nothing to prove wrong. Saying that contributions and grants exceeds expenses does not show that they are using federal tax dollars for abortions. He hasn't shown anything lol.

Well, thanks for showing that they are still being funded by the government to preform abortions.

Hint: check page 19 (page 21 on the pdf)

Here's one.

/sigh

You guys have a nice night I'm outta here lol...

Great, now show where he says that's the entirety of their business, as you claimed he was doing.

In the meantime, I'm going to form an argument against my Jassik and Flavin dolls and the things they're saying, then pose them in this thread as if it was the real ones who actually said it. Might help me to argue the way you guys do.

Who *** cares about Planned Parenthood and whether their drop-in-the-bucket funding is used to end some impoverished woman's unwanted pregnancy? You *** would be screaming bloody murder about all the welfare her spawn would receive if brought to term, anyhow.

If this is a fiscal argument, as I'm sure you all will claim it is, explain to me how a fraction of a $150M budget is worth wasting our breath on? A few less million in federal funding isn't going to meaningfully impact our non-existent bridge-and-road renovation projects nor lay fiber optic network backbones to 90%+ of the US population. It's not going to create more jobs, lower the price of gasoline, or reduce your already criminally low tax rates.

You don't like killing fetuses (even though you don't give two shits about infants in impoverished conditions), that's your call. We pay for a lot of things we don't like. It's called the social contract. How about we stop extending charitable hospital care to death and disease caused by tobacco and alcohol? That'll save a LOT more money than any proposal involving Planned Parenthood. How about refusing any kind of subsidized medical care to *** who refuse to vaccinate? It won't make any fiscal difference, but it'd make me feel at least as good as the whole "My tax money shouldn't go towards killing a brown baby that I'll spend the remainder of his/her life hating" twaddle must do for those who spout it.

And here comes Onorgul throwing a fit against "the Republican box" and everyone he deems fit to belong in there. You fight the power, buddy.

Haha. I legitimately enjoyed that.

Despite Onorgul putting things back in perspective, I'd like to see proof that abortions wouldn't go on without any of the funding Raveal believes inadvertently supports them.

Oh wait!

Raveal making a claim with proof? That's just silly! He's more the "X is Y; prove me wrong" kind of poster.

Not our argument.

Will abortions cease to exist without federal funding? No.

Is the federal government directly or indirectly funding it? Yes, and evidence have been presented to show that. Even Flavin gave that evidence for us.

Is it legal for the federal government to be indirectly funding abortions? That's to be debated, but it's not legal to do so.

Your argument is that the funding is indirect. In order to say that you have to show that it wouldn't be possible without.

The "federal government funds A, which enables B" only exists if B can't exist without A. Otherwise it's inconsequential and remains unproven.

But feel free to draw any number of haphazard conclusions from public records, tax documents, etc. I know you're fond of that.

Yup. You got me pegged. You know me so well, in fact, that you can't even spell my name correctly.

If, to you, "putting things back in perspective" is "raging against the stereotype", then I have little to say to you. Not to mention the fact that you, like everyone else you agree with, have to completely change the argument and falsely attribute it to one of us to even have an argument to begin with. It's sad.

No I don't. All I have to show is the A) Grants from the Federal Government and B) Expenses from the Non-profit charity.

I have shown both.

You obviously don't know what "indirect" means.

It's all they have.

They can't have logic, because it goes against them. So, they got to make ***up to make themselves look good (see: Onorgul).

I'm sorry I misspelled your name.

I didn't see any rage in his post. I saw numbers and conclusions. That's more than what I've seen from you all day.

Feel free to be sad. If you're foolish enough to lean on anecdotal arguments like "funding A frees up other funds for B" which I don't like, there's good reason to be sad. Brace yourself!

You'd have to follow THE dollar.

You don't seem to get that....

Imagine my shock!

And there is the evidence of why people are arguing against logic.

Because they don't like the answer.

Not because it's true, but because they don't like it.

No you don't. If a certain percentage of funds are being given to the government, then a certain percentage of funds are being used on an expense.

That's business.

Until they completely break away the affiliates and have those affiliates preform the abortions with absolutely no help from the parent company, then all of their funding is tainted. But they cannot do that because they will lose their funding from the government.

This is so HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE. You seem to not understand what "logic" means.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA.

You're a riot as always. Thanks for the laughs.

Congratulations, you proved that you are an idiot.

No, that happened a long time ago. He's just making it more obvious now.

So how do you feel about supporting abortion Ravael?