First Official GOP President Announcement

Some % of your income tax is responsible for some % of the total expenditures of the Federal Government!

You've supported it all because:


You've supported literally EVERYTHING that any entity has ever spent money on by this logic.

It's so foolish.

Just to recap:

The state gave you a tax return this year!

They've contributed to your expenditures and so they must be responsible for any illegal services you solicited because it is also a % of your expenditures for the year!

You spent some % of their money! They supported you in this endeavor!

Because every contribution is connected with every expense on some miniscule level!

Astounding work gentlemen!

And to top it off:

Because the tax refund is a % of your income, and some % of your income paid for a hypothetical abortion, the Feds fiscally supported an abortion!

The mental gymnastics are astounding!

I have no control over it. You probably support a lot of stuff you don't like. Thanks for the stupid question, though.


So now you don't understand the difference between a personal tax return and government-funded business. Just when I think you couldn't show any more ignorance, you never fail to astound.

It's partially government funded.

ftfy since you don't seem to understand the distinction!

You are an expert on ignorance! I'll give you that!

You remind me of one of those elementary school kids who likes to insult people but hasn't figured out how to do it yet. I can tell you think you're launching zingers left and right, but on my end it's like watching a comedian failing at his set.

This deserves another [+]

A) A refund is money back from what you already paid. Unless the amount given back is greater than the amount you paid, then you are getting a handout.

B) Refunds don't pay for anything. I guess you mean the taxes paid, not the taxes refunded back....

I'm rubber you're glue !

I wasn't launching any zingers. I haven't been trying to insult you.

There can be no real conversation here. This is why, I think:

You want to view ANY funding Planned Parenthood receives as supporting abortion because you believe it "frees up funds for abortions." Conceptually, that may seem true. In practicality, it's broad, overly simplistic, and ignorant to any and all itemized costs planned parenthood has.

It's farmer's logic. "More grain for more cows means more milk for more people."

For example: if Planned Parenthood secures 100% funding for abortion via alternative contributions prior to any comingling of grant money, your hypothesis (if you can call it that), falls flat on it's face.

I don't believe that's how it's done but I don't claim to know either way!

The real luls come from the fact that you seem to believe that others need to find extremely narrow analogies in order to prove your rudimentary, overly simplified conclusion to be false.

In short, the standard to which you hold arguments counter to your own position is much higher than the standards by which you arrived at your own conclusion.

I leave for a while and you guys with elementary school insults !

Strange, they had the ability to prove it, but haven't....

I mean, Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization subject to 990 rules, and yet, they don't disclose such public information required.......

So, prove it to us that they are abiding by the law. That's the only way you can prove us wrong. Why haven't you done that yet?

It's one big pot, according to this:



Why should someone's checking account be any different? Money in must, in some way, be responsible for expenditures out. That is your argument in citing "federal funding directly supports abortions at planned parenthood."

It's so silly that I love it. I would expect nothing less from you KN!

Why would I need to prove anything when the basis for your accusation is so ridiculous!

Hey guys, I slept with your mother! Prove me wrong!

You are not making any sense, you realize that, right?

Because you have no argument at all in that case.

"With ten thousand dollars we’d be millionaires! We could buy all sorts of important things like love!”

“On the other hand, who’s to say what’s right these days, what with all our modern ideas and products?"

Extremely narrow analogies? The best analogies you guys can think of involve tax refunds and prison rape. You guys are the equivalent of a golfer who hits every ball into the water and then complains that the hole is too small. You can't complain that my standards are too strict when you haven't even come close to offering an analogy that matches what we're actually talking about.

Wait a minute this thread has standards ?

In political news Marco Rubio did announce today.

Who is "you guys?"

Who's the "we" in "we're actually talking about?"

Oh wait! Are you lumping together everyone that disagrees with your half-baked theory of "funding for X allows allocation of other funds to Y?" Nice! Confirmation bias: Check!

I look forward to your next chapter!

"God exists! Prove me wrong!" -Ravael-

"You guys", in regard to analogies, is you and Jassik. "We" has been everyone who has been discussing the topic. "You" aren't half as clever as you think you are. "Everyone" can see this but "you".

The reason they haven't proven you wrong is that no one, in their right mind, with any legislative or political power, has proven that they've done anything wrong.

You know, that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing? Yeah... it's a thing.

I'm ashamed to know that I've replied to someone that truly believes in "proving innocence." /slowclap

Still waiting for someone to explain to me why the trivial amount of money (as compared to, say, what we spend on military funding that still has managed to put us so deep in the hole that it defies belief) that may pay for a few abortions is something worth arguing over.

The only argument I can see is that you object to abortion on moral grounds. And that's ok, but morals have limited strength in argument because they're fundamentally personal. I personally would prefer to see gun rights heavily restricted because I morally object to the ease with which citizens can kill one another (same moral, too: I don't like dead people). My personal beliefs aren't going to make the Second Amendment evaporate and, more importantly, as someone who actually believes in the values of the Constitution, I'm grudgingly ok with something I find objectionable being retained.

But the problem here is that no one has the spine to make this a moral argument, probably because everyone over the age of 7 knows that moral arguments have almost no traction. So frame the moral argument as a financial argument.

Except the financial argument makes no sense. We all pay taxes that support all kinds of things we don't agree with. I find it offensive that a certain amount of governmental money filters down into the hands of faith-based charities even though I recognize that most of them are doing important and necessary work (that the HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE public refuses to leave in the hands of a government agency or even a secular NGO). Hell, I'm personally not fond of abortion, but the net cost of paying for a few abortions is so far below that of paying for the care and feeding of an unwanted child by such a monumental amount that it would be insane to use money as a justification.

And, as I alluded to in more strident tones previously, there's absolutely no logic in how people want to cut the nominal funding that supports some abortions and simultaneously want to slash the funding that is necessary to support an infant. Is it morally better to let a 2-year-old starve or to evacuate a fetus?

If certain people around here want to claim that they support increasing welfare like SNAP, WIC, section 8, and other assistance programs, you'll have to prove it.

I'd have to say that was an epic reply Rav.

Personally, I don't like to engage someone in conversation that seems like they're throwing a temper tantrum. This post was much better. Try being a condescending, ignorant jerk, you'll draw more attention. It's gotten Lye a lot of responses.


I may or may not be drifting from the "base" here a bit, but I really don't have a problem with welfare in principle. I have a huge problem with how it's executed. This whole narrative that we're all out to force people to have babies and not help them care for them doesn't make any sense to me, though. Perhaps if I hadn't seen quite so many welfare kings/queens chain-smoking and binge-drinking while their kids suffered I'd have a more favorable view of the system. Regardless, any welfare system designed to help children specifically almost always gains my support, so long as it's implemented in such a way that it's not a huge waste.

Thank you, Mr. Epic.

Sorry sir. If you draw tremendous solace from finding yourself amongst Kingnobody and Nausi with regard to anything political, kudos!

But your hypothesis remains unproven and untestable. Until next time I guess! Can't wait!

Unlike this beauty.

"According to the World Health Organization, 120 Americans died from "lack of food" in 2004"

That is including people above the age of 2.

Is it morally better to throw a tantrum and use tactics of false information to back up your hysteria?

Ohh wait...
and
morals, are sooo not the same.. Too even suggest it, is quite humorous.

I would be more supportive of planned parenthood if all they did was provide sexual education / birth control / abortions but otherwise left themselves out of politics and activism. Unfortunately they are just a left wing activist group using contraception as a cover to spread more ideology.