2 Mind Blowing Hypocrisies Straight from the Headlines

Ok Ok Ok.... drop the conservative v. liberal rhetoric. The bigger a system becomes the more convoluted and corrupt it becomes. We are approaching a world government,and we have nowhere to go but down.

Drop the Pro-Life v. Pro-Choice rhetoric. Everyone is entitled to their personal opinions on the matter. The point of the thread is the fact that veterans are still banned from seeking help outside the VA for FERTILITY because a bill to end the ban has been pulled, the bill was pulled because a Pro-"Life" Republican tried to tack on an amendment which would prevent doing business with PP, even though PP has decades of experience in reproductive HEALTH (not all abortions, all day, every day). So...to re-cap: veterans are unable to go outside the VA for fertility help because of a Pro-"Life" Senator.

And we're too broke for SS, yet I could write an entire BOOK on all the frivolous stuff we spend on?

a reply to: greencmp

Are you saying they are not?

Exactly. Simply because one supports people using the organization's services does not mean they are the "apple in their eye". That's a ridiculous statement.

"Freedom to receive services" is an interesting if convoluted way of describing it.

It sure is if you don't have a firm understanding of freedom. People have the right to receive services wherever they choose, correct? Veterans deserve the same as well, do they not?

My argument against PP doesn't even need to refer to the recent exposé.

What does all that even have to do with the modern PP organization? They provide many types of services that are completely voluntary. No one person is forced to undergo sterilization or abortions.

I fail to see how your point is relevant in the slightest.

a reply to: introvert

What is your point?

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: introvert

What is your point?

My point is that your comment "apple is a progressives eye" was ridiculous and uninformed.

a reply to: greencmp

Consider the source:

The Blatant Conservative Bias of Reverend Syung Yung Moon's Washington Times - sourcewatch.org

If you've never read anything that Sanger actually wrote and said, I provided some great links above!

a reply to: Gryphon66

Wow, you guys really are eugenicists after all.

I withdraw my attempt to educate you folks since you already know full well what the origins and agenda of PP are and have always been.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

Beg pardon. It seems impossible to discuss those two specific subjects without addressing the background information ... which includes Planned Parenthood's mission, etc. Out of respect for the possibility though, I'll absent your thread.

Good luck with it!

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Gryphon66

Wow, you guys really are eugenicists after all.

I withdraw my attempt to educate you folks since you already know full well what the origins and agenda of PP are and have always been.

...just after I address this:

Right, make accusations without consulting the actual facts. Name-calling is far more effective than having to deal with the actual truth, eh?

Just to review, your opinions based on propaganda are not facts. I base my understanding of Sanger on her actual works, which you can read as linked if you choose to.

Thanks all. Enjoy the convo!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: WeRpeons

Actually, what's in danger of running dry is the disability side of SS. After 2008 we had unemployment. When those benefits ran dry, there was a coincidental massive increase in people suddenly coming down as disabled and drawing disability.

This is mainly a symptom of the true state of economy. There aren't actually jobs and a lot of people who would otherwise be working are at home drawing disability.

I don't have an answer on what should be done for the disabled that have not paid into the system. As a humane society we really should have a way to make sure they are adequately cared for, but taking money from a system that is funded by other peoples dollars that they are slated to have returned them, is not where the money should come from.

I guess their solution will be just to knock us old farts off. There are a lot of ways they can pull this off since must of us have some kind of ailment. If I wanted to push it, I could qualify for disability. I guess I am just dillusional. I think as long as I can make it to the kitchen and bathroom, I can hang on a bit longer.

I am not making light of people with disabilities, and though one day I may be amid their numbers, I plan to hold off as long as I can. I honestly believe most people think the same way. The problem with SS is mismanagement by shortsighted people. Of course SS had a lot of money. A lot of people were working and paying into the system. What did they think was going to happen when the time came due to pay all those people back. That time is now. So why are they so surprised?

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

I am still unclear on why an organization founded by a eugenicist could be the apple of a progressive's eye.

Please, make an effort to think about the issues and not blindly support questionable organizations.

How many times have you needed to seek treatment for a vaginal yeast infection? You could have the option of walking into a PP and paying about $60 for diagnosis and treatment that same day. Or you could go to a regular doctor and pay $140 and be lucky to get an appointment that same week. Then still have to pay about $30 for the prescription at a pharmacy. Or there's possibly a way to go to a government clinic, but I'm sure you would be on the phone 2 hours a day and have to wait 6 weeks to enroll in their system.

I don't care if Hitler himself founded PP, if a veteran is unable to receive the care they need from the VA, then they should be able to get it elsewhere and it should be on the VA's dime. And until this is resolved, Sen. Tillis should pay for any fertility treatments wanted by veterans, since he's insisting on sending them to more expensive organizations he should get to pay for it.

I don't 'blindly' support them, I've been a very satisfied customer many times. And not one abortion, go figure.

a reply to: Gryphon66


Actually yes I've read a lot of Planned Parenthoods founder Margaret sangers work

That's how I know she was a racist and eugenics enthusiast


How you can even try and make excuses for that or say she wasn't is beyond me

What kind of person makes excuses or tries to say someone who makes quotes like "we don't want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the negro population". Or

The fact that she spoke at women's KKK rally's

That "they are human weeds , reckless breeders, spawning , human beings who should have never been born"


Yeah ok she was a wonderful woman!

Take your bs somewhere else I'm too smart to buy Into it, I've actually researched what I talk about

Appaeny you haven't.

Or

Again it's ok to be a racist as long as it fits progressive agenda

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie

I don't care if Hitler himself funded PP

I believe you.

a reply to: OptimisticCynic

I think we can agree that Sanger did hold some extreme beliefs. Did you know she was also anti-abortion?

Anyway, your opinion would be valid if you could show how her beliefs affect how PP is operated today. But you cannot because PP has evolved quite a bit since the 30's and 40's.

a reply to: greencmp

Hey, if it cures an itchy vag, same day for less than HALF the cost of a regular doctor...I WOULDN'T care.

And here's a yeast emoticon for you:

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: OptimisticCynic

I think we can agree that Sanger did hold some extreme beliefs. Did you know she was also anti-abortion?

Anyway, your opinion would be valid if you could show how her beliefs affect how PP is operated today. But you cannot because PP has evolved quite a bit since the 30's and 40's.

It's valid because it was her core beliefs that started it
Whether you like it or not

An organization founded on racism and eugenics doesn't suddenly not become that

Nice mental gymnastics and excuses though

a reply to: OptimisticCynic

The organization did evolve to become something other than what she agreed with. She was anti-abortion. So right off the start your premise is invalid.

Also, PP was started as clinics providing birth control. Regardless of what her personal beliefs were, her and the others involved simply provided services for women.

Did you also know that even though Sanger teamed-up with eugenicists during the period, she disagreed with much of what they believed.

In the 1920s various theories of eugenics were popular among intellectuals in the United States. For example, 75% of colleges offered courses on eugenics.[93] Sanger, in her campaign to promote birth control, teamed with eugenics organizations such as the American Eugenics Society, although she argued against many of their positions.[94][95][96] Scholars describe Sanger as believing that birth control, sterilization and abortion should be voluntary and not based on race.[97] She advocated for "voluntary motherhood"—the right to choose when to be pregnant—for all women, as an important element of women's rights.[98][99] Opponents of Planned Parenthood often refer to Sanger's connection with supporters of eugenics to discredit the organization by associating it, and birth control, with the more negative modern view of eugenics.[100][101] Planned Parenthood has responded to this effort directly in a leaflet acknowledging that Sanger agreed with some of her contemporaries who advocated the voluntary hospitalization or sterilization of people with untreatable, disabling, hereditary conditions, and limits on the immigration of the diseased. The leaflet also states that Planned Parenthood "finds these views objectionable and outmoded" but says that it was compelled to discuss the topic because "anti-family planning activists continue to attack Sanger . . . because she is an easier target" than Planned Parenthood.[102]

Source

Educate yourself before you say too much. So far you have revealed that you know very little.

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
Social Security will Run Dry
The government is claiming that SS will run out in late 2016. Aww man, we must be completely out of money.

Some years ago there was a similar scare frighting many retirees and veterans on disability. Wonder if this has to do with some kind of pre election hype.

Ok I don't know much about it, but why should they still be allowed to take social security out of my checks if I will never benefit from it?

a reply to: amicktd

because Isreal still needs millions in funding from us?

the money was borrowed by the gov't from the social security fund, under the agreement that it would be paid back when it was needed. we've only been running in a deficit now for a few years and probably wouldn't be if they were more adapt at running the economy in a way that was beneficial to more than just their buddies at the top of the food chain (who, by the way don't have to pay social security tax on much of their earnings!) so basically what they are saying is that ya sure, we want you to keep paying into this fund (how else are we gonna be able to tap into so much of your money), and yes, we want you to be good standing citizens and pay your bills and taxes, but, no we don't intend on paying our bills....
oh well, too bad!!!

a reply to: dawnstar

Lol! I wonder what the US Government's credit score would be?



I bet they wouldn't be approved for a friggin' used car if the numbers were run through Experian.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

I don't know but well, technically if they refuse to pay the money back to the ss fund when it's needed, I'd consider that defaulting, so well, if they are gonna default anyways, why not go all the way?
which well our other lenders are watching and I imagine they are wondering the same thing which might explain why they are working so hard to find an alternative to the dollar as the reserve currency. it isn't trustworthy.