2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)

[12thMan]

Is Romney still running for President?

[Chico23231]

looking forward to these:

2012 Presidential Debate Schedule « 2012 Election Central

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

Does that not make sense, really? Especially with an individual woman getting more care than actual abortions? I still question everybody's figures, given how charged this whole debate is.

If you noticed I corrected my post by saying these women probably com in first for STD's and birth control before they come back for an abortion.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

There's a lot of illogic to this whole debate to me. Among many quandaries: How do you choose between an late term abortion where it really is a baby just still in the womb (whenever you think that is). Or telling a woman she must give birth to a child she doesn't want to. Both are immoral IMO.

And when does a fetus turn into a baby? I'd say based on pure logic (which may not apply here), have a study determine at what brain activity is considered "sentient" for a fetus/baby. But it seems to me both sides are scared about what that answer might be, so they argue the extremes: "conception" vs. "partial-birth-abortion".

Planned parenthood is full of, for lack of a better word, confusion to me.

1. Talking about government funding in your post above. It's good that we apply the "all or nothing" approach to organizations and educational entities. They must follow federal law on civil rights, mandates on quality of care or education, or they lose all funding. So why does Planned Parenthood get a pass on the "all or nothing" requirement when it comes to funding abortion?

2. It seems like the name Planned Parenthood is just a PR move. It's not really wrong, people frame debates all the time by calling someone pro-abortion or anti-choice. It just strikes me as disingenuous that they name themselves after a situation they aren't needed in: a planned parenthood. Contraception, abortion, STDs apply in any case parenthood or not, isn't what their name implies. Fertility clinics, conception aids, and birth centers are what an organization named "planned parenthood" would be about, IMO.

3. The statistics being tossed about. I really have no idea what's the truth. On Planned Parenthood's website, they say "One in three women has an abortion at some point in her life. Do you know anyone who has had an abortion?" Yeah, but 1-3 seems high to me. Does the "1 in 3 women get abortions" ratio sound high for where you live, or about right, or an underestimate?



edit: And what is going on here? Is abortion mandated "all or nothing" here?

The Department of Health and Human Services announced on Thursday that a Texas law excluding Planned Parenthood from the state's Medicaid Women's Health Program violated federal rules, meaning the program would no longer receive any federal funding.

The Texas law, which went into effect this week, prevents patients using the Women's Health Program from going to any clinic that has an affiliation with an abortion provider, including a shared name, employee, or board member.

Its because you have no way of seperating the funds so federal money does go toward abortions. TX tried to correct this problem.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Its because you have no way of seperating the funds so federal money does go toward abortions. TX tried to correct this problem.

So Planned Parenthood can't separate funds and get federal money either, as long as they fund abortions. Right?

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by firstdown

If you noticed I corrected my post by saying these women probably com in first for STD's and birth control before they come back for an abortion.

Cool.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by firstdown

If you noticed I corrected my post by saying these women probably com in first for STD's and birth control before they come back for an abortion.

wow, ...hell of an assumption,anything to back it up?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Is Romney still running for President?

...I guess ,he's going to hold a fund rasier in Hong Kong.

Romney fundraiser planned Thursday in Hong Kong | Political Headlines | Comcast

[12thMan]

Today, BLS preliminary estimate of the benchmark revision indicates an upward adjustment to March 2012 of 386,000 more jobs than originally expected.

Meaning President Obama is now a net job creator since taking office in Jan. '09. Also puts private sector growth at 5.1 million jobs over the past 30 months.

Long ways to go, but this somewhat explains the gradual down tick in the unemployment number.

[12thMan]

I don't think it can be emphasized enough that over 4 million jobs were lost in Obama's first year in office. A good chunk before the stimulus bill ever reached his desk.


New data shows Obama may be a job creator, after all - Sep. 27, 2012

[dmek25]

12th, quit distorting this thread with fact.... its so useless

[saden1]

I am sure there have been more incompetent candidates and campaigns but the Romney and co have got to be up there. This election is just about over and if we were having an after party a cooked goose by name of Mitt would be for dinner.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Today, BLS preliminary estimate of the benchmark revision indicates an upward adjustment to March 2012 of 386,000 more jobs than originally expected.

Meaning President Obama is now a net job creator since taking office in Jan. '09. Also puts private sector growth at 5.1 million jobs over the past 30 months.

Long ways to go, but this somewhat explains the gradual down tick in the unemployment number.

Impressive....rolls eyes. Still the worst record of any POTUS.

Bush 2 and Reagan were dealt bad economic hands by the previous POTUS yet their job gains outpaced Obamas. W created 5M jobs in the first 30 months of recovery, Reagan created 8M.

So Obama will have the worst job record of any POTUS and also a Household income drop of 4.8% during the "recovery". For folks 25-34 the income drop is 8.9%, for African Americans....11%.

Sure don't want to distort the thread with any facts, sorry about that.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Impressive....rolls eyes. Still the worst record of any POTUS.

Bush 2 and Reagan were dealt bad economic hands by the previous POTUS yet their job gains outpaced Obamas. W created 5M jobs in the first 30 months of recovery, Reagan created 8M.

So Obama will have the worst job record of any POTUS and also a Household income drop of 4.8% during the "recovery". For folks 25-34 the income drop is 8.9%, for African Americans....11%.

Sure don't want to distort the thread with any facts, sorry about that.

I'll bet money that after 8 years in office, Obama will easily surpass wherever Bush ended.

And how can you can you compare this recession with any recession since WWII? It was far deeper and more destructive than either Reagan's or Bush's. #applesandoranges

Did either Reagan or Bush lose 750K jobs their first month in office? Before one bill was passed?

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Its because you have no way of seperating the funds so federal money does go toward abortions. TX tried to correct this problem.

I deal with federal monies fairly regularly at work. I can tell you this, we're very strict about what is appropriated for X may NOT be used for Y. I'm not working on anything near as controversial as that -- but money is put in seperate pools that cannot be touched by other processes. Fairly strict record keeping behind all of those accounts. I don't have any direct knowledge of this particular situation, but there are ways of seperating funds established and enforced in other areas.