GOP Probe Into Planned Parenthood Funding Comes Up Empty

[Belsnickel]

(10-10-2015, 03:40 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: That hearing was over the 60 mil of discretionary gov funding they receive.   There will be others to come.

Which she confirmed they didn't need that 60m . Since they take in 127m over expenses

I know what they said the hearing was about, but do you care to answer my questions? If it was not based on the videos, then why subpoena them and what basis did they have to go on for having the hearing in the first place?

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2015-08-14-JC-JJ-to-Richards-PP-Planned-Parenthood.pdf

The committee's own letter to PP starts off with the videos and uses them as the basis for the hearing.

So tell me again that this was not about the videos.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-10-2015, 03:40 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Which she confirmed they didn't need that 60m .  Since they take in 127m over expenses

How many times do I have to explain to you that it's no surprise they were over expenses after they closed down a shitload of centers?

[fredtoast]

(10-09-2015, 12:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is that Huffington Post I see in that link address?

Yes, it is negative news about your side.

Thank god you will never be exposed to it.  That way you can live on blissfully ignorant.

[*bfine32*]

(10-11-2015, 12:19 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes, it is negative news about your side.

Thank god you will never be exposed to it.  That way you can live on blissfully ignorant.

I must admit that I find it fitting that you consider Huffington Post news.

You might want to check out Mother Jones to really get the straight scoop. 

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-11-2015, 12:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I must admit that I find it fitting that you consider Huffington Post news.

You might want to check out Mother Jones to really get the straight scoop. 

Right. Only sources that conform to your ideological bias can report the truth.

Unless one of those sources say something you wanna believe. Then you'll cite it and say something like "See? Even the Huffington Post admits Obama is bad!!" That's the beauty of confirmation bias.

[Belsnickel]

FWIW, here is where the quote is being pulled from: http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/2015/10/planned-parenthood-exposed-examining-abortion-procedures-and-medical-ethics-at-the-nation-s-largest-abortion-provider

I have not yet watched the video, I plan to at some point. Though I a fairly certain the general idea is "we found they did nothing wrong but we still don't like them so let's keep up this whole thing to keep our voting base happy and waste their money."

[StLucieBengal]

(10-10-2015, 06:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know what they said the hearing was about, but do you care to answer my questions? If it was not based on the videos, then why subpoena them and what basis did they have to go on for having the hearing in the first place?

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/2015-08-14-JC-JJ-to-Richards-PP-Planned-Parenthood.pdf

The committee's own letter to PP starts off with the videos and uses them as the basis for the hearing.

So tell me again that this was not about the videos.

The videos brought the attention of everyone that's for certain. But it states repeatedly talking about the funding and what's funded by the gov.

I'm not an expert of this stuff but it seems pretty clear it's about how they spend their money . You can't take away Medicaid money without dropping them as a provider. But you can take away the 60m especially if they show profits over expenses. In their care it's over 127m profits. And as Richards has said tmthey have been making money for 99 years.

[fredtoast]

(10-11-2015, 12:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I must admit that I find it fitting that you consider Huffington Post news.

You might want to check out Mother Jones to really get the straight scoop. 

The Huffington Post reports things that really happen.  You can choose to live in an echo chamber, but that does not change reality.

I read posts from all sorts of sources including Breitbart and Fox.  It is pathetic that some people believe that only the things reported in the news sources they agree with are real.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(10-11-2015, 07:19 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: FWIW, here is where the quote is being pulled from: http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/2015/10/planned-parenthood-exposed-examining-abortion-procedures-and-medical-ethics-at-the-nation-s-largest-abortion-provider

I have not yet watched the video, I plan to at some point. Though I a fairly certain the general idea is "we found they did nothing wrong but we still don't like them so let's keep up this whole thing to keep our voting base happy and waste their money."

I have a feeling that's exactly what you're going to find.

[GMDino]

(10-12-2015, 01:32 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I'm not an expert of this stuff ...

'nuff said.

[Belsnickel]

(10-12-2015, 01:32 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The videos brought the attention of everyone that's for certain. But it states repeatedly talking about the funding and what's funded by the gov.

I'm not an expert of this stuff but it seems pretty clear it's about how they spend their money . You can't take away Medicaid money without dropping them as a provider. But you can take away the 60m especially if they show profits over expenses. In their care it's over 127m profits. And as Richards has said tmthey have been making money for 99 years.

You don't need to be an expert to know that the way political witch hunts happen is to try to find something wrong in the bookkeeping or something similar. If it was about funding and not the videos then the videos would not have been subpoenaed. They wouldn't have even been brought u because if the hearing was about the funding it would have zero to do with it.

This is the typical game played by partisan hacks. They love to go after the accounting because there are often minor mistakes made. This time they didn't find any, but you notice how they didn't even expand on that in their release after the hearing? It was all about "here is why we want to take their money away even though nothing in this document points to them doing anything wrong." They are relying on people being too stupid to see through their thinly veiled contempt for PP which is the avatar for the pro-choice side. I would have more respect for them if they would just own up to their disdain instead of trying to feign innocence.

I am so sick of people trying to hide their intentions within something else. Make a reasonable, logical argument if you dislike someone or something. Having to rely on smoke and mirrors is sad.

[Rotobeast]

(10-12-2015, 01:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I read posts from all sorts of sources including Breitbart and Fox.  It is pathetic that some people believe that only the things reported in the news sources they agree with are real.

I've never agreed with you more.
Am I the only one that looks at Al Jazeera, though ?
I dig checking out the world view and they seem as impartial as I could hope for.

[Belsnickel]

(10-12-2015, 04:35 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I've never agreed with you more.
Am I the only one that looks at Al Jazeera, though ?
I dig checking out the world view and they seem as impartial as I could hope for.

AJ is in my usual list. I don't post anything from it here because, well, I think we know how that would go over.

[Rotobeast]

(10-12-2015, 06:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: AJ is in my usual list. I don't post anything from it here because, well, I think we know how that would go over.

If I had to guess, you would have come to mind.
I could see a couple of others.

The stigma about it is unfortunate.
Just because they agreed to air Bin Laden's garbage, doesn't make them evil.
Regardless of it being garbage and propaganda, it was still news.
Color me cynical, but I don't always want my news through the rose colored (blue and red, anymore) glasses.

[GodHatesBengals]

(10-12-2015, 07:03 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: If I had to guess, you would have come to mind.
I could see a couple of others.

The stigma about it is unfortunate.
Just because they agreed to air Bin Laden's garbage, doesn't make them evil.
Regardless of it being garbage and propaganda, it was still news.
Color me cynical, but I don't always want my news through the rose colored (blue and red, anymore) glasses.

I log onto Al Jazeera every couple days. They're a solid source, but they tend to report things the U.S. political and corporate classes don't want you to hear, so American media just tells everybody they're terrorists.

[Belsnickel]

(10-12-2015, 07:03 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: If I had to guess, you would have come to mind.
I could see a couple of others.

The stigma about it is unfortunate.
Just because they agreed to air Bin Laden's garbage, doesn't make them evil.
Regardless of it being garbage and propaganda, it was still news.
Color me cynical, but I don't always want my news through the rose colored (blue and red, anymore) glasses.

I typically rely on AJ or other international sources for world, and even US national news. I lost some of my usual favorites when my laptop went for a swim and I had forgotten the names. I had a Swiss source I loved, but I also bum around sites in Scandinavia and the German speaking countries. Their freedom of the press far exceeds what it is in this country and their focus is less on the sensational and more on the facts.