Susan G. Komen Blinks- Page 6

[thetinymagic2]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 2:55am

Incredibly insightful thread. I include this WIKI pg. for those who care to read the entire Reppb Right Wing Corporate structure of this org. from the very beginning 30 yrs. ago. What started out as a beautiful idea morphed...into the controversy that it is as of today. But I ask, like the old saying goes "Are you gonna cut off your nose to spite your face?" The bottom line, as I see it right now, is that, thank g-d for internet/congressional pressure to cause this story to unfold and be transparent. And, even though I agree with iflitifloat in spirit, It may be a bad idea to abandon this org. totally. Now that we know how hideous a move this was, because of right wing wack job political pressure, we HAVE SUCCEEDED, in AT LEAST getting the funding back. Yes, I hate all the political implications, but can we AFFORD to be so idealistic as to think that ANY org. is going to be as "clean" as we desire it to be? Just food for thought. Here's the link to WIKI and all the detailed political background of it's founders, fund raisers, etc. Some of it has already been discussed here.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Komen

Updated On: 2/4/12 at 02:55 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 9:15am

For a little (probably needed) comic relief, Stephen Colbert responds to Mikey's lies:


Watch Stephen Colbert’s Defense of Planned Parenthood

[mikey2573]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 10:36am

"Federal funds cannot be used to fund any abortions performed by PP. "

If federal funds cannot be used to fund abortions, then PP should NOT be receiving ANY federal funds. Despite the other "health" related services PP provides, it is responsible for over 300,000 abortions a year. Federal funds should not be going to such an organization. As someone who is strongly opposed to abortions, my tax dollars should not be going to fund PP.

[madbrian]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 10:42am

Colbert and Stewart have been particularly brilliant lately.

[madbrian]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 10:44am

Anyone's personal opposition to legal medical procedures are irrelevant.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 10:46am

"Stephen Colbert responds to Mikey's lies:"

Please specify which of my "lies" comedian Colbert was responding to.
Thanks.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 10:52am

"Anyone's personal opposition to legal medical procedures are irrelevant."

Federal funds cannot be used to fund abortions. I would wager this is primarily DUE to people's personal opposition to abortion.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 11:08am

Does that mean any hospital that also provides abortion services should not receive federal funds? How about institutions that covered up years of child rape?

What about Federal funds going to faith-based groups (which I believe to be unconstitutional), some of which have been involved in child rape scandals - even though it was only a "few bad apples" I guess by your standards, all funds should be withheld.

Plenty of my tax dollars go to support program and services I find unconstitutional or unsavory. But, government serves all of us, and that means that sometimes, I don't like some of the programs I subsidize, but that is the cost of living in a society made up of millions of individuals. We all don't always get what we want.

You seriously sound like Veruca Salt stamping her feet and demanding an Oompa Loompa.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 11:39am

As someone who is strongly opposed to abortions, my tax dollars should not be going to fund PP.

In America, you don't get to choose where your tax dollars go. You get to elect legislators who pass laws and levy taxes.

I am strongly opposed to so-called farm subsidies that are given to large corporations and bailouts for large banks. My tax dollars should not be going to fund them. BUT THEY DO.

I respect your personal views on abortion but I have absolutely no respect for your desire to impose your views on me.

Imposing those views on others is un-American.

If you don't believe in abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE.

If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, DON'T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX.

But stop trying to use the government to control people's private lives.

Updated On: 2/4/12 at 11:39 AM

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 11:43am

Amen and ditto.

[siny]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 11:53am

I strongly opposed the war in Iraq. Can I get a refund of that portion of my taxes which went to support it ?

[mikey2573]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 12:06pm

"What about Federal funds going to faith-based groups (which I believe to be unconstitutional)"

Why do you believe it is unconstitutional??
Just curious.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 12:10pm

"I strongly opposed the war in Iraq. Can I get a refund of that portion of my taxes which went to support it ?"

No. The federal government has the Constitutional authority to tax the American citizenry in order to support the military and for national defense. It does not have the Constitutional authority to fund healthcare organizations.

[Kad]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 12:10pm

I would imagine because it's the state funding something that is explicitly religious/religious-based.


Why put health in quotes? "Health"? As if the myriad of other services PP provides AREN'T health-based?

[siny]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 12:26pm

"No. The federal government has the Constitutional authority to tax the American citizenry in order to support the military and for national defense. It does not have the Constitutional authority to fund healthcare organizations."

Is there something in the Constitution about government funding abstinence-based sex ed programs in schools ? We've spent close to $2 bln. on those useless programs and I want my money back.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=429&Itemid=177

Updated On: 2/4/12 at 12:26 PM

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 12:46pm

Wow.The outright ignorance is amazing!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 1:04pm

The federal government has the Constitutional authority to tax the American citizenry in order to support the military and for national defense.

Nonsense. That limitation appears nowhere in the Constitution, neither in Article One nor in the 16th Amendment.

People like you who cite the Constitution should consider reading it someday.

It's a pretty good read.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 2:10pm

Someone had better answer the questions about these pink hand guns. The article says:

"Update #2: Komen now tells HuffPo that the foundation "does not have partnerships with any firearms manufacturer," and a rep from the Puget Sound affiliate maintains that Discount Gun Sales' "fundraising scheme is not sanctioned by" their office. We called and emailed the Komen Foundation earlier this afternoon and have not yet heard back from them."

But this is what is posted on the gun manufactures web site:

***Due to overwhelming popularity, we are no longer taking backorders on this item. We thank everyone for the support. ***
In recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, Discount Gun Sales is proud to team up with the Susan G. Komen Foundation to offer the Walther P-22 Hope Edition. A portion of the proceeds for every P-22 Hope Edition sold will be donated to the Seattle Branch of the Susan G. Komen Foundation."

So, what is actually going on with this?!

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 2:21pm

No Veruca, I am not going to waste my time trying to get you to understand the First Amendment and the separation of church and state or educate you on the general welfare clause of the Constitution.

I'd have better luck finishing a neverending gobstopper.

I suggest you read the ENTIRE constitution, including Supreme Court rulings interpreting its clauses.






Updated On: 2/4/12 at 02:21 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/5/12 at 12:04am

It was always political. It was never NOT political.
EXCLUSIVE: Ari Fleischer Secretly Involved In Komen Strategy On Planned Parenthood

[mikey2573]

Posted: 2/5/12 at 7:39am

"No Veruca, I am not going to waste my time trying to get you to understand the First Amendment and the separation of church and state"

But I NEED to be educated by you!! PLEASE?????? Can you PLEASE show me where there is a "separation of church and state" in the Constitution???? Cuz my copy appears to be MISSING those pages!!

LOL!!

[mikey2573]

Posted: 2/5/12 at 7:54am

"As someone who is strongly opposed to abortions, my tax dollars should not be going to fund PP.

In America, you don't get to choose where your tax dollars go. You get to elect legislators who pass laws and levy taxes. "


I get to elect legislators who are supposed to defend and support the law of the land, which is the US Constitution. Sending my tax dollars to PP is unconstitutional, unless you can find the article and section of the Constitution where using tax dollars to fund an organization like PP is allowed. I can't find it in my Constitution.

"I am strongly opposed to so-called farm subsidies that are given to large corporations and bailouts for large banks. My tax dollars should not be going to fund them. BUT THEY DO."

If the legislators you elected supported and defended the US Constitution, then they would not be able to fund farm subsidies or large corporations and bailout banks (or car manufacturing companies --I assume you are against the Chrysler GM bailouts as well, RIGHT???). It is not a provision of the Constitution, therefore the federal government has no authority to do it.

"I respect your personal views on abortion but I have absolutely no respect for your desire to impose your views on me.
Imposing those views on others is un-American.
If you don't believe in abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE."

Sort of like saying, if you don't like murder or having sex with kids, then don't do it. But those folks shouldn't impose their views on YOU.


"If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, DON'T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX."

Well, let's look to the Constitution again; where in the Constitution does the federal government get the power to legislate and regulate marriage?


"But stop trying to use the government to control people's private lives. "

I don't want the government to control people's private lives. I want the government to do that which it is authorized to do vie the US Constitution. THe difference between you and I is, you want to pick and choose the things about the Constitution you like or don't like. I don't pick and choose.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 2/5/12 at 7:55am

"As someone who is strongly opposed to abortions, my tax dollars should not be going to fund PP.

In America, you don't get to choose where your tax dollars go. You get to elect legislators who pass laws and levy taxes. "


I get to elect legislators who are supposed to defend and support the law of the land, which is the US Constitution. Sending my tax dollars to PP is unconstitutional, unless you can find the article and section of the Constitution where using tax dollars to fund an organization like PP is allowed. I can't find it in my Constitution.

"I am strongly opposed to so-called farm subsidies that are given to large corporations and bailouts for large banks. My tax dollars should not be going to fund them. BUT THEY DO."

If the legislators you elected supported and defended the US Constitution, then they would not be able to fund farm subsidies or large corporations and bailout banks (or car manufacturing companies --I assume you are against the Chrysler GM bailouts as well, RIGHT???). It is not a provision of the Constitution, therefore the federal government has no authority to do it.

"I respect your personal views on abortion but I have absolutely no respect for your desire to impose your views on me.
Imposing those views on others is un-American.
If you don't believe in abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE."

Sort of like saying, if you don't like murder or having sex with kids, then don't do it. But those folks shouldn't impose their views on YOU.


"If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, DON'T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX."

Well, let's look to the Constitution again; where in the Constitution does the federal government get the power to legislate and regulate marriage?


"But stop trying to use the government to control people's private lives. "

I don't want the government to control people's private lives. I want the government to do that which it is authorized to do vie the US Constitution. THe difference between you and I is, you want to pick and choose the things about the Constitution you like or don't like. I don't pick and choose.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 2/5/12 at 7:58am

The federal government has the Constitutional authority to tax the American citizenry in order to support the military and for national defense.

"Nonsense. That limitation appears nowhere in the Constitution, neither in Article One nor in the 16th Amendment."

So. let me make sure I understand you here. You are saying that, unless the Constitution says the federal government can't do it, then federal government CAN do it?? So, the federal government can do anything it wants, as long as it is not prohibited in the Constitution?
REALLY??????

[mikey2573]

Posted: 2/5/12 at 8:00am

"I suggest you read the ENTIRE constitution, including Supreme Court rulings interpreting its clauses."

The SCOTUS has absolutely NO INTERPRETIVE powers re: The Constitution.
If it does, show it to me.
SCOTUS rulings are NOT part of the US Constitution.



Updated On: 2/5/12 at 08:00 AM