Re: House Debate on Stupak: Amendment Defeated on Voice Vote
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/11/7/20948/1435
> > > > The amendment failed on a voice vote.
> > So the rabidly left-wing propagandist claimed, after devoting almost
> > the whole article to a typically one-sided pro-abortion screed.
>
> And that is in fact what happened.
>
> > Note, I said pro-abortion. The amendment did NOTHING to lessen the
> > already existing system of abortion rights, one of the most pro-choice
> > in whole world.
>
> Oh no, the bill did not address abortion rights at all. It addressed
> financial *coverage* of abortions.
Thanks for belatedly showing what a base lie your "uteruses now belong
to Bart Stupak" was.
>The amendment prohibits federal
> funds for abortion services in the public option.
EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
In other words, it just extends the Hyde Amendment to a place where
Pelosi, etc. claimed all along it would be extended.
I remember when the Hyde Amendment first came out. I was a Visiting
Assistant Professor at Auburn U. at the time. I read a column by
Carl T. Rowan, which for the times was dripping with unreasoning
hatred, but now I look back on it almost nostalgically after reading
really rabid hatred by you and the author, "Jeralyn" [surname?] of the
article Keegan linked in his first post to this thread.
A student did a column for the AU student newspaper, in which he
repeated much of Rowan's propaganda without even mentioning Rowan in
his column. I wrote a letter to the editor, which was published. I
can still recall it almost verbatim:
It is ironic that _________ would write on capital punishment and
abortion in successive weeks. It seems that once a person is safely
out of the womb, not even the most heinous mass murders are enough to
earn for him what was previously "a private matter between the woman,
her husband, and her doctor."
[Intermission: I was quoting verbatim from the column of this naive
student, who obviously didn't know that RvW wrote the husband--even
where there IS a husband!--out of the picture, and had "the attending
physician" instead of the dewy-eyed and misleading "her doctor." End
of intermission.]
About the best that can be said for ________ column on abortion is
that it is not so full of unreasoning hatred as the Carl Rowan
column (see _The Atlanta Constitution_) on which it is based. Still,
___________ repeats Rowan's claim that the new bill is the work of
"Congressman in a rush to hit the campaign trail" and "holier-than-
thou anti-abortionists who delight in shouting `murderer!' at those
who do not follow their idea of what God wants."
Repeated also is the fallacy of comparing the success of teenagers
who have children with those who do not have children. Logically,
they should have been compared with teens who got pregnant and had
abortions. Otherwise, we cannot know whether both the pregnancy and
the abortions and childbirths were due to unfavorable social factors.
Repeated also is the claim that poor women are discriminated against.
This would be valid if women were forced to keep their children.
However, it is a fact that there are more couples wanting to adopt
babies then there are babies up for adoption.
[End of close paraphrasal]
That Carl Rowan "holier than thou" bit was echoed a thousandfold by
"Spartakus" when he posted the probably libelous claim that
Congressman Bart Stupak is "mindlessly theocratic".
TO BE CONTINUED
Peter Nyikos
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Note, I said pro-abortion. The amendment did NOTHING to lessen the
> > > already existing system of abortion rights, one of the most pro-choice
> > > in whole world.
> > Oh no, the bill did not address abortion rights at all. It addressed
> > financial *coverage* of abortions.
> Thanks for belatedly showing what a base lie your "uteruses now belong
> to Bart Stupak" was.
Earth to whoever-you-are. The financial component is a big part of
being able to access medical services. When you go out of your way to
arrange things to deny coverage for a medical procedure, it is as good
as denying that medical procedure.
> >The amendment prohibits federal
> > funds for abortion services in the public option.
> EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
>
> In other words, it just extends the Hyde Amendment to a place where
> Pelosi, etc. claimed all along it would be extended.
Now that more time has passed for analysis, the consensus is that no
one knows what this amendment really does.
> I remember when the Hyde Amendment first came out. I was a Visiting
> Assistant Professor at Auburn U. at the time. I read a column by
> Carl T. Rowan, which for the times was dripping with unreasoning
> hatred,
This Carl T. Rowan?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rowan
Except for the episode involving the Neil Smith shooting, I am
flattered by the comparison.
[--FauxNy writes a letter; the universe yawns--]
So you're saying that you've always been this nuts?
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > Note, I said pro-abortion. The amendment did NOTHING to lessen the
> > > > already existing system of abortion rights, one of the most pro-choice
> > > > in whole world.
> > > Oh no, the bill did not address abortion rights at all. It addressed
> > > financial *coverage* of abortions.
> > Thanks for belatedly showing what a base lie your "uteruses now belong
> > to Bart Stupak" was.
>
> Earth to whoever-you-are. The financial component is a big part of
> being able to access medical services. When you go out of your way to
> arrange things to deny coverage for a medical procedure, it is as good
> as denying that medical procedure.
What a shameless piece of pro-abortion propaganda! Abortion, if done
in a timely manner, costs less than $600 a pop. Try getting emergency
treatment in a hospital for a staple in your finger that is a
millimeter into the bone, for less than 4 times that much.
If the abortion funding so near and dear to your heart becomes law, I
expect abortionists to inflate the cost of abortions to where that
$600 would just be copayment.
And that's what you are really after, isn't it--making abortions so
lucrative that no Planned Parenthood clinic director will ever feel
pressured to increase the number of abortions?
Abby Johnson's defection really stuck in your craw, didn't it?
>
> > >The amendment prohibits federal
> > > funds for abortion services in the public option.
> > EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
>
> > In other words, it just extends the Hyde Amendment to a place where
> > Pelosi, etc. claimed all along it would be extended.
>
> Now that more time has passed for analysis, the consensus
...of the propagandists who are quoted in the following tendentious
website...
> is that no
> one knows what this amendment really does.
>
> http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/controversial-stupak-amend...
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/controversial-stupak-amendment-sows-anger-confusion-on-capitol-hill.php?ref=fpblg
Notice how they keep yammering about "the exchange." There will be
lots of insurance policies that are not on the exchange, including ALL
the ones that illegal aliens will be able to purchase, if the White
House wasn't being insincere about what it wants in the wake of Joe
Wilson's famous "You lie!"
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/09/11/2065287.aspx
By the way, I am a constituent of Joe's but I think (to use words
George Marshall used in reference to MacArthur wanting to expand the
Korean war by bombing Manchuria) his outburst was the wrong war with
the wrong enemy in the wrong place at the wrong time.
> > I remember when the Hyde Amendment first came out. I was a Visiting
> > Assistant Professor at Auburn U. at the time. I read a column by
> > Carl T. Rowan, which for the times was dripping with unreasoning
> > hatred,
>
> This Carl T. Rowan?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rowan
>
> Except for the episode involving the Neil Smith shooting, I am
> flattered by the comparison.
Why would a megalomaniac who thinks he can speak in the name of the
universe be flattered by such a lowly comparison?
> [--FauxNy writes a letter; the universe yawns--]
>
Couldn't cope with the solidly on-topic content, I see.
>
> So you're saying that you've always been this nuts?
.001% on Fischer's irony meter, which subtracts the true reading from
100%.
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 9, 10:07 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > > > Note, I said pro-abortion. The amendment did NOTHING to lessen the
>> > > > already existing system of abortion rights, one of the most pro-choice
>> > > > in whole world.
>> > > Oh no, the bill did not address abortion rights at all. It addressed
>> > > financial *coverage* of abortions.
>> > Thanks for belatedly showing what a base lie your "uteruses now belong
>> > to Bart Stupak" was.
>>
>> Earth to whoever-you-are. The financial component is a big part of
>> being able to access medical services. When you go out of your way to
>> arrange things to deny coverage for a medical procedure, it is as good
>> as denying that medical procedure.
>
>What a shameless piece of pro-abortion propaganda! Abortion, if done
>in a timely manner, costs less than $600 a pop.
Which, for a lot of people, is an impossible amount of money.
But for elitist misogynists like fauxNy the needs of people really
don't count. All he cares about is punishing "sluts".
>And that's what you are really after, isn't it--making abortions so
>lucrative that no Planned Parenthood clinic director will ever feel
>pressured to increase the number of abortions?
You really are an evil sleazebag. Don't assume that other people are
like you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > Note, I said pro-abortion. The amendment did NOTHING to lessen the
> > > > > already existing system of abortion rights, one of the most pro-choice
> > > > > in whole world.
> > > > Oh no, the bill did not address abortion rights at all. It addressed
> > > > financial *coverage* of abortions.
> > > Thanks for belatedly showing what a base lie your "uteruses now belong
> > > to Bart Stupak" was.
> > Earth to whoever-you-are. The financial component is a big part of
> > being able to access medical services. When you go out of your way to
> > arrange things to deny coverage for a medical procedure, it is as good
> > as denying that medical procedure.
> What a shameless piece of pro-abortion propaganda! Abortion, if done
> in a timely manner, costs less than $600 a pop. Try getting emergency
> treatment in a hospital for a staple in your finger that is a
> millimeter into the bone, for less than 4 times that much.
"Anyway, you are helping to convince me that you've
always been a very well-heeled person who has no
need to worry about reductions in things like Medicare
Advantage. ... Typical well-heeled liberal--can't picture
lifestyles of anyone except the affluent on the one
hand and the homeless on the other."
-- the person posting as Peter Nyikos, on 10 Nov.
Sheesh, you're like the wingnut columnist who claimed that there
couldn't possibly be a problem with hunger in the U.S. because there's
so much obesity.