Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

AshburnerX · Sep 28, 2015

GasBandit said:
The calls are starting to pipe up for McConnell to resign as well. Might be looking at a full blown revolt in the republican party.

I'm not surprised. The divide between economic conservatives and social conservatives is about to become untenable and the economic ones will throw the socials under the bus in a heart beat for harming their image... and that's not even getting into the huge divide between establishment republicans and their constitutes, who have basically decided that they need to commit career suicide to advance the cause of conservatism. It is quickly reaching the point where the biggest obstacle the Republicans have will be their own party base simply removing them from office when they can't/won't do what they were elected for. If we're going to get viable third parties, this is basically the only way it can happen.

The Democrat/liberal is in a better position, but it's tides are turning: the public is turning out in droves for Bernie Sanders, undermining Hillary's steam. However, Bernie's another dreamer like Obama: he's electable but too soft handed to actually accomplish much. Hillary has the will to get her work done and knows where the bodies are buried so she can actually make it happen, but no one likes her enough to actually want her to WIN. The end result is we might actually pick a candidate who can't win and hand the election to the conservatives, despite their completely laughable array of candidates.

Krisken said:
Huh, and here I thought the great turtle from Kentucky had been pretty much lock step with the party in general

Being in agreement isn't enough anymore, you actually need to make it happen now and he's been kind of worthless in doing that lately.

Dave · Sep 28, 2015

GasBandit said:
I don't support Kim Davis, but federal government shutdowns are nothing to get livid over. The overwhelming majority of the federal government doesn't actually shut down.

I kinda wish it did, frankly.

You don't have a son that won't get paid. They've removed the language that says if the government shuts down the military still gets paid. They won't. So while the republicans are playing fuck fuck games, my son doesn't get paid.

GasBandit · Sep 28, 2015

AshburnerX said:
I'm not surprised. The divide between economic conservatives and social conservatives is about to become untenable and the economic ones will throw the socials under the bus in a heart beat for harming their image... and that's not even getting into the huge divide between establishment republicans and their constitutes, who have basically decided that they need to commit career suicide to advance the cause of conservatism. It is quickly reaching the point where the biggest obstacle the Republicans have will be their own party base simply removing them from office when they can't/won't do what they were elected for. If we're going to get viable third parties, this is basically the only way it can happen.

And the social/economic divide is cutting leadership from both ways. Both groups think they're being ignored by GOP leadership due to a variety of reasons ranging from Obamacare to Planned Parenthood to Benghazi to the Trade Promotion Authority. When approval ratings were polled in July, McConnell was a point lower than Boehner, even.

strawman · Sep 28, 2015

Dave said:
You don't have a son that won't get paid.

The longest shutdown ever was 3 weeks. The military pay has always been retroactively covered whenever it was affected. So worst case is waiting several weeks for late paychecks. Yeah, it's a pain, and I'm sure there are those living so close to the edge of their budget that it could be devastating if they don't have a good support system.

But the house holds the purse. Who do you propose the power of the purse goes to? If you say "they can't shut the government down" then you're merely taking away that power. Who do you then trust enough to take it?

What do you tell your congresscritters to do when they have no effective power to stop the executive branch from doing something you disagree with?

Checks and balances are effective only if they are effective.

Sparhawk · Sep 28, 2015

stienman said:
Yeah, it's a pain, and I'm sure there are those living so close to the edge of their budget that it could be devastating if they don't have a good support system

Just to address this one thing, Pretty much everyone under E-6 in the military is living on the edge. Almost everyone under that rank can qualify for some type of public assistance.

GasBandit · Sep 29, 2015

So, Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn went to the UN and tried to get them to censor the whole internet.

Thankfully their presentation was a horribly put-together rag and little is expected to come of it.

PatrThom · Sep 29, 2015

We really need to censor less of the Internet, not more.

--Patrick

Frank · Sep 30, 2015

I don't think I could have kept any sense of decorum here. I probably would have shouted SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LET ME FUCKING ANSWER! And I've been through my fair share of hostile lawyer questioning in court. This is beyond a fucking farce.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...arenthood_every_single_time_a_republican.html

Krisken · Sep 30, 2015

Welp, my moron state just defunded Planned Parenthood. But go ahead and build a new basketball stadium for a team which will ALWAYS SUCK AND SHOULD BE A PRIVATE INDUSTRY.

I hate this state sometimes.

Dave · Sep 30, 2015

They'll get sued and lose, just like Utah.

GasBandit · Sep 30, 2015

I'm not opposed to Planned Parenthood operating as a business, but it's not clear to me why they should receive government funds. I'm also of the opinion that it is intentionally dishonest how they are portrayed as an institution for "women's health" instead of just calling a spade a spade and saying they're a birth control provider, up to and including abortions. It's not like they've ever done a single mammogram.

Denbrought · Sep 30, 2015

Dave said:
They'll get sued and lose, just like Utah.

Could you expand on the Utah point? Tried googling without much success.

Terrik · Sep 30, 2015

GasBandit said:
I'm not opposed to Planned Parenthood operating as a business, but it's not clear to me why they should receive government funds. I'm also of the opinion that it is intentionally dishonest how they are portrayed as an institution for "women's health" instead of just calling a spade a spade and saying they're a birth control provider, up to and including abortions. It's not like they've ever done a single mammogram.

Because to a lot of people those distinctions are irrelevant--they are one in the same.

Bubble181 · Sep 30, 2015

GasBandit said:
It's not like they've ever done a single mammogram.

That "cancer prevention" bit is about half checking for cervix cancer, and the other half mammograms. So, err, yes?

Denbrought · Sep 30, 2015

GasBandit said:
I'm not opposed to Planned Parenthood operating as a business, but it's not clear to me why they should receive government funds. I'm also of the opinion that it is intentionally dishonest how they are portrayed as an institution for "women's health" instead of just calling a spade a spade and saying they're a birth control provider, up to and including abortions. It's not like they've ever done a single mammogram.

Isn't their biggest service screening and treatment of STIs/STDs? That's not contraception. NPR has a breakdown of their services, but I'm not vouching for its accuracy: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...lanned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money

Dave · Sep 30, 2015

Denbrought said:
Could you expand on the Utah point? Tried googling without much success.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/3005371-155/judge-sides-with-planned-parenthood-in

GasBandit · Sep 30, 2015

Terrik said:
Because to a lot of people those distinctions are irrelevant--they are one in the same.

*and the same.

But "to a lot of people" is not a valid reason to call a spade a heart. The whole "women's health" thing is nothing more than a cynical attempt to use women as a shield. Planned Parenthood is no more about Women's Health than hooters is about Men's health, despite the well documented health benefits of staring at tits.

Bubble181 said:
That "cancer prevention" bit is about half checking for cervix cancer, and the other half mammograms. So, err, yes?

That infographic can only be charitably described as "in error." Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms. And 86% of their revenue comes from performing abortions. Just because you give a lady a drug store pregnancy test and some aspirin doesn't make you a "women's healthcare provider."

Denbrought · Sep 30, 2015

GasBandit said:
That infographic can only be charitably described as "in error." Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms. And 86% of their revenue comes from performing abortions. Just because you give a lady a drug store pregnancy test and some aspirin doesn't make you a "women's healthcare provider."

Neither of those statements (nor the sources) contradict that infographic. The infographic is a service count, which doesn't speak of revenue/cost or specific cancer-screening procedures. Your charitable descriptor for the infographic ought to be "misleading" or "irrelevant."

I just spent a good while trying to find a source for the 86% figure. I've found calculations for a 15%-37% (sources as links within the link given, ctrl+f the percentage).

Using only the PP report that the congresswoman seemed to be citing (PP Annual Report 2013-2014 pp16-22), I arrived at 0-39% (between 0 and upper bound of (1/(1-0.41))*0.23) (because of lack of specificity in the doc I found).

Every other site is either parroting the congresswoman without examining possible sources (right-wing sites) or just not fucking talking about it (left-wing sites). Also a worrying amount of conflation between what "revenue" and "profit" are.

Maybe it's just that my Google-fu sucks today.

Bubble181 · Sep 30, 2015

GasBandit said:
Just because you give a lady a drug store pregnancy test and some aspirin doesn't make you a "women's healthcare provider.

Yes it does. You don't have to supply ALL possible services one can imagine under an umbrella to claim the title. if I only sell Mini's and no trucks, or Fords, or whatever, I'm still a car dealer. If I only teach history, but not math, I'm still a teacher. If I supply only STD tests and abortions, and not postnatal care, I'm still a women's health care provider.

GasBandit · Sep 30, 2015

Bubble181 said:
Yes it does. You don't have to supply ALL possible services one can imagine under an umbrella to claim the title. if I only sell Mini's and no trucks, or Fords, or whatever, I'm still a car dealer. If I only teach history, but not math, I'm still a teacher. If I supply only STD tests and abortions, and not postnatal care, I'm still a women's health care provider.

Then by that definition, so am I, because I've given SO much ibuprofen to the ladies here at work.

Bubble181 · Sep 30, 2015

GasBandit said:
Then by that definition, so am I, because I've given SO much ibuprofen to the ladies here at work.

Is it your primary occupation? Would you consider all/most/the majority of your function to be included under this umbrella? No. You do a million other things, amongst them this. If you spent 50% of your time listening to people complain about a headache and giving them ibuprofen, well, you'd be a corporate nurse or school nurse, and...Yes, you'd be a health care professional.
Look, if you claim they're not a health care provider, what are they? A lobby group? A religion? Service industry? Good luck finding a label that fits better. Even if all they did, 100% of the time, was abort babies and grind them into hamburgers (....Well, no, that'd make them food industry

, but anyway), it'd still fall under "health care".

GasBandit · Sep 30, 2015

Bubble181 said:
Is it your primary occupation? Would you consider all/most/the majority of your function to be included under this umbrella? No. You do a million other things, amongst them this. If you spent 50% of your time listening to people complain about a headache and giving them ibuprofen, well, you'd be a corporate nurse or school nurse, and...Yes, you'd be a health care professional.

The amount of time/revenue from providing ibuprofen to women at my workplace is clearly irrelevant. That I've done so even once clearly entitles me to be labeled a provider of women's health care.

Look, if you claim they're not a health care provider, what are they? A lobby group? A religion? Service industry? Good luck finding a label that fits better. Even if all they did, 100% of the time, was abort babies and grind them into hamburgers (....Well, no, that'd make them food industry , but anyway), it'd still fall under "health care".

They're an abortion clinic. No more a "health care provider" than a plastic surgeon. You and other people are trying to squish them in under a nebulous definition as a way of short-circuiting debate about the ethicality of what they do, and that's what is dishonest. They're an abortion clinic. Some people have a problem with abortion, I don't. But I don't see why they should receive federal funding. Frankly, even if they DID spend 90% of their time doing papsmears and mammograms I still wouldn't see why they should get federal funding any more than any doctor or hospital. But trying to use "we're a women's healthcare provider" as a shield is disingenuous to the substantive debate at hand and just prolongs the controversy. It's exasperating.

Bubble181 · Sep 30, 2015

GasBandit said:
The amount of time/revenue from providing ibuprofen to women at my workplace is clearly irrelevant. That I've done so even once clearly entitles me to be labeled a provider of women's health care.

I never claimed so, and that's an absurd strawman. You know that as well as I do.

GasBandit said:
They're an abortion clinic. No more a "health care provider" than a plastic surgeon.

Plastic surgery is, in my opinion, health care. Elective, perhaps (though not always), but it's still health care. So's getting an abortion. Again, possibly elective (though not always).

GasBandit said:
I still wouldn't see why they should get federal funding any more than any doctor or hospital.

That's a completely different discussion. Which only goes to prove we were arguing different things all along, which I suspected anyway. I think other doctors and hospitals should get public funding, too. As to why more than some others, I suppose something along the lines of free clinics: they provide a specific health service for people whose access to it would be (too) limited otherwise. Whether or not you can get a, possibly necessary, abortion should not be limited simply by your affluence or the majority religion in a particular region.

The ethical debate is, to me, completely separate. And obviously I'm in favor of abortion in some cases, but we've been over that a million times here.

GasBandit · Sep 30, 2015

Bubble181 said:
I never claimed so, and that's an absurd strawman. You know that as well as I do.

It's not a strawman, it's a Hyperbole - a deliberate exaggeration to prove a point.

Plastic surgery is, in my opinion, health care. Elective, perhaps (though not always), but it's still health care. So's getting an abortion. Again, possibly elective (though not always).

Well, that's your opinion, I guess.

That's a completely different discussion. Which only goes to prove we were arguing different things all along, which I suspected anyway.

Yeah, kinda got off on a tangent from what my point really was.

I think other doctors and hospitals should get public funding, too.

Unsurprising. And equally unsurprising, I think they shouldn't, but this is another entire debate again

Dei · Sep 30, 2015

I was going to point out that you were arguing about two different things, but you beat me to it. Though I don't really agree with calling PP an abortion clinic.

GasBandit · Sep 30, 2015

Dei said:
I was going to point out that you were arguing about two different things, but you beat me to it. Though I don't really agree with calling PP an abortion clinic.

Just because my local liquor store also sells soft drinks doesn't make it a grocery.

Bubble181 · Sep 30, 2015

GasBandit said:
Just because my local liquor store also sells soft drinks doesn't make it a grocery.

And just because your grocery store also sells wine doesn't mean it's a liquor store. You can have different functions, and your "main" activity determines what you are, mostly. "Main" could be most visible, or most profitable, or highest amount of time spent on it, or whatever. Otherwise practically every big firm in the world would be in the "shuffling papers around" business

GasBandit · Sep 30, 2015

Bubble181 said:
And just because your grocery store also sells wine doesn't mean it's a liquor store.

But it does sell more women's health products than PP

Dei · Sep 30, 2015

It's all irrelevant anyways, because PP is just being used as a figurehead for yet another argument over Roe vs. Wade where Republicans think they are going to bring in more voters for elections by Rah Rah'ing about this for a year. I equate PP with essentially a free clinic that women use when they are too poor or scared to go to an actual doctor's office. I don't care one way or the other who funds them, and most of the time no one else does either. (Yes, I'm sure people do, but this shit only comes up during election season in mainstream media)

And thus is my daily cynicism in our political system commentary.

GasBandit · Sep 30, 2015

I'm surprised it took this long for me to get a political thread "doing the thing again" rating.

Dei said:
It's all irrelevant anyways, because PP is just being used as a figurehead for yet another argument over Roe vs. Wade where Republicans think they are going to bring in more voters for elections by Rah Rah'ing about this for a year.

Well, that much is true. It's all for election politicking.

I equate PP with essentially a free clinic that women use when they are too poor or scared to go to an actual doctor's office. I don't care one way or the other who funds them, and most of the time no one else does either. (Yes, I'm sure people do, but this shit only comes up during election season in mainstream media)

Well, yeah, people care, for different reasons, I was just talking about my specific gripes - which I realize are different from most people's. The republicans only tool lately is the hammer of defunding, so everything they don't like looks like a nail, and as you say they want to make political hay - they're desperate, in fact, the look like they're doing "what they were sent to washington to do" because they've actually been rather ineffective/unwilling for quite a while. And, of course, to democrats, abortion is practically a religious sacrament, but they know they have to play the terminology proxy war game the same as anybody else, and here we are.

Bubble181 · Sep 30, 2015

GasBandit said:
I'm surprised it took this long for me to get a political thread "doing the thing again" rating.

you've been uncharacteristically mild and reasonable of late. Well, I say uncharacteristically, but you've just plain mellowed out around here on the political side.

GasBandit · Sep 30, 2015

Bubble181 said:
you've been uncharacteristically mild and reasonable of late. Well, I say uncharacteristically, but you've just plain mellowed out around here on the political side.

Probably for nigh on 2 years, right?

I'm only recently starting to give a shit again.

Bubble181 · Sep 30, 2015

GasBandit said:
Probably for nigh on 2 years, right?

I'm only recently starting to give a shit again.

If it makes you feel better, we can claim it's because of a lack of an opposite, with JCM, Invader, andn ow Charlie all missing in action...

Krisken · Sep 30, 2015

Thank you for not calling me his opposite.

AshburnerX · Sep 30, 2015

GasBandit said:
They're an abortion clinic.

Except for the ones that don't do it. There are 28 Planned Parenthood clinics in Ohio. Only -4- of them provide abortion services and you need a referral from another clinic to even get in the door of those. Clearly the rest of those clinics must be providing other services or there wouldn't need to be more than 4 locations.

Ultimately though, this debate is sort of pointless. It's socially useful to have a place you can go to nigh anonymously to handle issues that could destroy your personal life otherwise. STDs, AIDS, unplanned pregnancies, and abortions are about the most socially destructive medical issues that a person can be involved with and PP deals with them all. There is a reason rich WASP girls choose to go to free clinics in the inner city than to see their actual family doctor. To them , a place they can get treatment, free from the judgement of their peers and family, is simply too useful to ignore and thus it will never REALLY go away.