If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Texas Attorney General calls Planned Parenthood a "terrorist organization" in a motion to stay a U.S. district judge's ruling   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 160
    More: Sick, Texas Attorney General, United States federal judge, Planned Parenthood, U.S., terrorist groups  
•       •       •

3443 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 May 2012 at 3:17 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



160 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-02 11:53:55 AM  
how the fark is performing a legal service "terrorism?"
 
2012-05-02 12:02:24 PM  
No. No he didn't.
 
2012-05-02 12:02:48 PM  
What's worse is the federal appeals judge agreed with this idiot.
 
2012-05-02 12:03:19 PM  
Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the Texas attorney general's office, said state attorneys were not comparing Planned Parenthood to a terrorist organization, but rather were citing a Supreme Court case in the brief that happened to be about a terrorist organization.

"Texas did not state -- and does not believe -- that Planned Parenthood is a terrorist organization or comparable to one. Period," Strickland said.


"We weren't comparing Planned Parenthood to a terrorist organization. We're just saying a law used to prevent funding a terrorist organization be used to prevent funding to Planned Parenthood, even though it is totally not a terrorist organization."
 
2012-05-02 12:04:14 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: No. No he didn't.


Yes. Yes he did.
 
2012-05-02 12:04:20 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: No. No he didn't.


This is no different than opposing the mosque in NYC. They don't have to directly say "Because terrorism" for the obvious connection to be made, and thus burying the issue because of the negative connotations.
 
2012-05-02 12:04:32 PM  
A terrorist organization whose employees are shot or blown up by religious extremists who... umm... aren't terrorists?!?

This dickhole might want to actually, you know, look at a farking dictionary or something. He's an embarrassment to America, and an insult to all service members who are actually fighting real terrorists and sometimes dying at their hands.
 
2012-05-02 12:04:59 PM  

gilgigamesh: "We weren't comparing Planned Parenthood to a terrorist organization. We're just saying a law used to prevent funding a terrorist organization be used to prevent funding to Planned Parenthood, even though it is totally not a terrorist organization."


Again, not what he said.
 
2012-05-02 12:06:35 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: gilgigamesh: "We weren't comparing Planned Parenthood to a terrorist organization. We're just saying a law used to prevent funding a terrorist organization be used to prevent funding to Planned Parenthood, even though it is totally not a terrorist organization."

Again, not what he said.


Apparently you and I have different definitions of comparison?
 
2012-05-02 12:06:37 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: gilgigamesh: "We weren't comparing Planned Parenthood to a terrorist organization. We're just saying a law used to prevent funding a terrorist organization be used to prevent funding to Planned Parenthood, even though it is totally not a terrorist organization."

Again, not what he said.


FTA:

In the appeal for the emergency stay, a team of attorneys led by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott compared Planned Parenthood to a terrorist organization.

"Planned Parenthood does not provide any assurance that the tax subsidies it receives from the Women's Health Program have not been used directly or indirectly to subsidize its advocacy of elective abortion," Abbott wrote in his motion to stay the injunction. "Nor is it possible for Planned Parenthood to provide this assurance."

"Money is fungible, and taxpayer subsidies -- even if 'earmarked' for nonabortion activities -- free up other resources for Planned Parenthood to spend on its mission to promote elective abortions ... (because '[m]oney is fungible,' First Amendment does not prohibit application of federal material-support statute to individuals who give money to 'humanitarian' activities performed by terrorist organizations)."
 
2012-05-02 12:07:56 PM  
In appealing that decision, Abbott made the argument that the state of Texas would prefer to shut down the entire Women's Health Program rather than allow it to fund Planned Parenthood.

Going with the ole' scorched earth campaign, eh? Or is it more like a child who breaks their toy rather than share with other, just to get their own way?
 
2012-05-02 12:09:56 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: gilgigamesh: "We weren't comparing Planned Parenthood to a terrorist organization. We're just saying a law used to prevent funding a terrorist organization be used to prevent funding to Planned Parenthood, even though it is totally not a terrorist organization."

Again, not what he said.


Yeah. What he said was more "money is fungible, so by giving the Catholic Church tax breaks, the state is indirectly supporting their efforts to fark children and cover it up."
 
2012-05-02 12:10:13 PM  

Crusader: In appealing that decision, Abbott made the argument that the state of Texas would prefer to shut down the entire Women's Health Program rather than allow it to fund Planned Parenthood.

Going with the ole' scorched earth campaign, eh? Or is it more like a child who breaks their toy rather than share with other, just to get their own way?


From a GOP standpoint, it's a win-win. Either they can screw over Planned Parenthood specifically, or they can screw over non-wealthy women who need medical services.
 
2012-05-02 12:12:56 PM  
But right here's the kicker:

In fact, none of the eight Planned Parenthood clinics that participate in Texas' Women's Health Program offer abortions, and the money Planned Parenthood receives through the program for specific medical visits, treatments, and procedures does not even fully cover the cost of those services. Abortions at Planned Parenthood are entirely paid for with private money in compliance with the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited taxpayer-funded abortions for decades.

That's right: abortion isn't even an issue here. This is just cutting off health services to women who can't afford it, in the state with one of the worst records for women's health.

But there's no "War on Women", eh GOP?
 
2012-05-02 12:13:26 PM  
Is it related to terrorism because of the pro-lifers shooting, bombing and issuing death threats to the abortion clinics and doctors?
 
2012-05-02 12:20:31 PM  

gilgigamesh: But right here's the kicker:

In fact, none of the eight Planned Parenthood clinics that participate in Texas' Women's Health Program offer abortions, and the money Planned Parenthood receives through the program for specific medical visits, treatments, and procedures does not even fully cover the cost of those services. Abortions at Planned Parenthood are entirely paid for with private money in compliance with the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited taxpayer-funded abortions for decades.


The argument is that, by giving PP money for their non-abortion procedures, they can funnel money to their abortion procedures that they'd otherwise have to devote to non-abortion procedures.

For example, if you earn $1000/month and your rent is $1000/month, you have no money for anything else. If I give you $200 to help with your rent, you can give that money straight to your landlord and pay the rest, but now you've got $200 in your pocket, with which you can buy heroin. Therefore, I can't help you with your rent because I'll be supporting you buying smack. In fact, even if I gave the money to your landlord, I'd still be making it possible for you to be a junkie, so therefore, I can't help you at all.

Technically, it's a correct argument, but he's still an asshole.
 
2012-05-02 12:22:45 PM  
Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the Texas attorney general's office

Shoulda stuck with the Propane business.
 
2012-05-02 12:24:50 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: No. No he didn't.


I'm not saying that Obama IS Hitler, I'm just saying he's worse than Hitler.
 
2012-05-02 12:24:52 PM  
Money is fungible, and taxpayer subsidies -- even if 'earmarked' for nonabortion activities -- free up other resources for Planned Parenthood to spend on its mission to promote elective abortions ... (because '[m]oney is fungible,' First Amendment does not prohibit application of federal material-support statute to individuals who give money to 'humanitarian' activities performed by terrorist organizations)."

Looks to me like a dishonest use of ellipses. The author deliberately omitted the AG's citation to Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705, which was cited for the point that money is fungible. The parenthetical reference to terrorist organizations was simply a summary of that supreme court case.
 
2012-05-02 12:26:50 PM  
Get the hell over it. They didn't call it a terrorist organization. They cited it as a pretty clear example of the argument that dollars are fungible, and that monetary support for one practice of an operation is at least indirect monetary support for its other practices. You might disagree with that logic, but citing Supreme Court precedent that happens to invoke terrorism is not the same thing at all.

Unless citing the Skokie Nazi case for the proposition that even unpopular speech is protected is the same as calling whomever you're defending "Nazis."
 
2012-05-02 12:28:06 PM  
Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the Texas attorney general's office, said state attorneys were not comparing Planned Parenthood to a terrorist organization, but rather were citing a Supreme Court case in the brief that happened to be about a terrorist organization.

"Texas did not state -- and does not believe -- that Planned Parenthood is a terrorist organization or comparable to one. Period," Strickland said. "When parties to lawsuits are wrong on the facts and wrong on the law, they resort to the same outrageous rhetoric Planned Parenthood is using today to distract from the real issues."


Jerry, you are a worthless whore who was caught out. But true to form, instead of saying, "OK, we went too far that time" you are doubling down on the stupid, ensuring the entire nation views you as an idiot.

Better stay in Texas, genius. Or visit Saudi Arabia, you would fit right in there.
 
2012-05-02 12:28:28 PM  

SkinnyHead: Looks to me like a dishonest use of ellipses. The author deliberately omitted the AG's citation to Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705, which was cited for the point that money is fungible. The parenthetical reference to terrorist organizations was simply a summary of that supreme court case.


Please show us the full quote, then, since you know what it says.
 
2012-05-02 12:29:34 PM  

Theaetetus: gilgigamesh: But right here's the kicker:

In fact, none of the eight Planned Parenthood clinics that participate in Texas' Women's Health Program offer abortions, and the money Planned Parenthood receives through the program for specific medical visits, treatments, and procedures does not even fully cover the cost of those services. Abortions at Planned Parenthood are entirely paid for with private money in compliance with the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited taxpayer-funded abortions for decades.

The argument is that, by giving PP money for their non-abortion procedures, they can funnel money to their abortion procedures that they'd otherwise have to devote to non-abortion procedures.

For example, if you earn $1000/month and your rent is $1000/month, you have no money for anything else. If I give you $200 to help with your rent, you can give that money straight to your landlord and pay the rest, but now you've got $200 in your pocket, with which you can buy heroin. Therefore, I can't help you with your rent because I'll be supporting you buying smack. In fact, even if I gave the money to your landlord, I'd still be making it possible for you to be a junkie, so therefore, I can't help you at all.

Technically, it's a correct argument, but he's still an asshole.


Well, I understand fungibility, I am just ignorant about how PP operates I suppose. In other words, I thought each clinic was funded individually, and so funding a clinic that doesn't perform abortions doesn't result in funding one that does.

I thought that was how the Hyde amendment applied, although I could be wrong.
 
2012-05-02 12:29:51 PM  
I love this new and exciting "money is fungible" argument that they've decided to use with taxes.
 
2012-05-02 12:30:28 PM  

gilgigamesh: Yes. Yes he did.


Look, I don 't agree with the Texas law, or Judge Smith's reason for letting Texas continue to enforce it. I fully support PP (both ideologically and with my own money), but the Texas AG never compared PP to a terrorist organization, nor did he try to use a US law banning giving money to known terrorists organizations as a defense of his stupid state's stupid law. He made an analogy. A ham-fisted one to be sure, but an analogy nonetheless. What he said was that just as Federal law says you can't give money to the IRA so they can open orphanages (as that just means that the IRA can use the money that they were going to spend on orphans on making bombs to blow up Parliament), Texas is trying to make it so that government money doesn't go to fund abortions in the same indirect manner.

I have to admit, they have a point. I don't agree with it, but they still have a point.
 
2012-05-02 12:32:03 PM  
Here's hoping this scumbag's dick falls off. Misogynists disgust me more than child molesters.
 
2012-05-02 12:32:33 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: gilgigamesh: Yes. Yes he did.

Look, I don 't agree with the Texas law, or Judge Smith's reason for letting Texas continue to enforce it. I fully support PP (both ideologically and with my own money), but the Texas AG never compared PP to a terrorist organization, nor did he try to use a US law banning giving money to known terrorists organizations as a defense of his stupid state's stupid law. He made an analogy. A ham-fisted one to be sure, but an analogy nonetheless. What he said was that just as Federal law says you can't give money to the IRA so they can open orphanages (as that just means that the IRA can use the money that they were going to spend on orphans on making bombs to blow up Parliament), Texas is trying to make it so that government money doesn't go to fund abortions in the same indirect manner.

I have to admit, they have a point. I don't agree with it, but they still have a point.


Fair enough. The article is poorly written, and perhaps a little misleading.
 
2012-05-02 12:41:04 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Looks to me like a dishonest use of ellipses. The author deliberately omitted the AG's citation to Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705, which was cited for the point that money is fungible. The parenthetical reference to terrorist organizations was simply a summary of that supreme court case.

Please show us the full quote, then, since you know what it says.


Here's the entire paragraph:
It is no answer to say that Planned Parenthood finances its abortion-related activities and advocacy with funds that come from outside the State's coffers. Planned Parenthood does not provide any assurance that the tax subsidies it receives from the Women's Health Program have not been used directly or indirectly to subsidize its advocacy of elective abortion. Nor is it possible for Planned Parenthood to provide this assurance. Money is fungible, and taxpayer subsidies-even if "earmarked" for non abortion activities-free up other resources for Planned Parenthood to spend on its mission to promote elective abortions. Cf. Holder, 130 S. Ct. at 2725-26 (because"[m]oney is fungible," First Amendment does not prohibit application of federal material-support statute to individuals who give money to "humanitarian" activities performed by terrorist organizations). Planned Parenthood's involvement in the Women's Health Program enables Planned Parenthood affiliates across the country to redirect their fundraising efforts toward their abortion-related activities, now that their non-abortion activity receives a generous subsidy from state taxpayers. Id. (noting that "money is fungible" and that when organizations "that have a dual structure raise funds, they highlight the civilian and humanitarian ends to which such moneys could be put."). And by empowering Planned Parenthood to expand its provision of preventative health care and family-planning services throughout the State, it enables Planned Parenthood to cultivate additional paying clients and makes those patients more receptive to Planned Parenthood's ideology-even though the services are funded by the taxpayers of Texas rather than Planned Parenthood donors who support its desire to promote abortion.
 
2012-05-02 12:41:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Looks to me like a dishonest use of ellipses. The author deliberately omitted the AG's citation to Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705, which was cited for the point that money is fungible. The parenthetical reference to terrorist organizations was simply a summary of that supreme court case.

Please show us the full quote, then, since you know what it says.


Ugh. As much as I hate agreeing with DerpyHead, he is right there...
Link:
It is no answer to say that Planned Parenthood finances its abortion-related activities
and advocacy with funds that come from outside the State's coffers. Planned
Parenthood does not provide any assurance that the tax subsidies it receives from the
Women's Health Program have not been used directly or indirectly to subsidize its
advocacy of elective abortion. Nor is it possible for Planned Parenthood to provide
this assurance. Money is fungible, and taxpayer subsidies-even if "earmarked" for
nonabortion activities-free up other resources for Planned Parenthood to spend on
its mission to promote elective abortions. Cf. Holder, 130 S. Ct. at 2725-26 (because
"[m]oney is fungible," First Amendment does not prohibit application of federal material-
support statute to individuals who give money to "humanitarian" activities performed
by terrorist organizations).
 
2012-05-02 12:45:06 PM  

SkinnyHead: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: Looks to me like a dishonest use of ellipses. The author deliberately omitted the AG's citation to Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705, which was cited for the point that money is fungible. The parenthetical reference to terrorist organizations was simply a summary of that supreme court case.

Please show us the full quote, then, since you know what it says.

Here's the entire paragraph: It is no answer to say that Planned Parenthood finances its abortion-related activities and advocacy with funds that come from outside the State's coffers. Planned Parenthood does not provide any assurance that the tax subsidies it receives from the Women's Health Program have not been used directly or indirectly to subsidize its advocacy of elective abortion. Nor is it possible for Planned Parenthood to provide this assurance. Money is fungible, and taxpayer subsidies-even if "earmarked" for non abortion activities-free up other resources for Planned Parenthood to spend on its mission to promote elective abortions. Cf. Holder, 130 S. Ct. at 2725-26 (because"[m]oney is fungible," First Amendment does not prohibit application of federal material-support statute to individuals who give money to "humanitarian" activities performed by terrorist organizations). Planned Parenthood's involvement in the Women's Health Program enables Planned Parenthood affiliates across the country to redirect their fundraising efforts toward their abortion-related activities, now that their non-abortion activity receives a generous subsidy from state taxpayers. Id. (noting that "money is fungible" and that when organizations "that have a dual structure raise funds, they highlight the civilian and humanitarian ends to which such moneys could be put."). And by empowering Planned Parenthood to expand its provision of preventative health care and family-planning services throughout the State, it enables Planned Parenthood to cultivate additional paying clients an ...


The important issue is still the bottom line: Texas hates poor women, and wants them all to die a painful death as quickly as possible.
 
2012-05-02 12:46:21 PM  
free up other resources for Planned Parenthood to spend on its mission to promote elective abortions

Yep, that's their whole aim and purpose.
 
2012-05-02 01:13:57 PM  
How is Texas going to execute poor unwanted uneducated minorities if Planned Parenthood aborts them first??

/Texans would probable support abortion if they just called it "early execution"
 
2012-05-02 01:23:05 PM  

Quasar: free up other resources for Planned Parenthood to spend on its mission to promote elective abortions

Yep, that's their whole aim and purpose.


Of course it is. Have you seen Planned Parenthoods main headquarters?

i76.photobucket.com

Sometimes you can catch the sound of their maniacal laughter over the howling wind and crashing thunder, taking evil delight in all the abortions they can perform.
 
2012-05-02 01:41:46 PM  
War on Terror, War on Women...Comme ci comme ça.
 
2012-05-02 01:47:38 PM  
people.virginia.edu


/people.virginia.edu tag, dammit
 
2012-05-02 01:53:51 PM  

Theaetetus: What he said was more "money is fungible, so by giving the Catholic Church tax breaks, the state is indirectly supporting their efforts to fark children and cover it up."


...actually, that's an interesting point. Couldn't this be used to also oppose all faith-based organization grants? After all, giving money to a Catholic adoption agency frees up money for the Church to do other things, like buy crackers; as this effects support of the Catholic Church, it's thus an establishment violation.
 
2012-05-02 01:56:59 PM  
Thaaaaaaaaaaaat's a stretch.
 
2012-05-02 02:04:10 PM  

abb3w: Theaetetus: What he said was more "money is fungible, so by giving the Catholic Church tax breaks, the state is indirectly supporting their efforts to fark children and cover it up."

...actually, that's an interesting point. Couldn't this be used to also oppose all faith-based organization grants? After all, giving money to a Catholic adoption agency frees up money for the Church to do other things, like buy crackers; as this effects support of the Catholic Church, it's thus an establishment violation.


Beautiful. Excellent observation.
 
2012-05-02 02:13:26 PM  
Planned parenthood plays a sick scorched earth game with legitimate women's health care. "You want access to breast cancer screenings? Well too bad, because if the government tells us we can't have abortions, we're going to shut down the whole thing! That'll show 'em!"

So I can see the analogy to a terrorist organization. They threaten to withhold necessary medical care if their political goals aren't realized.
Government should pull money from Planned Parenthood and give it to somebody who only provides real health care.
 
2012-05-02 02:15:29 PM  
To be fair, the state of Texas probably qualifies as a terrorist organization. They oppress others on ideological differences, attempt to scare others into line, and demand for religious perfection.
 
2012-05-02 02:20:01 PM  

serial_crusher: dumb words.


For what it's worth, I did laugh at you while reading your pathetic and strange little outburst. So, you know, you have that going for you.

/Yippeee!
 
2012-05-02 02:36:20 PM  

Vodka Zombie: serial_crusher: dumb words.

For what it's worth, I did laugh at you while reading your pathetic and strange little outburst. So, you know, you have that going for you.

/Yippeee!


I really didn't expect anybody to think I meant that 100% seriously.

/But I did take it about as seriously as I do the arguments that accuse Republicans of the same thing.
 
2012-05-02 02:48:57 PM  

Diogenes: Beautiful. Excellent observation.


Agreed.
 
2012-05-02 02:50:03 PM  

serial_crusher: They threaten to withhold necessary medical care if their political goals aren't realized.


Wait, are you talking about PP or the state of Texas?
 
2012-05-02 03:00:23 PM  
Oh goddamnitsofarkingmuch.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-05-02 03:18:13 PM  
RW theocrats are the biggest terrorist network in America.
 
2012-05-02 03:21:47 PM  

Vodka Zombie: A terrorist organization whose employees are shot or blown up by religious extremists who... umm... aren't terrorists?!?

This dickhole might want to actually, you know, look at a farking dictionary or something. He's an embarrassment to America, and an insult to all service members who are actually fighting real terrorists and sometimes dying at their hands.


Well duh being a target of terrorism makes you a part of it therefore you're a sponsor... If you didnt do it you wouldn't be a target!
 
2012-05-02 03:22:43 PM  

quatchi: RW theocrats are the biggest terrorist network in America.


This wasn't in large enough letters, so FTFY.
 
2012-05-02 03:24:04 PM  
If I see that demonstration with the banana and the condom ONE MORE TIME...
 
2012-05-02 03:24:09 PM  
These kinds of headlines really aren't helping
 
Displayed 50 of 160 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report