kallend 2,028 #26 April 15, 2011 So cherry picking the data is OK when you do it, but not when others do it. OK.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,460 #27 April 15, 2011 I just found a great chart that illustrates his point That said, facts is facts; how you present them can color the picture very, very differently. According to their annual report PP saw over 10 million people in 2008-2009; 3% of those received abortions. Whether that, or the number of dollars spent, is the more important is up to interpretation. My single data point is that I've been to Planned Parenthood, and never for an abortion. They gave me basic well-woman exams when I was young and in college, as well as birth control, all for income-adjusted cost. The report also covers their expenses (other than investment-related, and I don't think there's a lot of debate over that). According to the annual report, 56% of their expenses were medical-care related. I'm sure some of that was for abortions (although I believe that a number of PP locations will only refer for abortions, and not perform them themselves). I'm equally sure that some of it was for the kinds of services I received. As a by-the-by, only 5% of their expenses were for fundraising, which is considered to be a very good ratio. This is for the tax-exempt branch of PP, so it won't include lobbying. Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #28 April 15, 2011 Quote So cherry picking the data is OK when you do it, but not when others do it. OK.Not sure how I'm cherry picking anything when I didn't make any definitive statement other than guess the intentions in the OP.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #29 April 15, 2011 Anyhow, it's been a busy thread. Do you have any info on whether Ms. Rose has any recording or third-party verification of her supposed conversation with this "Samantha"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 April 15, 2011 QuoteAnyhow, it's been a busy thread. Do you have any info on whether Ms. Rose has any recording or third-party verification of her supposed conversation with this "Samantha"? No, I don't - do you have any disproving it? Live Action is based in California - a state requiring consent of all parties for recording telephone conversations. Wanna give me an over/under on PP saying "sure, you can record this"?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KidWicked 0 #31 April 16, 2011 QuoteNot to mention all of Obama latest speach His what?Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #32 April 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteAnyhow, it's been a busy thread. Do you have any info on whether Ms. Rose has any recording or third-party verification of her supposed conversation with this "Samantha"? No, I don't - do you have any disproving it? Live Action is based in California - a state requiring consent of all parties for recording telephone conversations. Wanna give me an over/under on PP saying "sure, you can record this"? Well, one of Live Action's frequently-used tactics is to make undercover contacts with PP and use hidden video cameras (with sound) to record the contacts, so it seemed a reasonable question. The reported facts don't indicate whether the call was made from or to CA (thus implicating its statute). But I do know that the CA law would not be implicated by merely having a person surreptitiously listen-in on the call. As for proving or disproving, given that Live Action is by its own definition a strongly issue-partisan organization, i.e., its purpose is to have and act upon a strong bias on the issue, I'd think the initial burden would be on Ms. Rose to prove the veracity of her claim, not on others to disprove it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,028 #33 April 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteAnyhow, it's been a busy thread. Do you have any info on whether Ms. Rose has any recording or third-party verification of her supposed conversation with this "Samantha"? No, I don't - do you have any disproving it? As usual you have no clue where the burden of proof lies over disputed claims. Do you have any PROOF that Sarah Palin isn't a Martian?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 April 16, 2011 QuoteAs usual you have no clue where the burden of proof lies over disputed claims. As the thread shows, Andy makes the claim that the call could be faked - as the person making the claim, the burden of proof falls on him. Better luck next time, perfesser.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #35 April 16, 2011 QuoteDuring a recent speech, Sen, John Kyl attacked Planned Parenthood, saying: "If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that’s well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does." It turns out that the number is actually less than three percent, and that most of what they do is _preventing_ unwanted pregnancy, preventing and treating STD's, and performing cancer screening. When confronted with these facts, Kyl replied that his "remark was not intended to be a factual statement" but that he just used it to demonstrate how bad they were. "Pro-Life" is code for "Anti-Woman." And cancer screening doesn't just mean mammograms. [not directed at you Bill] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,028 #36 April 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteAs usual you have no clue where the burden of proof lies over disputed claims. As the thread shows, Andy makes the claim that the call could be faked - as the person making the claim, the burden of proof falls on him. Better luck next time, perfesser. Ummm - no, that's NOT the way it works.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #37 April 16, 2011 QuoteQuote[kallend:] As usual you have no clue where the burden of proof lies over disputed claims. [mnealtx:] As the thread shows, Andy makes the claim that the call could be faked [andy:] My posts were inquiries, and not claims. They say what they say, and they don't say what they don't say. I stand by them as they are written by me, verbatim. Quote[mnelatx:]- as the person making the claim, the burden of proof falls on him. [andy:] The person making the claim is Ms. Rose, who would be the first to admit that she has a strongly partisan position on the issue. Thus, the initial burden to substantiate her factual allegation falls on her. Should she meet that initial burden, the burden of rebuttal might very well shift to others. But until such time, such burden is still hers. Like it or not, that's how it works. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #38 April 16, 2011 QuoteDo you have any PROOF that Sarah Palin isn't a Martian? The Federation has refused to turn over her [its?] original "birth" records. The fish stinks from the head down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,500 #39 April 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteAs usual you have no clue where the burden of proof lies over disputed claims. As the thread shows, Andy makes the claim that the call could be faked - as the person making the claim, the burden of proof falls on him. Wow. So let me get this straight: When someone makes a claim without any shred of evidence whatsoever, the burden of proof lies first with the person who challenges the claim to provide evidence that shows that the claim could be false, before the person making the original claim needs to provide any evidence showing that it's true, despite the logical impossibility of providing negative evidence of that sort. Now, you'll have to do very well indeed from this point to try and convince anyone that you're not blinded by partisanship here, because if anyone ever came at you with that kind of ballsed up logic you would have a fucking field day and you know it.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 April 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote[kallend:] As usual you have no clue where the burden of proof lies over disputed claims. [mnealtx:] As the thread shows, Andy makes the claim that the call could be faked [andy:] My posts were inquiries, and not claims. They say what they say, and they don't say what they don't say. I stand by them as they are written by me, verbatim. Quote[mnelatx:]- as the person making the claim, the burden of proof falls on him. [andy:] The person making the claim is Ms. Rose, who would be the first to admit that she has a strongly partisan position on the issue. Thus, the initial burden to substantiate her factual allegation falls on her. Should she meet that initial burden, the burden of rebuttal might very well shift to others. But until such time, such burden is still hers. Like it or not, that's how it works. Then stop asking me and go ask her. I did not consider Ms. Rose as part of the discussion between ourselves. You claim that Ms. Rose has a partisan position - I'm sure she does. PP also has a partisan position claiming that abortion services are a very small part of their operation, when it provides a large part of their funding (some 35-40%).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #41 April 16, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote[kallend:] As usual you have no clue where the burden of proof lies over disputed claims. [mnealtx:] As the thread shows, Andy makes the claim that the call could be faked [andy:] My posts were inquiries, and not claims. They say what they say, and they don't say what they don't say. I stand by them as they are written by me, verbatim. Quote[mnelatx:]- as the person making the claim, the burden of proof falls on him. [andy:] The person making the claim is Ms. Rose, who would be the first to admit that she has a strongly partisan position on the issue. Thus, the initial burden to substantiate her factual allegation falls on her. Should she meet that initial burden, the burden of rebuttal might very well shift to others. But until such time, such burden is still hers. Like it or not, that's how it works. Then stop asking me and go ask her. I did not consider Ms. Rose as part of the discussion between ourselves. You claim that Ms. Rose has a partisan position - I'm sure she does. PP also has a partisan position claiming that abortion services are a very small part of their operation, when it provides a large part of their funding (some 35-40%). More weasel bullshit from the fact challenged right wing nitwits of the world. If Newmax and Faux News had started to spread the talking point that the sky is green, sure as shit the RWCs would start repeating the lies as being true, in spite of plenty of evidence to the contrary. Facts and demonstrable proof have no place in right wing world. Only strongly held beliefs that have little to no basis in reality are acceptable. These are the same folks that think that the Tea Party was an independent grass roots movement that had did not involve Dick Armey and the Koch brothers in any way, despite plenty of factual evidence. I repeat the challenge above - Where is the proof that Sarah "Pinhead" Palin is not a Martian? I read somewhere that she was, so it must be true. No one can provide any proof that contradicts what I read on some web site on the 'net. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #42 April 16, 2011 QuoteOnly strongly held beliefs that have little to no basis in reality are acceptable. But, enough about your posting. QuoteThese are the same folks that think that the Tea Party was an independent grass roots movement that had did not involve Dick Armey and the Koch brothers in any way, despite plenty of factual evidence. *snerk* Yeah, whatever you say, skippy. QuoteI repeat the challenge above - Where is the proof that Sarah "Pinhead" Palin is not a Martian? I read somewhere that she was, so it must be true. No one can provide any proof that contradicts what I read on some web site on the 'net. Thanks for proving the delusion, bub.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #43 April 17, 2011 >PP also has a partisan position claiming that abortion services are a very small part of >their operation, when it provides a large part of their funding (some 35-40%). (Disclaimer - the above was used for effect only and was not intended to be a factual statement.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #44 April 17, 2011 I thought this thread was about politicians that lie - not the sideshow that seems to be happening. Is anyone really surprised that politicians lie? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #45 April 17, 2011 Kyl's an asshole - I intend this to be a statement of fact. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #46 April 18, 2011 QuoteNo, if it wasn't submitted for tracing it doesn't mean anything about whether it can be traced. It probably means it's less likely to be traceable to the US (everyone loves to be able to blame someone else), but the two are completely separate from each other. they weren't traced to any point on this planet -- that's very different from saying they couldn't be. Wendy P. You are correct in challenging his logic. He makes an unsupportable statement. However additional facts are available which show his conclusion to be correct, regardless of how he reached it. (I'm not going to put in the cites, I'm on my phone. This has been hashed out here on dz.com and can also be checked elsewhere) Mexican cartels and the assorted other bandidos use grenades, RPGs, full-auto machine guns, and various other military hardware. This equipment comes from two main sources: (A) it comes from the Mexican military through theft or purchase and (B) it is smuggled in from other countries - not the USA. The only civilian legal arm used with any real frequency is the .50 cal rifle. Think about it. These people specialize in procuring, protecting, and making a profit on items that are illegal in their country of origin, their country of destination, and in Mexico. Firearms are also illegal in Mexico. With that in mind, do you think they settle for lesser firearms, or go for top notch? Finally, you shouldn't assume the unlisted arms were never traced to their origin. The number used to reach the ridiculous 90% figure are weapons reported to the BATFE. There's no point in reporting a Mexican Army rifle to an American agency for tracing. Mexican diplomats have stated that only guns likely to have come from the USA are reported for tracing by BATFE. Mexico is capable of tracking their own internally, and may liase with other countries the same way they do with us.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #47 April 18, 2011 QuoteDV has provided very little background info, but if the selection of guns handed over for tracing by the US is a random selection, then it's way, way more than you would need to have confidence in the results. OTOH, if they've done their own tracing first and only handed over the ones they didn't already know were from Mexico/wherever else, then DV has a point. It is not random, they only turned in 6k of the 29k for tracing. Of those 29k, 18k they either already knew where they were from (by identifying marks), or could not tell (due to lack of identifying marks). So they only TRIED to trace 11k out of the 29k. Of the 11K they tried to trace were only able to trace 6K. Of the 6k they were able to trace, 90% were from the US (5114). Fact is that any gun in the US since 1968 has markings that clearly identify it..... 18k of the guns used in this study clearly were not from the US and were not sent in for tracing. Of the 11k that were sent in, only 6k were able to be traced. Of the 6k that were traced, 90% were from the US. To use the 90% number is clearly BS and playing with semantics. The number of weapons found in Mexico that came from the US is ~18%. This includes weapons stolen, straw purchased weapons, and projects like 'gunwalker'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #48 April 18, 2011 QuoteFunny how a Planned Parenthood thread quickly got twisted to a gun thread. The thread was about how politicians lie. I just provided another example to balance out the D v R. both sides do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #49 April 18, 2011 Quote Do you have any PROOF that Sarah Palin isn't a Martian? She has a birth certificate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #50 April 18, 2011 Quote"Pro-Life" is code for "Anti-Woman." I call bullshit. I do not see how thinking that conception starts life and that the most innocent human is an unborn baby equals anything near "anti-woman". We have groups that think capital punishment is wrong... would you call those people "Pro-criminal" or "Anti-Victim"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)