House nixes funds for Komen over PP ties

[JoeB131]

Your oft repeated Kellerman lie is a classic. I decided to embarrass you with it for the 7,429th time.

sorry, man, if Kellerman got it wrong, the NRA would be demanding more studies, not trying to prevent anyone from studying the issue, ever again.

The thing was, Kellerman got it completely right. And that terrifies the gun nuts. If people knew how dangerous guns were to their families, the gun industry would be going the way of the tobacco industry.

 

[JoeB131]

Bothers the shit out of you, doesn't it?

Naw, I'm amused by how many of you wingnuts are obsessed with me. I usually don't give most of you a second thought.

So why does the Founding Father's quote bother you so much? Because you don't like the fact you live in a country founded on slavery and genocide?

 

[Ernie S.]

Your oft repeated Kellerman lie is a classic. I decided to embarrass you with it for the 7,429th time.

sorry, man, if Kellerman got it wrong, the NRA would be demanding more studies, not trying to prevent anyone from studying the issue, ever again.

The thing was, Kellerman got it completely right. And that terrifies the gun nuts. If people knew how dangerous guns were to their families, the gun industry would be going the way of the tobacco industry.

As has been pointed out to you several hundred times, there is no need for the NRA to dispute Kellerman. Kellerman himself revised his numbers.
BUT, you keep bringing up this magic 43 times number as if you think people will forget that you're talking out of your ass.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Why were they getting money in the first place?

 

[Ernie S.]

Bothers the shit out of you, doesn't it?

Naw, I'm amused by how many of you wingnuts are obsessed with me. I usually don't give most of you a second thought.

So why does the Founding Father's quote bother you so much? Because you don't like the fact you live in a country founded on slavery and genocide?

No one is obsessed with you, joe. You are, however, entertaining in a tragic kind of way.
The quote in my signature doesn't bother me at all. It is there to bother you.

And a damned fine job it's doing, I'd say.

 

[Ernie S.]

Why were they getting money in the first place?

Huh?

 

[Manonthestreet]

Why were they getting money in the first place?

Huh?

S l o w l y........w h y w e r e t h e y g e t t i n g a n y g o v t m o n e y

 

[Ernie S.]

OK forgot the thread title. The thread was wandered a bit from the OP.

Why? To do breast cancer research. One could argue that that is within the scope of the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.
The rub is that Komen gives a large part of their funding to Planned Parenthood.
Funding abortion is NOT within the scope of General Welfare.

 

[JoeB131]

As has been pointed out to you several hundred times, there is no need for the NRA to dispute Kellerman. Kellerman himself revised his numbers.
BUT, you keep bringing up this magic 43 times number as if you think people will forget that you're talking out of your ass.

Kellerman never revised his numbers. In fact, he repeated his date in other cities..

Emory Magazine Arthur Kellermann

Kellermann found an almost absolute void in the consideration of that question. The most relevant item he discovered in the medical literature was a one-line mention in an old issue of the New England Journal of Medicine that asserted that a gun in the home was six times more likely to be involved in an accidental death of a family member than to be used to kill an intruder in self-defense. "I saw that observation quoted repeatedly in subsequent editorials or medical reviews but no additional research on the question," he says.

Kellermann has spent much of his professional life trying to fill that gap. His studies have found a strong link between guns and violent death. For example:

• In a 1986 study that examined gunshot deaths in Seattle over a six-year period, he found that "even after the exclusion of firearm-related suicides, guns kept at home were involved in the death of a member of the household eighteen times more often than in the death of an [intruder]."
  
  
• Kellermann and several colleagues published a study in 1988 that examined the link between handgun regulations and handgun homicide and assault in Vancouver, a city that had adopted "a more restrictive approach to the regulation of handguns," and Seattle. The study found that "the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver."
  
  
• In 1993, Kellermann was the lead investigator in a study that looked at homicides that occurred in homes in Cleveland, Memphis, and Seattle over five years. The results showed that homicides occurred nearly three times more often in homes where guns were stored than in otherwise comparable homes where there was no gun.

 

[JoeB131]

No one is obsessed with you, joe. You are, however, entertaining in a tragic kind of way.
The quote in my signature doesn't bother me at all. It is there to bother you.

Well, it shows you have this weird obession with me. By the way, the neighbors have been complaining about all the pork rinds you keep leaving in the bushes.

 

[JoeB131]

OK forgot the thread title. The thread was wandered a bit from the OP.

Why? To do breast cancer research. One could argue that that is within the scope of the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.
The rub is that Komen gives a large part of their funding to Planned Parenthood.
Funding abortion is NOT within the scope of General Welfare.

Oh, I don't know, I think preventing the births of unwanted children definitely promotes the general welfare.

The prisons are filled with "should have been abortions".

 

[Ernie S.]

OK forgot the thread title. The thread was wandered a bit from the OP.

Why? To do breast cancer research. One could argue that that is within the scope of the General Welfare clause of the Constitution.
The rub is that Komen gives a large part of their funding to Planned Parenthood.
Funding abortion is NOT within the scope of General Welfare.

Oh, I don't know, I think preventing the births of unwanted children definitely promotes the general welfare.

The prisons are filled with "should have been abortions".

I could, in part, agree with your second statement if you changed "prisons" to Democrat Party.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No one is against breast cancer research. Some people are against a research facility taking government money and using some of it to promote Planned Parenthood.
Simple minds can't grasp the difference.

Suppose the government was going to send a billion dollars to a facility that was trying to cure testicular cancer and you learned that they were about to give 20% of that money to Marco Rubio's Presidential campaign. How would you react to that?

Not really the same thing, as PP does pap smears, cancer screening and other things that are actually related to cancer treatment.

But you mutants just go attack the people who do Breast Cancer Treatment. Can't get that War on Women started soon enough.

Yup PP does some good things., but that wasn't the question. I asked how you would feel if federal money budgeted for testicular cancer research ended up in Marco Rubio's campaign fund.
There is no war on women. I love them all AND their titties. I'd be happy to give money for breast cancer research as long as none of it went to abortion mills.
Please try to answer without the war on women, starve children force old folks to eat dog food bullshit.

How you would feel if federal money budgeted for testicular cancer research ended up in Marco Rubio's campaign fund?

PP CLAIMS to do good things that they don't actually do...and they hide the stuff they DO do.

That's right. Just toss the stuff you don't want to hear and substitute with nonsense.