Second Republican Debate

[XtremeJibber2001]

Is anyone actually debating whether PP is in the right or the wrong? Don't we all agree they're in the wrong?

[Coydog]

"I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the internet that has led to these protests..."

Yes, protests. The protests that were happening all over the Middle East. So we still have no statement from Clinton claiming the video was the reason for the Libyan Embassy attack. Now Susan Rice, that's a different matter to which I call your attention to this summary of the Republican led HIC report:Oct. 15: Clinton, in an interview on CNN, blamed the “fog of war” when asked why the administration initially claimed the attack began with the anti-Muslim video, even though the State Department never reached that conclusion. “In the wake of an attack like this in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion, and I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence,” Clinton said. “Everyone who spoke tried to give the information they had. As time has gone on, the information has changed, we’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising. That always happens.”

Makes my point, the State Department and Clinton did not reach that conclusion. Rice, the UN Ambassador, expressed the administration's initial talking points, not Clinton, but Moose conflates Rice with Clinton. Either way, after spending millions of dollars, the Republican led HIC concludes no one in the administration lied about Benghazi. Now they're on to email servers.

Maybe they'll find Fiorina's video.

[madhatter]

"I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the internet that has led to these protests..."

Yes, protests. The protests that were happening all over the Middle East. So we still have no statement from Clinton claiming the video was the reason for the Libyan Embassy attack. Now Susan Rice, that's a different matter to which I call your attention to this summary of the Republican led HIC report:Oct. 15: Clinton, in an interview on CNN, blamed the “fog of war” when asked why the administration initially claimed the attack began with the anti-Muslim video, even though the State Department never reached that conclusion. “In the wake of an attack like this in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion, and I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence,” Clinton said. “Everyone who spoke tried to give the information they had. As time has gone on, the information has changed, we’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising. That always happens.”

Makes my point, the State Department and Clinton did not reach that conclusion. Rice, the UN Ambassador, expressed the administration's initial talking points, not Clinton, but Moose conflates Rice with Clinton. Either way, after spending millions of dollars, the Republican led HIC concludes no one in the administration lied about Benghazi. Now they're on to email servers.

Maybe they'll find Fiorina's video.

pure SPINno one in the obama administration reaches a conclusion on anything unless its damning to republicans or I guess police....

[boston_e]

Don't we all agree they're in the wrong?

No, they are not in the wrong.

[Mister Moose]

Rice, the UN Ambassador, expressed the administration's initial talking points, not Clinton, but Moose conflates Rice with Clinton. Either way, after spending millions of dollars, the Republican led HIC concludes no one in the administration lied about Benghazi. Now they're on to email servers.

Maybe they'll find Fiorina's video.

2nd example. Of course, you can choose not to believe him. Skip to 1:35 if you just want to hear the Hillary part.

[Mister Moose]

3rd example: (Bold added for emphasis)

Clinton made the Obama administration's first official comment on the attack six hours after it commenced and while it was continuing.

The statement was headlined "Statement on the attack on Benghazi" and it contained this graph:

"Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-i ... le/2547937" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[XtremeJibber2001]

Don't we all agree they're in the wrong?

No, they are not in the wrong.

There are a lot of valuable reasons / causes to harvest the organs of humans at all ages when their life is over. Whether the life is over because of someone's instructions in their living will or a mother/father's choice to abort their baby. However, the manner in which organs are harvested and sold, including abortion procedures, should follow a controlled process with oversight. In the same way the FDA oversees drug manufacturing, the SEC oversees financial reporting, EPA oversees emissions, OCC oversees banks, etc.

If there is an established process in place and a regulatory body overseeing the process, and it's not being followed or oversight is being applied improperly, organizations should be punished ... in the same way pharmas, banks, and others are punished for not following the rules (albeit not harshly enough).

To hear parents of aborted children (or due to other complications) were not aware their child's organs were being harvested or sold or that they had consented but were not aware they were going to a research company instead of saving another child is sickening.

You're right though, there is nothing wrong here and nothing must change.

[boston_e]

Don't we all agree they're in the wrong?

No, they are not in the wrong.

However, the manner in which organs are harvested and sold, including abortion procedures, should follow a controlled process with oversight. In the same way the FDA oversees drug manufacturing, the SEC oversees financial reporting, EPA oversees emissions, OCC oversees banks, etc.

If there is an established process in place and a regulatory body overseeing the process, and it's not being followed or oversight is being applied improperly, organizations should be punished ... in the same way pharmas, banks, and others are punished for not following the rules (albeit not harshly enough).

There are established federal laws regulating all of this and evidently PP broke no laws.

Fetal tissue research has yielded horrible things such as vaccines for Polio and Measles.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Don't we all agree they're in the wrong?

No, they are not in the wrong.

However, the manner in which organs are harvested and sold, including abortion procedures, should follow a controlled process with oversight. In the same way the FDA oversees drug manufacturing, the SEC oversees financial reporting, EPA oversees emissions, OCC oversees banks, etc.

If there is an established process in place and a regulatory body overseeing the process, and it's not being followed or oversight is being applied improperly, organizations should be punished ... in the same way pharmas, banks, and others are punished for not following the rules (albeit not harshly enough).

There are established federal laws regulating all of this and evidently PP broke no laws.

Fetal tissue research has yielded horrible things such as vaccines for Polio and Measles.

You're right, PP broke no laws, doesn't make me agree with the manner in which they operate as a business. I know you snipped what I said, but I started by acknowledging the value of research.

[madhatter]

Don't we all agree they're in the wrong?

No, they are not in the wrong.

However, the manner in which organs are harvested and sold, including abortion procedures, should follow a controlled process with oversight. In the same way the FDA oversees drug manufacturing, the SEC oversees financial reporting, EPA oversees emissions, OCC oversees banks, etc.

If there is an established process in place and a regulatory body overseeing the process, and it's not being followed or oversight is being applied improperly, organizations should be punished ... in the same way pharmas, banks, and others are punished for not following the rules (albeit not harshly enough).

There are established federal laws regulating all of this and evidently PP broke no laws.

Fetal tissue research has yielded horrible things such as vaccines for Polio and Measles.

You're right, PP broke no laws, doesn't make me agree with the manner in which they operate as a business. I know you snipped what I said, but I started by acknowledging the value of research.

you sure? cuz I'm pretty sure they are not allowed to alter the "process" in any way in order to preserve the tissue for future use or something to that effect..

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... re-illegal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Mister Moose]

And here is Fiorina's PAC response to the video question.



Fiorina has obstacles to overcome; her record at HP, her defense of outsourcing, her firing, her Senate loss in California. It will be interesting to see how she does by her own measure; "Over time, under pressure".

I recently have been thinking we have been trending towards too long a presidential election process. Way too much money is spent, and that money must be raised with corresponding promises made. Most people don't even care or pay attention in the pre-primary process. However this election, on both sides, will benefit from the Fiorina Test. We will see if Hillary warrants the trust of the nation. We will hopefully learn more about Sander's vision of a socialist free market. We will get a better view of Trump's plans, instead of just his ability to "hire the right people" and study up between November and January. We will see if Ben Carson's brand of speaking his mind and not being politically correct carries him or sinks him. It takes time to study a candidate, and watch him/her react to a year's worth of crises. Perhaps in this year of Trump, we find that there needs to be a season of President Apprentice, and this time Trump is in our boardroom.


One thing I haven't heard discussed yet is why fetal organs are sold, but adult organs are not. Should there be a difference?
Why aren't fetal organs (and if you have an intact fetus outside the womb with a heartbeat, aren't they baby organs?) handled the same way? Claiming you are non profit, and that your 501c makes it ok to charge for organs is pretty far down the slippery slope. There's just too many ways to push the beads on the accounting abacus. It introduces a conflict of interest for the procurers, the sellers, the management. It establishes a marketplace where there should be none. I think they should donate tissue and organs to qualified research organizations, not charge for them.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I think they should donate tissue and organs to qualified research organizations, not charge for them.

I believe this is what they do when an adult donates their organs/tissue and there isn't a recipient or the organs/tissue are not usable. I agree with all your points.

[boston_e]

I recently have been thinking we have been trending towards too long a presidential election process. Way too much money is spent, and that money must be raised with corresponding promises made. Most people don't even care or pay attention in the pre-primary process.

Trending towards? It is already way to long. Unless everyone really likes 18 months of innane political commercials from both sides? I can't imagine what it must be like for anyone who lives in a "swing" state.

One thing I haven't heard discussed yet is why fetal organs are sold, but adult organs are not. Should there be a difference?
Why aren't fetal organs (and if you have an intact fetus outside the womb with a heartbeat, aren't they baby organs?) handled the same way? Claiming you are non profit, and that your 501c makes it ok to charge for organs is pretty far down the slippery slope. There's just too many ways to push the beads on the accounting abacus. It introduces a conflict of interest for the procurers, the sellers, the management. It establishes a marketplace where there should be none. I think they should donate tissue and organs to qualified research organizations, not charge for them.

Well, technically they are being donated, but somebody has to cover the costs of it all... thus the "sale". So if the recipient does not pay for those costs, who does?

Who pays for the associated costs if (for example) someone receives a donated kidney?

Cutting and pasting from the "fact check" website...

The “sale” of organs, both adult and fetal, for transplantation is indeed illegal, but donation of tissue — both from aborted fetuses and from adults — is not. And payment for “reasonable” costs is allowed under the law.
A portion of title 42 of the U.S. code, reads: “It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation if the transfer affects interstate commerce.” The law does include fetal tissue in its definitions. It says that the term “valuable consideration” doesn’t include “reasonable payments” for removal, transportation, preservation and other associated costs.

Should those "reasonable costs" be something regulated by the government? I'm not sure.

[madhatter]

Don't we all agree they're in the wrong?

No, they are not in the wrong.

However, the manner in which organs are harvested and sold, including abortion procedures, should follow a controlled process with oversight. In the same way the FDA oversees drug manufacturing, the SEC oversees financial reporting, EPA oversees emissions, OCC oversees banks, etc.

If there is an established process in place and a regulatory body overseeing the process, and it's not being followed or oversight is being applied improperly, organizations should be punished ... in the same way pharmas, banks, and others are punished for not following the rules (albeit not harshly enough).

There are established federal laws regulating all of this and evidently PP broke no laws.BULLSH!T just keep ignoring the "process" regulations and any others ya don't like....

Fetal tissue research has yielded horrible things such as vaccines for Polio and Measles.

[boston_e]

Don't we all agree they're in the wrong?

No, they are not in the wrong.

However, the manner in which organs are harvested and sold, including abortion procedures, should follow a controlled process with oversight. In the same way the FDA oversees drug manufacturing, the SEC oversees financial reporting, EPA oversees emissions, OCC oversees banks, etc.

If there is an established process in place and a regulatory body overseeing the process, and it's not being followed or oversight is being applied improperly, organizations should be punished ... in the same way pharmas, banks, and others are punished for not following the rules (albeit not harshly enough).

There are established federal laws regulating all of this and evidently PP broke no laws.BULLSH!T just keep ignoring the "process" regulations and any others ya don't like....

Fetal tissue research has yielded horrible things such as vaccines for Polio and Measles.

Right, because the anti choice group's propoganda video says they did just makes it so!

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/ ... aking-law/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Based on everything CMP has released so far, Planned Parenthood broke no laws"

"Federal law is also clear that providers cannot change abortion procedures specifically to accommodate fetal tissue collection needs. This means, for example, a provider cannot change from a D and E abortion to a D and C abortion specifically to accommodate a donation or transplant request. Providers can, however, make sure their specifically chosen procedure is done in a fashion that accommodates a patient’s transplant or donation request."