Re: Second Republican Debate
Posted: Sep 23rd, '15, 09:34
Is anyone actually debating whether PP is in the right or the wrong? Don't we all agree they're in the wrong?
Welcome to the Killington Zone Message Board
https://www.killingtonzone.com/forums/
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.madhatter wrote:Coydog wrote: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.”Mister Moose wrote: "I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the internet that has led to these protests..."
pure SPINno one in the obama administration reaches a conclusion on anything unless its damning to republicans or I guess police....Coydog wrote: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.madhatter wrote:Coydog wrote: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.”Mister Moose wrote: "I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the internet that has led to these protests..."
Maybe they'll find Fiorina's video.
No, they are not in the wrong.XtremeJibber2001 wrote: Don't we all agree they're in the wrong?
2nd example. Of course, you can choose not to believe him. Skip to 1:35 if you just want to hear the Hillary part.Coydog wrote: 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.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-i ... le/2547937" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;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."
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.boston_e wrote:No, they are not in the wrong.XtremeJibber2001 wrote: Don't we all agree they're in the wrong?
There are established federal laws regulating all of this and evidently PP broke no laws.XtremeJibber2001 wrote: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.boston_e wrote:No, they are not in the wrong.XtremeJibber2001 wrote: Don't we all agree they're in the wrong?
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).
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.boston_e wrote:There are established federal laws regulating all of this and evidently PP broke no laws.XtremeJibber2001 wrote: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.boston_e wrote:No, they are not in the wrong.XtremeJibber2001 wrote: Don't we all agree they're in the wrong?
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).
Fetal tissue research has yielded horrible things such as vaccines for Polio and Measles.
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..XtremeJibber2001 wrote: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.boston_e wrote:There are established federal laws regulating all of this and evidently PP broke no laws.XtremeJibber2001 wrote: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.boston_e wrote:No, they are not in the wrong.XtremeJibber2001 wrote: Don't we all agree they're in the wrong?
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).
Fetal tissue research has yielded horrible things such as vaccines for Polio and Measles.
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.Mister Moose wrote:I think they should donate tissue and organs to qualified research organizations, not charge for them.
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.Mister Moose wrote:
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.
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?Mister Moose wrote:
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.
boston_e wrote: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....XtremeJibber2001 wrote: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.boston_e wrote:No, they are not in the wrong.XtremeJibber2001 wrote: Don't we all agree they're in the wrong?
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).
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!madhatter wrote:boston_e wrote: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....XtremeJibber2001 wrote: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.boston_e wrote:No, they are not in the wrong.XtremeJibber2001 wrote: Don't we all agree they're in the wrong?
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).
Fetal tissue research has yielded horrible things such as vaccines for Polio and Measles.