eugenics ;) You just keep the chuckles coming, doncha, Sam.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> How dare they try to take on the eugenics crowd.
>
> .
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Larry C. Lyons
> wrote:
> >
> > Not sure that will happen. Given that it's board is composed of
well I am in favor of funding for breast cancer research so I hope they
don't do that cause too much damage along the way. But their behavior on
the issue so far *was* a problem and needed to be addressed. That said,
breast cancer is common, and also well understood, which means there are a
lot of
How dare they try to take on the eugenics crowd.
.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Not sure that will happen. Given that it's board is composed of mainly
> former Bush II admin officials, I suspect that the fun is just beginning.
> When it's over they will blame everyt
Not sure that will happen. Given that it's board is composed of mainly
former Bush II admin officials, I suspect that the fun is just beginning.
When it's over they will blame everything but their own actions for
treating the position as a sinecure and bringing the foundation down to the
ground.
Given that the politico newsroom is next door to me, then yes I can say
that they are. Also look who owns them, Allbritton Communications, which is
owned by people who served in the Reagan and Bush I Whitehouses. Gives you
a hint about the tone of the firm. Of course since its not a raving
frothin
I find it interesting that you charge anyone not a part of your little
group think is a troll.
But your little group think digs are very impressive. They make you
look smart, at least to the little group.
.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:09 AM, PT wrote:
>
> And the class troll doesn't respond to
Nothing.
It was a way of changing the subject rather than addressing the issue.
You folks love doing that.
.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> What does Fast and Furious have to do with either the Komen foundation
> or Planned Parenthood? Except in your little world tha
And the class troll doesn't respond to the question asked as expected.
On 2/5/2012 8:29 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> And the class clown says something stupid as expected.
>
> .
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amaz
What does Fast and Furious have to do with either the Komen foundation
or Planned Parenthood? Except in your little world that is.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> OK let's skip ahead to this congress. They're investigating fast and
> furious. It's seems that since the investigati
You know Sam you are making less sense than usual (if that is at all possible).
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> Methinks you should start consulting with the ferrets before you post.
>
> .
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>>
>> I guess our really dumb cat
PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Susan G. Komen backs down on Planned Parenthood
Your response is congress does nothing good so you are always right?
Do you know Eric?
.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> When Congress actually produces a solution to any of t
Methinks you should start consulting with the ferrets before you post.
.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> I guess our really dumb cat is like Sam then, he's never figured that
> out and keeps on chasing it and chasing it and chasing it...
>
OK let's skip ahead to this congress. They're investigating fast and
furious. It's seems that since the investigation started the program
has stopped. Lives saved right there. Existing problem thwarted.
.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> This Congress. Existing problems. Wh
I guess our really dumb cat is like Sam then, he's never figured that
out and keeps on chasing it and chasing it and chasing it...
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 9:15 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> but usually cats figure it out after a day or two ;)
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah
that is also what McCarthy did, same tactics same odious attempt.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> That what congress is doing.
>
> .
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Maureen wrote:
>>
>> There is no evidence that any of the Komen funds were used for
>> anything other than brea
This Congress. Existing problems. What does the Bill of Rights have
to do with that.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 8:01 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Let's start with the Bill of Rights and then work our way through the
> centuries.
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Maureen wrote:
>>
>> Even sadder is that
Let's start with the Bill of Rights and then work our way through the centuries.
.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Even sadder is that you will never realize why that statement makes
> sense, because you seem to be unable to recognize the difference
> between facts and opini
Even sadder is that you will never realize why that statement makes
sense, because you seem to be unable to recognize the difference
between facts and opinion. However, if you are convinced that the
fact as stated is wrong offer your proof.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Sad thi
Sad thing is you believe that statement makes sense. Even sadder is
other fools will high five you.
.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> No. I am saying that the statement "Congress has solved none of the
> existing problems" is a fact. It has nothing to do with me being
> righ
Remind me when I see you to tell you the story of the cat and the dildo.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> but usually cats figure it out after a day or two ;)
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah, but it's funny as hell to watch him run in circles chasi
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Dana wrote:
> but usually cats figure it out after a day or two ;)
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah, but it's funny as hell to watch him run in circles chasing his tail.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Dana wrote:
>> >
>> >
but usually cats figure it out after a day or two ;)
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Yeah, but it's funny as hell to watch him run in circles chasing his tail.
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Dana wrote:
> >
> > quickly tiresome and ultimately pointless?
> >
> > On Sun,
Yeah, but it's funny as hell to watch him run in circles chasing his tail.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> quickly tiresome and ultimately pointless?
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah, it's the same kind of fun as teasing the cat with the laser poin
quickly tiresome and ultimately pointless?
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Yeah, it's the same kind of fun as teasing the cat with the laser pointer.
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Larry C. Lyons
> wrote:
> >
> > please don't confuse Sam with facts. He starts to pout an
Yeah, it's the same kind of fun as teasing the cat with the laser pointer.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> please don't confuse Sam with facts. He starts to pout and gets upset.
~|
Order the Adobe Cold
please don't confuse Sam with facts. He starts to pout and gets upset.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> No. I am saying that the statement "Congress has solved none of the
> existing problems" is a fact. It has nothing to do with me being
> right or wrong. Facts are facts.
>
and you certainly are opinionated. I wonder if there is a connection.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> You know what they say about opinions?
> ...
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Maureen wrote:
>>
>> No, what Congress is doing is wasting time and taxpayer money making
>> po
No. I am saying that the statement "Congress has solved none of the
existing problems" is a fact. It has nothing to do with me being
right or wrong. Facts are facts.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Your response is congress does nothing good so you are always right?
> Do you kno
the point is, Sam, that it was one part of a primary care visit. You're
belittling a group that provides primary care where it's needed, and you're
saying the *left* is looking for a boogeyman? Go be outraged about people
who aren't saving lives, Sam.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Sam wrote:
And the class clown says something stupid as expected.
.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 8:01 PM, PT wrote:
>
> No. No. You need to answer in Sam-think.
>
> Ahem.
>
> So, are you saying this is a real problem?
~|
Order the Adobe Col
Your response is congress does nothing good so you are always right?
Do you know Eric?
.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> When Congress actually produces a solution to any of the existing
> problems facing the nation, you can label this opinion. Based on
> their current recor
Yeah, we've been over this. There other services have little to do
with breast cancer funding. The mammogram they sent you for at a
reduced price was paid for by the State. It's good to know they told
you where to get it done but they don't get finders credit. The breast
checks are good to have b
No. No. You need to answer in Sam-think.
Ahem.
So, are you saying this is a real problem?
On 2/5/2012 7:57 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> When Congress actually produces a solution to any of the existing
> problems facing the nation, you can label this opinion. Based on
> their current record, it's a
When Congress actually produces a solution to any of the existing
problems facing the nation, you can label this opinion. Based on
their current record, it's a stone fact.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> You know what they say about opinions?
> ...
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 6:
ok well, yanno... I'm speaking as someone who has been a Planned Parenthood
patient, and you aren't interested, which probably tells us everything we
need to know. But I'll explain this one more time. I show up and say yanno,
just got here, haven't made contact with the coumadin clinic, but I hav
no. Why should it be?
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Is that a breast cancer treatment?
>
> .
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Dana wrote:
> >
> > it's not even just GYN care! They were keeping me in coumadin when I
> first
> > moved to California, which probably only saved
You know what they say about opinions?
...
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> No, what Congress is doing is wasting time and taxpayer money making
> political hay on this red herring nonsense instead of finding
> solutions for the real problems.
>
~~
The shoes and gloves fit in this case...
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 4:38 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Susan G. Komen backs down on Planned Parenthood
if the shoe fits...
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:26 PM
No, what Congress is doing is wasting time and taxpayer money making
political hay on this red herring nonsense instead of finding
solutions for the real problems.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> That what congress is doing.
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Maureen wrote:
>>
>
I am responding to your comment in a non meaningful way?
On 2/5/2012 6:13 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> That what congress is doing.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/14302721
That what congress is doing.
.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> There is no evidence that any of the Komen funds were used for
> anything other than breast exams and screenings. There is also no
> evidence, in spite of the political nonsense being spread by the
> opposition,
There is no evidence that any of the Komen funds were used for
anything other than breast exams and screenings. There is also no
evidence, in spite of the political nonsense being spread by the
opposition, that any taxpayer funds were used for abortions.
If you have proof, you should produce it.
I swear you guys are twins
.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> if the shoe fits...
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=hous
Is that a breast cancer treatment?
.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> it's not even just GYN care! They were keeping me in coumadin when I first
> moved to California, which probably only saved my life. The thing that
> really makes me angry about this latest post is that we've
The primary age group is teen to low thirties.
Yes they might have a few over thirty.
PP does not perform mammograms. And of you did tell me things before
they were wrong then too.
.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> No. Not at all. This money was mammograms. You are wrong both a
You're turning an investment in curing breast cancer into a
contraception argument.
The Komen funds aren't intended to go to condoms or abortions.
.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Less than 4% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood involve
> abortion. The other se
if the shoe fits...
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> You shouldn't enter every discussion calling people facist or nazis
> and expect to participate.
>
> .
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Eric Roberts
> wrote:
>>
>> The clinic I used to ALSO provided ob/gyn care to many pregna
You shouldn't enter every discussion calling people facist or nazis
and expect to participate.
.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> The clinic I used to ALSO provided ob/gyn care to many pregnant women
> throughout their pregnancy. They do support life if that's the choice.
You're using emotion rather than logic to attack. The issue is breast
cancer, but you made my point. Many younger women that aren't likely
to get breast cancer use PP.
.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Erika L. Rich wrote:
>
> OMFG. Really? You turned it into abortions and you're coming down
Do you not now the difference between breast cancer and a pap smear?
.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> It is this sort of ignorance why I hold you in contempt. Have you any
> idea about what Planned Parenthood does? Aside from the reich wing
> mantra of abortion that
they are cheap if you need them to be, Sam. They'll ask for a certain
amount for an office visit -- which is rather low, around $45 as I recall
-- but if you can't pay it they will take what you can.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> One, we're discussing breast cancer.
> Two, the
it's not even just GYN care! They were keeping me in coumadin when I first
moved to California, which probably only saved my life. The thing that
really makes me angry about this latest post is that we've already had this
conversation and it's like I was talking to a wall when I told you before.
No. Not at all. This money was mammograms. You are wrong both about the age
group they serve and about the services they offer. They do primary care in
a lot of places; I told you that before.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> They don't need that small change. When a girl goes in
Less than 4% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood involve
abortion. The other services they do provide likely prevent more
abortions than all the rhetoric from the opposition. What is not
being said is that most of the opposition, especially that funded by
the Catholic church, is not j
The tax dollars subsidize them so they don't cost as much dumbass.
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 11:42 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Susan G. Komen backs down on Planned Parenthood
One, we're discussing bre
Pap smears and breast exams are among the MANY services PP provides
besides abortion care.
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 11:39 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Susan G. Komen backs down on Planned Parenthood
And they
mailto:elr...@ruwebby.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 9:51 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Susan G. Komen backs down on Planned Parenthood
Sam, I tend to largely ignore most of the stuff you talk about because I'm
not interested in politics like you are ... but I find these co
OMFG. Really? You turned it into abortions and you're coming down on me?
Whatever dude.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> And they have $billions for that, mostly tax dollars.
>
> We're discussing breast cancer prevention and you're talking pap smears.
> Stay focused and stop bei
One, we're discussing breast cancer.
Two, they are not cheap. They take tax dollars and charge for service.
.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> It is this sort of ignorance why I hold you in contempt. Have you any
> idea about what Planned Parenthood does? Aside from th
And they have $billions for that, mostly tax dollars.
We're discussing breast cancer prevention and you're talking pap smears.
Stay focused and stop being led by the fake outrage.
.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Erika L. Rich wrote:
>
> Sam, I tend to largely ignore most of the stuff you ta
It is this sort of ignorance why I hold you in contempt. Have you any
idea about what Planned Parenthood does? Aside from the reich wing
mantra of abortion that is. Frequently it is the only provider for
women's health in many areas, and for women who are poor. Frankly Sam
you really need to try
Sam, I tend to largely ignore most of the stuff you talk about because I'm
not interested in politics like you are ... but I find these comments to be
so abhorrent and ignorant it warranted a response.
Since you aren't a woman though, I guess I need to take your view point
with a grain of salt as
They don't need that small change. When a girl goes in for an
Abortion, I mean to plan parenthood, they get a quick breast exam
among a few other routine exams. That doesn't cost them extra but
qualifies them for other monies since it appears their purpose is no
longer solely abortion. Seams to wo
Well, they almost didn't have money to do any. Both problems would have
been solved and everyone should have been happy. So close. Maybe next
time.
On 2/4/2012 7:10 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> But PP is for Abortions and Komen is for Breast Cancer.
> So sending money to PP to support breast cancer is
But PP is for Abortions and Komen is for Breast Cancer.
So sending money to PP to support breast cancer is kind of backwards.
I mean they do perform breast exams but mainly for girls from teens to
late 20's which have a very low breast cancer rate.
.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:52 AM, William Bowe
The reason I know the spam and junk mail originated with PP is the
name I used on the donation with my first name misspelled is the same
as the name on the junk mail.
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> We've donated to planned parenthood before without any spam or email
>
We've donated to planned parenthood before without any spam or email
issues. The time a donation did result in a lot spam was when we made one
to the Smithsonian.
That said we made a $50 donation to Planned Parenthood yesterday. Given
that themKomen foundation's board is mostly made up of former
Curious, we've donated money and also donated time doing mailings and
whatnot and haven't had a problem with political junk mail. I wonder
what the difference is.
We donate to planned parenthood, human rights campaign and then a
handful of local environmental, political and arts groups. The spam
W: Susan G. Komen backs down on Planned Parenthood
I wonder how many big donors to Komen more than likely called up and pulled
their future donations, telling them they'd send it to Planned Parenthood
instead.
Would love to have been a fly on the wall in their offices these past few
days...
I donated money once to Planned Parenthood because a musician friend
was doing some fundraising for them. They sold my info - email
address, mailing address, etc..to every stupid political mailing list
on earth. So now I get a constant stream of political junk mail.
Won't be donating ever again.
. but then again you have called me
> worse...
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Erika L. Rich [mailto:elr...@ruwebby.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:47 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: FW: Susan G. Komen backs down on Planned Parenthood
>
>
> And th
You're not because we do the same thing.. but then again you have called me
worse...
-Original Message-
From: Erika L. Rich [mailto:elr...@ruwebby.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:47 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Susan G. Komen backs down on Planned Parenthood
And
Their decision to stop funding to any group that is working with stem cells
is also troubling to me.
They certainly have the right to stop funding any group they want. And
people have the right to stop giving them money if they don't like the
decisions.
The decision itself is different than I wo
And they use a HUGE amount of those donations to pay their legal fees,
business fees, salaries, etc. All in the name of the "cause". Not that they
don't do any good, but I wonder how much MORE good they could do if they
didn't waste resources.
Which is why I'd always rather donate directly to a p
Also, there's this...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/komen-caved-or-did-it/2012/02/03/gIQA9tS9mQ_blog.html
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> The Decemberists (whose keyboardist, Jennie Conley has recently
> undergone chemo for breast cancer) announced
I've been uneasy about the Komen foundation for awhile. I know they
are trying to do something worthwhile but it's gotten a real big
business feel to it as it has grown. They sue people for using "for
the cure" in any way, they seem to have a veritable monopoly on the
color pink...just because som
If the social issue can't sway em, then Money always talks doesn't it. :)
Good for them! Hope they keep it that way.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> The Decemberists (whose keyboardist, Jennie Conley has recently
> undergone chemo for breast cancer) announced yesterday
The Decemberists (whose keyboardist, Jennie Conley has recently
undergone chemo for breast cancer) announced yesterday that they are
redirecting all the money from their breast cancer fundraising efforts
to Planned Parenthood. Probably lots more that we don't know about and
it all adds up.
Judah
Well, Bloomberg's very public pledge of 250K in matching donations to
PP might have helped, but yeah, I imagine there were quite a few
others...
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Erika L. Rich wrote:
>
> I wonder how many big donors to Komen more than likely called up and pulled
> their future d
I wonder how many big donors to Komen more than likely called up and pulled
their future donations, telling them they'd send it to Planned Parenthood
instead.
Would love to have been a fly on the wall in their offices these past few
days...
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:52 AM, William Bowen wrote:
Exactly. And even at that point I hope those that decided to send
their donations to Planned Parenthood instead of Komen continue to do
so...
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Scott Stewart wrote:
>
> I'll believe it when I see it.. IE Planned Parenthood issues a statement
> saying that the fundi
I'll believe it when I see it.. IE Planned Parenthood issues a statement
saying that the funding has been restored
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72416.html
>
> Susan G. Komen backs down on Planned Parenthood
> By: David Nathe
82 matches
Mail list logo
