Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "GOP To Defund Planned Parenthood With Obamacare Repeal" video.

  1. What does this have to do with women?
    3
  2. Korean Roof Sniper Kyle won't address it though because he supports PP.  It is OK for PP to pay off politicians because, to him, PP is a good cause.  He is a hypocrite.
    2
  3. anewday You should be supporting defunding PP than because they donated money to Clinton.  Teach them a lesson.  Anyway, for me, I support this because PP should be ran by the states, not the federal government.  But, than again, I support the constitution so that only makes sense.   
    2
  4. anewday The Koch brothers get their money privately.   
    2
  5. anewday PP receives tax dollars. They have a special interest at that point.  If the Koch Brothers received tax dollars than sure, defund them.  At the same time if we followed the constitution this will not be a problem.   
    2
  6. What you support should be funded by the state and local government, if any tax dollars are to be involved at all. We do not spend 1.5 trillion dollars on the military. Tax dollars going to offshore havens is a problem of our complicated tax code which needs to be simplified. All the benefits that Kyle mentioned are due to other variables beyond PP. Overall, society has been improving for years, you can't just tie everything to PP. I have been to PP and see the reasoning for it. It is one of the two places I go to get STD testing because to me getting tested in two different areas is necessary. But, it should not be funded by the federal government.
    2
  7. Mckenzie .Latham If the states don't want to do it than fine, that is up to the citizens.  Why do you want to force you way on other people?  You don't like it how republicans are defunding PP.   If it were ran at the state and local level you won't have to worry about a group of republican, where the vast majority you can't vote for, defunding it.  You just have to worry about your state representatives.  That is the beauty of state rights.  Those states don't fund it because they don't want it. Military spending makes up less than 20% of the federal budgets, and less than 4% of the GDP.  By the way,  defense spending has been dropping for years. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/ http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?end=2015&locations=US&start=1988 "Simplified usually means, cut and made more easier for them to still pocket that money but now just inside the country instead of out of it." And that is bad how?  That means they will invest that money.  Rich people just don't hide their money in vaults.  They save them in banks where banks use them for loans for people to buy homes and start businesses.  "then be prepared to pay ten times more for it..." My insurance covers it, I am fine.
    2
  8. Mckenzie .Latham The founding fathers wanted state rights.  You call them greedy, but I feel it is greedy for you to force what you want on others who don't want it.  The social contract argument is weak. So do the citizens of N. Korea have to live by a "social contract"?  Also, republicans won, so according to you we have to abide by the "social contract" of them defunding PP, so shut up and abide to your contract. "I'm quite aware, one of the reasons there needed to be federal governments pushing stuff through otherwise we'd still have slavery and no gay marriage." Different issues, different discussion.  But I suggest you abide to the "social contract" and realize that PP is being defunded now. Already, I can't take you serious when you bring up "social contract".  If you want to bring that up than you need to listen to republicans, they are in charge and that is your new "social contract".
    2
  9. I agree with that, leave it up to the states. That means remove federal funding from Planned Parenthood.
    1
  10. Someone made a great point in another comment. Planned Parenthood donated $38 million to Clinton. PP should be defunded for that. Why don't I hear about that type of corruption by Kyle and his viewers?
    1
  11. PP donated to Clinton.
    1
  12. Planned Parenthood gave $38 million to Clinton, so it is one of the "good" corporation, not an "evil" one according to liberals.
    1
  13. And the 1998 Minnesota Vikings should have played the Broncos in the Super Bowl Fuck you Gary Anderson
    1
  14. Great point.
    1
  15. robinsss Those companies shouldn't.  To me the solution is clear, limit the powers of the federal government.
    1
  16. Korean Roof Sniper To me, if we limited the powers of the federal government than it will not be a problem.  If the federal government did not have the power to fund and run a program like PP than the problem will not exist. Leave it up to the states. This is why the founding fathers wanted limited federal government and more state rights, to prevent interest groups giving money to politicians that will do them special favors.  Liberals complain about money in politics until it involves an organization they support.
    1
  17. Korean Roof Sniper I agree with your point.  The reason why these programs are funding political parties is because they have the power to give them special favors.  We can prevent that at the federal level is we just followed the constitution and gave the federal government limited powers.  At the state and local level the people already have more control over the government.  But, the irony I see here is that liberals complain about money in politics until it is for a program they support, in this case PP.  I am glad you brought up that issue of them donating money to Clinton, you will never hear of that from Kyle.
    1
  18. Korean Roof Sniper No, he is a hypocrite.  I have seen enough if Kyle to know. 
    1
  19. I support this. Planned Parenthood should be a state issue.
    1
  20. Planned Parenthood should be a state issue.
    1
  21. And PP gave $38 million to Clinton, but you will never hear Kyle and the liberals mention that.
    1
  22. Global Warming Skeptic I agree.  In some cases it is funny, in others it is sad.  But the next four years will be fun.  I wonder if Kyle is still going to be posting Bernie videos four years later. 
    1
  23. It isn't that Clinton is irrelevant, it is that liberals, especially ultra liberals like Kyle hate money in politics and hate "welfare" to businesses. Kyle just did a segment on how Trump is in debt to Wall Street so he have a special interest with them to give them benefits to have it "paid off". How is that any different than certain politicians receiving money from PP so the federal government can give them special favors? I see major hypocrisy here. In short, when the government wants to give money to Wall Street than it is bad, but to PP who has the money to donate millions to a politician, than it is OK. That is picking favorites.
    1
  24. ***** I know, but why not?  They are a private company that has millions to buy off politicians. Kyle is against money in politics. Meanwhile he supports a private business that is doing just that. 
    1
  25. ***** At the clinic on campus is where I can go as well.  I go to two places, both do similar tests.  I just like to get multiple tests.  
    1
  26. But yet democratic economic policies do not work.
    1
  27. Pacific Alliance Less than 3% GDP growth, especially after following a recession, is not good. 
    1
  28. Pacific Alliance Less than 3% is not good, especially following a recession.  You need a spike in growth to catch us back up.  We haven't had that.  We are still behind and have very poor growth overall. 
    1
  29. Pridetoons Reviews "  Besides Bush crashed the economy" Debatable. " both Clinton and Reagan economic policies have crashed and burned." Ok, what?
    1
  30. Pridetoons Reviews Recessions happen. You also have to realize that the democrats were in charged of congress during the recession.  But, in the end, recessions happen, how we recover is key. " My second argument is that Both Republican and Democratic policies don't work." Eh, for the most part I agree.
    1
  31. Yeah, I know, money in politics is bad. Like when Planned Parenthood donated $38 million to Clinton.
    1
  32. Mckenzie .Latham "Funny sicne part of those states rights was slavery for example... kind of interesting when you look at the people who said all men were created equal and freedom for all, while also supporting slavery and slaves...a very profitable business at that point..." And a constitutional amendment ended that.  The constitution is there to protect citizens rights.  One ended up being the right against slavery.  You bring up slavery which does not support your case at all.  If you look at that amendment that did not give the federal government power at all over the people but instead just gave people more freedom.  That is a key point there. "that too me says all anyone needs to know about the nature of greed (and states rights) in the country." Or you need to understand the reasoning behind it.  Let us compare this to PP funding. There you have the federal government forcing you to give away your money to a program you may not support.  That is taking away freedom.  With slavery, you are giving people freedom.  See the difference?  "Forcing things on others who don;t want it? again when you live in a society that's the sacrifice you make..." Which I don't mind, but I want my voice to be as loud as possible.  The more local government is the louder your voice is, especially if you are like me and are involved with your local society. If a state does not want PP than why do you want to force those citizens to pay for it?  You are taking away their freedoms. "No becasue their man-child god leader violates his end of it...the contract works both ways genius... he does not provide for his people, he in fact harms his own people which violates the social contract." Nope, that is their social contract.  Also, define "provide for his people".  That is vague.  You are creating the illusion that a program like PP will cease to exist if the government did not fund it.  That is not true at all.  In certain areas of the country the only fire fighters they have are volunteer fire fighters. The government does not fund it so guess what, the local society still has it.  But again, that is their "social contract".  Ours, if you want to play that game, is the US constitution.  Nowhere does it mention funding for PP, thus it becomes a state issue. Just like K-12 education is ran and funded by the state and local governments. "As i said, they have to meet their end of the contract as well, sicne they're defunding medicare and Obamacare with nothing to replace it with, losing tens of million their insurance adding to the hundreds of millions already without any insurance or coverage...they are fucking up big time." Nope, because the only "contract" is the constitution.  Show me where Obamcare and medicare is listed.  It is not, so in the end, based on what you are saying, they can do that.  The social contract (the constitution) says we can vote.  We did, elected republicans thus they are going to do it their way. So nothing is being violated here. "again if thy don't have anything to help and or provide those services at affordable cost and convenience they've broken the social contract..." Wrong.  Voting is in the constitution, PP funding isn't.  Thus we voted to put republicans in charge, so we go their way.  Show me this "social contract" you continue to speak of. I want a hard copy and I will give you one of the constitution. "again it's clear you're going by Hobbes view of the social contract which is basically unquestionable servitude....I'm talking about John Locke's social contract:" Again, show me a hard copy of this "social contract".
    1
  33. Mckenzie .Latham I want a hard copy of this "social contract".  Show me where the federal government is supposed to be funding PP.  Show me that "social contract". 
    1
  34. anewday Banning slavery gave freedom to everyone.  With gay rights, name me one right gay people lack.  Rights cover everyone equally.  Anyone who brings up gay rights cannot tell me a right they have ever lacked.  Same with workers' rights. The rights we have are listed in the constitution and cover everyone. Yes, corruption can happen at the state and local level, but at that level you have more control of the governments, or you can just move and remain a US citizen. Also, why do you feel that the GOP need to replace Obamacare and Medicare?  That, right there highlights a problem.  You feel that we need the government so much that certain programs will cease to exist if we remove them at the federal level.  Ever thought we can remove them, not replace them and be just fine?
    1
  35. anewday " also in 28 states, for instance, same-sex couples have no legal recourse if their landlords decide to evict them from their home. In 31 states, it is still legal to fire an employee because they’re gay or transgender. In 36 states, there are no laws prohibiting discrimination against LGBT students in schools." With landlords and private companies, that is their private property and they can run it as they seem fit. This is why so many people, including me, get annoyed with the whole gay rights thing.  The majority of people don't care. What gays do is seek out the businesses that will do such actions and then use government force to oppress them.  As in the cake shop situation, instead of going to another cake shop they used the government to shut the company down.  That is just as bad as using the government to ban gay marriage.  It goes both ways.  You don't have a right to a job or to live in someone's property.  With schools, via the 14th amendment no public education system can discriminate.  So that is a non-issue. Reading your whole  point on Obamacare and Medicare highlights why we can't have the federal government run these programs and should have left it up to the states.  Obamacare and medicare are a mess and failures, but now so many are dependent on it that it makes it hard to remove.  To me, I just say fuck it and pull out Obamacare. Medicare we can ease out of, but Obamacare we have no choice.  So some people will become uninsured, well, that is the fault of the democrats for forcing a bad law on us to begin with. I won't blame republicans for that but instead democrats.  And if it is done immediately, and without a couple years things get better than republicans are safe.  That is why they want to do it quickly, it gives the market and society time to adjust. So I see no reason to find a replacement for Obamacare. 
    1
  36. necroryda Marriage is not a right.  So no, they never lacked that right because it never existed.
    1
  37. necroryda You are misreading the 14th amendment.  The key part is how the law is written.  If a state writes a law saying that marriage is between two people than they have to recognize gay marriage.  If the law says between a man and woman than they don't.  That is the key.  That is why interracial marriage was made legal as the law recognized sex, not race.  Even at that the SC ruled in a 9-0 ruling in Loving vs Virginia.  So that is no doubt a correct ruling in the 14th amendment.  You have the right to get married, whether or not the state or local government recognizes it is key.  Two gay people could always get married, the government just didn't recognize it.  So the states were not denying anyone anything.  Gay people could see all the benefits of a marriage as long as it was with the opposite sex. I love educating fools.
    1
  38. What does Planned Parenthood have to do with women? Men can use it as well. If Planned Parenthood is strictly for women than it should be removed since it is unconstitutional.
    1
  39. Because it should be a state issue, not a federal issue. Even at that, if it is specifically targeted towards woman than it is unconstitutional.
    1