Clinton Campaign Mistakes Grinnell College Students For Hicks

Parent Cafe
81

<p>But Zoosermom, you didn’t give an answer. An answer would be specific, and you didn’t give that. You just claimed to have done “a google search and… found tons of information” but you didn’t say what information you found, or where. The Form 900 for the organization can be found on guidestar - <a href=“http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2006/520/986/2006-520986195-028eb6a6-9.pdf[/url]”>http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2006/520/986/2006-520986195-028eb6a6-9.pdf&lt;/a&gt; but it doesn’t say where the organization’s funding comes from, as far as I can tell. I haven’t found any data on that question on any “Secretary of State” website anywhere. (It might be on some site somewhere, but I haven’t found it.) Zoos - you’ve done this before - made an assertion of fact, been called on it, then instead of acknowledging that you can’t back it up you attack with a complaint that you’re being picked on. You may be right about what you’re saying - if so, just post the link. If you really don’t have anything to back up your claim, admit it and move on. The route you choose instead - complaining that the person asking for confirmation is a bad person who is picking on you - just demeans you.</p>

<p>I know your first reaction to this will be to accuse me of picking on you as well but that’s not my intent. I value your expressions of opinion and recognize that you believe what you post is true. But when questioned on factual assertions it’s appropriate to answer candidly as to your data source instead of being evasive and then attacking the person who may simply be interested in confirming your assertion.</p>

82

<p>I don’t think you’re attacking me Kluge. You were polite in your request. I see nothing wrong with that. I will get what I can and post it. As I said I sat on Secretary of State websites and others and just read. But I still don’t appreciate TommyBill’s methods and he wasn’t interesting in confirming my assertion, he was interested in muddying the water so as to ignore the rest of the post. That’s the thing I take issue with. Kluge, obviously, the fact of the specific donation is public knowledge because it’s public knowledge, so I didn’t make this up out of thin air. I just sat and looked. Remember, this is one donation we’re talking about here, not campaign finance as a whole, which was printed in the newspaper BEFORE I even looked for it, so how secret could it have been? I’m not sure why this is even an issue, if you go back and look at the original post. But I do appreciate the fact that you have moderated your tone toward me so I will respond in kind.</p>

83

<p>zoosermom, if you go to your “history” of the websites you opened in the past few days, the one that had the information should still be there</p>

<p>may take a few minutes to open the pages, but they should all be in the same area I would guess</p>

<p>heck, tell me what we are trying to find and I will, love doing that stuff</p>

84

<p>Ok, I’ve looked as much as I can right now and need to clarify. Some of it reflects badly on me and some doesn’t. Here is the quote to which I responded:</p>

<p>“In the past, the Republican Party has funded National Right to Life, and while the committee can raise money on its own, it needs funding” from outside sources."</p>

<p>I stand by my assertion that that’s public knowledge. There are articles, commentary, etc. on that available all over the web that discuss that relationship IN THE PAST (note the quote). Which means prior to campaign finance reform. I took the quote at face value and was genuinely surprised that it would be viewed as a secret, but I suspect the underlying issue is that because of campaign finance reform, that connection is no longer legal and Tommybill was trying to get me to say that the RNC had done something illegal. My perspective was and is that the referenced relationship wasn’t a secret. HOWEVER, I realized when I went back per Kluge’s polite and appropriate request, that the search I was doing yesterday was (a) backward and (b) old, so the specific information I was referencing does not support my assertions in the way that I thought it did. For that, I accept responsibility, acknowledge the error, and apologize. (Which Kluge, I’ve done before when I’ve made an error or been unkind in my posts. To quote Casey Stengel, “you could look it up.”)</p>

85

<p>what is interesting is the the NRTL or whatever doesn’t list any board of directors anywhere on its site-</p>

<p>but this is a fun article</p>

<p>[Millions</a> Funneled To Rural Pregnancy Centers That Promote Religion, False Information - Politics on The Huffington Post](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Millions Funneled To Rural Pregnancy Centers That Promote Religion, False Information | HuffPost Latest News)</p>

86

<p>From zoosermom in post 82…… “….But I still don’t appreciate TommyBill’s methods and he wasn’t interesting in confirming my assertion…”</p>

<p>I am sorry that my asking you to verify something you claimed was a fact causes you to feel like you need to say that you don’t appreciate my methods, all I did was ask, quoting my post here: </p>

<p>First quoting you; “…that (sic) fact of that funding is information available to the public…”</p>

<p>I then ask; “….I am not so sure the information has been public until this newspaper story….I did not know it and I keep up with the news….do you have information that I don’t that shows that this information was public…”</p>

<p>If you are going to write something and claim it is a fact it is not unfair of me to ask you to back your claim up. </p>

<p>On the next subject you wrote:</p>

<p>“…he {that’s me} was interested in muddying the water so as to ignore the rest of the post. That’s the thing I take issue with…” that is an unfounded assumption on you part and one that is entirely incorrect. In addition when you pointed out that I had not addressed the issue you brought up I did so in my next post. In fact I posted on this point twice just to make sure that it was clear that I agreed with you observation. </p>

<p>What you describe as “…predatory games…” is me simply asking to back up your claims of fact with some form of credible information. Your use of words like, predatory games and disingenuous to describe me and my questions do not change the fact that you made a statement claimed it was a fact and were not able to give one iota of information to establish your claimed fact. </p>

<p>So that you will not be confused or misunderstand: I am not making the point that you are a liar just because you go this one wrong, I am only making the point that you got this one wrong. </p>

<p>Additionally I would like to say to call me “disingenuous” and to claim that I am somehow involved in “predatory games” is wrong and unworthy. Just as telling someone “says you” is rude and unworthy.</p>

87

<p>“Additionally I would like to say to call me “disingenuous” and to claim that I am somehow involved in “predatory games” is wrong and unworthy. Just as telling someone “says you” is rude and unworthy.”</p>

<p>Tommy, I made two points in the post at issue. You seized upon one (while knowing exactly what I meant) and ignored the other. I can see no earthly reason for your doing that based on my specific response to the first post. I STILL can’t see that because my response at the time written, wasn’t controversial at all. If you go back and look at it on its own you will see that. The disingenuous part came from your claiming that I was ignoring you while studiously ignoring me and while subtly changing my words. That is wrong and unworthy. I STILL think that your posts on this thread were disingenuous and predatory. The request for verification was not part of that perception. That request on its own was completely appropriate, but like my initial post, it doesn’t stand alone. However, I will concede that I probably read more into your posts than other posters, and I’m sure I’m not your favorite poster, either.</p>

88

<p>“I’m sure I’m not your favorite poster, either”</p>

<p>Has nothing to do with it …it is not personal even when you call me names and then claim to be the polite one. It’s not personal……you make a claim that was wrong. </p>

<p>So you will know, almost all organizations protect their contributors list and keep them private. They do this for a verity of reasons, one of which is to keep other organizations from “poaching” their lists.</p>

89

<p>I have known several women who had abortions back in the 70’s and are still filled with guilt and sorrow over the decision. To say that there are no possible psychological effects is denial. It’s not the same as getting a tooth extracted for many people.</p>

90

<p>There he goes again. Where did I claim to be the “polite one?” That didn’t happen. </p>

<p>I said what I had to say, you said what you had to say, and I’m on record with an apology. I’m not going to discuss this any further and will generally refrain from responding to you because I’m not at my best then.</p>

91

<p>“To say that there are no possible psychological effects is denial.”</p>

<p>Did someone claim there are no possible psychological effects? I don’t think there’s any phenomenon in the world that has no possible psychological effects.</p>

92

<p>" The Crisis Pregnancy Center, Inc. in Anchorage Alaska, meanwhile, sites suicidal thoughts, alcohol and drug abuse and spiritual consequences as post-abortion side affects, without offering elaboration. Other centers suggest that women can experience … “post-abortion stress disorder” and even a “fear of punishment from God” following an abortion."</p>

<p>I would say all of these are results or evidence of possible psychological effects. As evidence exhibit 1, I would suggest the anti-abortion campaign of one Jane Doe, from the famous abortion legalizing case.</p>

93

<p>I’ll ask again…who here, or elsewhere, is claiming that abortion or any other human experience has zero possible psychological effects? With whom are you arguing?</p>

94

<p>There he goes again.</p>

<p>Perhaps I am wrong, but I have a vague memory of reading a post where Z said she always tried to be polite. If she disputes ever posting that she tries to be polite, I will accept that.</p>

95

<p>“I try to be polite” is not the same as “I am the polite one.” It’s that subtle twisting thing again and bringing in something from another thread that I find predatory. Perhaps it’s a deep-seated need for the last word, in which case, if you want it then you should just say so because I don’t need it. Otherwise, this really is done. I wish you well, but please leave me alone, please don’t change my words, and please don’t attribute to me words I didn’t type.</p>

96

<p>Since this thread has already wandered far afield from its original (bogus) premise, I’ll toss this in regarding Tommybill’s original comment regarding the Republican party financing the National Right to Life Committee: Yesterday the 9th Circuit issued an opinion in California Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Randolph (CPLC is the NRLC’s California chapter) in a case involving CPLC’s efforts to conceal the identity of its financial backers while continuing to participate in election advocacy. (Electoral activity is prohibited for tax-exempt non-profits, but apparently NRLC is a 510(c) (4) organization, not 501 (c) (3).)</p>

<p>Interesting. I wonder what they’re trying to hide…</p>

97

<p>I will be straight up here</p>

<p>I HAD AN ABORTION and know many nice, rational, healthy, caring women who had one as well, who aren’t FILLEd with guilt or whatever afterwards, it was what it was at the time, and they have moved on in their lives, and for many it was, shall we say, not a life altaring experience…not easy maybe, but not where they walk around under a black cloud</p>

<p>bet if you did a REAL survey, you would find that while many feel bad, they don’t regret the decision and while there may be moments, in many cases, its just part of the past</p>

<p>Having a car accident can create phsychological problems, as can getting mugged, or winning the lottery</p>

<p>And your point is what…</p>

<p>And barrons, the POINT of the article was that they use FEAR to discuss a medical procedure- fear of God and fear of “possible” physchological fears afterwards</p>

98

<p>CGM, thank you for providing that perspective. It was very courageous of you to do so.</p>

99

<p>as for the National Right to Life Committee, you have to hunt around to even find a NAME on their website, as if they are embarrassed</p>

<p>If they are so proud of what they do, then their board of directors, who funds them, should be pretty easy to find, not hidden</p>

<p>I can go to the Planned Parenhood and see all their Boards of Directors fairly easiy</p>

<p>but this is kind of fun</p>

<p>Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – Fred Thompson received the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee on Tuesday and a surrogate for the campaign of Mitt Romney claimed Wednesday that it was motivated by money. Paul Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation, says he can’t find any other explanation.
National Right to Life officials said Tuesday they backed Thompson because of his 100 percent voting record on pro-life issues, his willingness to back overturning Roe and the viability of his campaign.</p>

<p>But Weyrich, a Romney backer, told the Washington Times the endorsement “makes no sense” and claimed the Thompson campaign bought off the pro-life group.</p>

<p>“I think in all probability the Thompson people were engaged with the National Right to Life people in financial dealing,” Weyrich said.</p>

<p>“In the past, the Republican Party has funded National Right to Life, and while [National Right to Life] can raise money on its own, it needs funding,” Weyrich claimed.</p>

<p>David O’Steen, the executive director of the leading pro-life organization, called the claims ludicrous.</p>

<p>“He’s got to be joking,” O’Steen told the Washington Times. “There is absolutely no financial arrangement between [Right to Life] and the Thompson campaign or Fred Thompson.”</p>

<p>Todd Harris, the communications director for the Thompson campaign, told LifeNews.com that the Weyrich accusations that the National Right to Life Committee was bribed by the Thompson campaign in exchange for its endorsement are “outrageous.”</p>

<p>He said National Right to Life is supporting Thompson “because of Fred’s 100% pro-life voting record.”</p>

<p>“It is unseemly for the Romney campaign and its supporters to suggest that National Right to Life’s coveted endorsement is based on a bribe,” Harris added.</p>

<p>“If the Romney campaign is looking for the reason they did not receive the National Right to Life endorsement, they can start with the fact that Gov. Romney was pro-choice just two years ago,” he told LifeNews.com.</p>

<p>“The Romney campaign was clearly hoping for this endorsement and are now clearly upset. But being denied an endorsement is no excuse to impugn the integrity of the very organization they were just days ago trying to woo,” he concluded.</p>

100

<p>There’s been back and forth between the two organizations for years, which is why the deniability is ludicrous – it’s not even close to a secret. Who would believe it?</p>