Arizona bans funding of Planned Parenthood

[_EAllusion]

Tarski -

If you are curious, what Droopy is reporting is a ridiculous lie that's been swirling around the fundamentalist community for a few years:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/p ... living-hiv

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/g ... parenthood

Will Droopy apologize for repeating a defamatory lie? No. The only question now is whether he is going to double down on his first post and rachet up the rhetoric or if he is going to pull off one of his patented slink away for a while then come back and pretend like nothing ever happened moves.

[_Droopy]

Will Droopy apologize for repeating a defamatory lie? No. The only question now is whether he is going to double down on his first post and rachet up the rhetoric or if he is going to pull off one of his patented slink away for a while then come back and pretend like nothing ever happened moves.

From the left - wash, rinse, spin:

The only problem was that it wasn't true. As the Girl Scouts explained, all the organizations at the conference had been using the same rooms and so if there were any Planned Parenthood brochures present in the room when they held their meeting, it was only because they had been left behind after previous sessions.

This silly prevarication is an attempt at damage control that's already been called out.

1. The Ice Queen herself has already admitted to the relationship between the Brave New Girl Scouts and PP:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi- ... y-valuable

2. The Girl Scouts were the primary sponsor of the "girls only" workshop at the U.N. event in question. A perusal of the "scheduled of events" itinerary for the day reveals the truth here:

http://www.wunrn.com/news/2010/02_10/02 ... 10_csw.htm

Yes, that's right, this entire symposium was a veritable cornucopia of leftist cliches, preoccupations, and ideological fetishes. And there's the Girls Scouts of America, splashing around in the deep end of the pool with others with whom they quite apparently share a similar philosophy and world view.

Before going on, a few observations are in order. Interestingly, while there is no doubt that the Girl Scout's connection to the sex ed manual is legitimate, very much like Barack Obama himself, the connection itself has to be, to some degree, reconstructed from the Girl Scout's associations and relationships with other groups. When caught wallowing in the counter-culture, they cry foul and try to cover their tracks by claiming that they just happened to be in the same room (and the dog ate their homework).

The weight of the evidence, however, including the fact that the CEO of this group has already admitted to the Girl Scout's interest in sex education and relationship with Planned Parenthood (who's primary reason for existence is to promote and legitimate convenience abortion on demand), implies that, as with Obama and Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorn, Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright et al, The Girl Scouts are involved, not only in this, but probably much else as well.

Indeed, when you look at who this group keeps company with, you see UNICEF, which has its hands in the Kinseyan/value relativist pie as well, as this sex ed manual produced for the Mexican government makes clear.

http://www.familywatchinternational.org ... _pages.pdf

Then there's their partnership with GRAIL and Girls Learn International, both radical leftist/feminist organizations (GRAIL boasts a "feminist liberation theology" leaning). Its governing board features such comforting role models for young woman as Charlotte Bunch and Gloria Steinem. Bunch appears to be among the earliest and most extreme gender feminists and proponents of female separatism:

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scri ... lm/furies/

Grail is another cultural Marxist group who's main interests are " racial and economic justice" infused with a "feminist liberation theology" that emphasizes "the interconnections between racism, sexism, classism, heterosexism, and environmental degradation." In other words, classical critical theory.

Keep in mind too that, while E has posted some defensive conjectural arguments from the gatekeepers of the sexual revolution, the initial report was an eyewitness one:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ide/print/

Checkmate on the Left, yet again.

Oh, I'm sorry, I mean "moderates."

[_Droopy]

Will Droopy apologize for repeating a defamatory lie? No. The only question now is whether he is going to double down on his first post and rachet up the rhetoric or if he is going to pull off one of his patented slink away for a while then come back and pretend like nothing ever happened moves.

Yeah, someone's trying to cover their tracks alright, and my suspicion is that its overwhelmingly likely that its not Sharon Slater.

[_Droopy]

Tarski -
If you are curious, what Droopy is reporting is a ridiculous lie that's been swirling around the fundamentalist community for a few years:

I don't know who these "fundamentalists" are, but I suspect they are something associated with Kevin Graham's shadowy "Right" and "right-wing" who lurk under every bed, behind every think tank, and behind the scenes at every Fox News broadcast.

There's a "right" behind the "right," and yet another "right' behind that "right." Now there are "fundamentalists" (which is a pretty narrow specification, denoting Protestant biblical literalists who aren't even a majority among EV Protestants) who are apparently behind everything the Left and dogmatic secularist libertarians don't agree with.

E understands about as much about contemporary conservatism, and its various schools of thought, as he apparently understands about modern evangelical Protestantism, which is apparently about at the level of his understanding of LDS Church doctrine and teaching.



Its the eleventh key to the right on your keyboard.

[_Chap]

...while there is no doubt that the Girl Scout's connection to the sex ed manual is legitimate, very much like Barack Obama himself, the connection itself has to be, to some degree, reconstructed from the Girl Scout's associations and relationships with other groups ...

So:

1. The Girls Scouts have clearly and explicitly denied that they distributed this leaflet at the meeting.

2. Droopy has no evidence to show they did distribute this leaflet.

3. But he is going to go on saying they distributed it all the same, since he finds it reassuring to have all his enemies in the same box.

[_EAllusion]

This silly prevarication is an attempt at damage control that's already been called out.

This is what is claimed:

Earlier this month, Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) was honored to attend and participate in the 54th Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations, where girls were encouraged to take action on global issues concerning women and girls. Our participation in that conference was recently the subject of numerous internet stories and blogs that are factually inaccurate and troubling. Here are the facts of that meeting:

• The Girls Only Workshop was jointly hosted by Girl Scouts of the USA, UNICEF’s Working Group on Girls, Girls Learn International and The Grail. The meeting was only open to the girls and participating sponsors.

• Only seven adults were in the room at the time of the meeting, each representing one of the sponsors of the event. No one from Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute was in the room to report on the event.

• 30 - 35 girls from across the world participated in this event. All teenagers.

• The girls received a copy of the only document they were working on titled (“The Girls’ Statement”). No other documents were given to the girls as part of this event.

• The room in question was also used to host other events over the course of the multi-day conference. Prior to our girls entering the room, we did not “sanitize’ the room to ensure that no trash or other items were left behind. We did request that those not associated with the sponsors to leave the room prior to our session.

You're calling a lie based on what, again? Nancy Pelosi giving a generic answer to a question asserting a relationship between PP and GSA? That the other co-sponsored symposiums involved liberal cliches? That leads you to conclude that it's totally plausible that young girl scouts were put in a kids only seminar where they were given pamphlets on how to live a sexually fulfilling life while infected with HIV - a big problem I understand for adolescent girl scouts? This all reads as plausible to you?

The girl scouts have denied it. All you have left is a highly implausible accusation from an anti-PP crusader.

Keep in mind too that, while E has posted some defensive, conjectural arguments from the gatekeepers of the sexual revolution, the initial report was an eyewitness one:


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ide/print/

I like how the article you link portrays her as Sharon Slater, mother of 7, and not Sharon Slater, this person:

http://www.standforthefamily.org/sff/about_sharon.cfm

There's a quality eyewitness. Of course, this was already pointed out in the links I offered. She entered the room after the meeting was over. She found the pamphlet. GSA says it wasn't theirs. That you choose to believe Slater out of reflexive disgust with anything that sounds left-wing to you is not a basis for claiming it occurred.

[_Droopy]

This silly prevarication is an attempt at damage control that's already been called out.

This is what is claimed:

Earlier this month, Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) was honored to attend and participate in the 54th Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations, where girls were encouraged to take action on global issues concerning women and girls. Our participation in that conference was recently the subject of numerous internet stories and blogs that are factually inaccurate and troubling. Here are the facts of that meeting:

• The Girls Only Workshop was jointly hosted by Girl Scouts of the USA, UNICEF’s Working Group on Girls, Girls Learn International and The Grail. The meeting was only open to the girls and participating sponsors.

• Only seven adults were in the room at the time of the meeting, each representing one of the sponsors of the event. No one from Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute was in the room to report on the event.

• 30 - 35 girls from across the world participated in this event. All teenagers.

• The girls received a copy of the only document they were working on titled (“The Girls’ Statement”). No other documents were given to the girls as part of this event.

• The room in question was also used to host other events over the course of the multi-day conference. Prior to our girls entering the room, we did not “sanitize’ the room to ensure that no trash or other items were left behind. We did request that those not associated with the sponsors to leave the room prior to our session.

You're calling a lie based on what, again?

1. The eyewitness testimony of Sharon Slater.

2. The fact that the Girl Scouts of America is a thoroughly leftist organization with a history of connection to Planned Parenthood. This particular incident comports well with that past association, as well as with the association and partnerships of the Girl Scouts with other groups even farther to the Left than PP.

The manual in question may or may not have been "given" to the girls present, but it was there in plain sight and was not there as a decoration.

The girl scouts have denied it. All you have left is a highly implausible accusation from an anti-PP crusader.

Its only implausible if you take the word of the kinds of people who have long populated U.N. seminars and symposia of this kind and who have an equally long history of furtiveness regarding what goes on in these kinds of closed meetings. Yes, the very fact that this thing was closed to all but the initiated, and that people with alternate or even neutral political philosophies were not welcome there, and that we must now reconstruct, and the defenders themselves must reconstruct for us - on their word only - what actually happened,is indicative of what is usually suspected of the usual suspects.

I see no reason to trust anything the defenders of the U.N. meeting say over Sharon Slater. I don't know Sharon Slater. Neither do you. I also don't know any of the people who were in that meeting. Neither do you. However, given the venue (the U.N.) the background (the egregious feminist political correctness-fest called the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (one of countless other commissions on the status of this, that, and the other from the perspective of the Left)), and the long history of these U.N. bodies and the kinds of people who normally take up residence therein, I'm going with Sharon Slater, who is far more likely to be telling the truth here, and frankly, even if she were Marvin the Martian, likely more trustworthy as a source of information as to what's going on in the U.N. that most in the U.N., including the General Secretary himself.

There's a quality eyewitness. Of course, this was already pointed out in the links I offered. She entered the room after the meeting was over. She found the pamphlet. GSA says it wasn't theirs. That you choose to believe Slater out of reflexive disgust with anything that sounds left-wing to you is not a basis for claiming it occurred.

Wipe the foam from off the sides of your mouth and take a happy pill. My "disgust" isn't "reflexive," but the result of an adult lifetime of study, reflection, and observation of, as William Buckley might say, "many things," and is the considered bias grounded in my core personal philosophy.

One of the best things that could happen to the United States and the world, and especially the Third World, would occur if the earth just opened up and swallowed the United Nations building whole, the entire idolitarian/pagan/Marxist monstrosity crashing down into a great, lava filled cavernous abyss and the earth closing up behind it with thunderous finality.

I'm not saying there should be people in it when that happens, but just the edifice itself, and all that goes on inside it. They could then all go to Strasbourg and hold their symposiums and meetings in the basement of the European Parliament.

[_bcspace]

Correct. Planned Parenthood is also all about sexualizing children; getting them to experiment with sex, encouraging children to have sex with adults, and bypassing parents in their attempt to deliver this message. Our community recently expunged Planned Parenthood from the school curriculum.

Of course abortion is enough to damn them. Other services could be provided without it. Educate yourself.

http://www.stopp.org/

This is an egregious and immoral calumny.
I should think that Shades risks a lot by allowing this.

It is also drooling idiocy.

If the information is incorrect, perhaps you could point it out. Or perhaps it that you agree with films like The Last Train or The Blue Dove?

[_Kishkumen]

It is also drooling idiocy.

Yes, well Droopy and bc have been drooling together for some time now.

[_Droopy]

It is also drooling idiocy.

Yes, well Droopy and bc have been drooling together for some time now.