NY Newspaper sparks outrage for publishing names, addresses of gun owners

Quote from Danman114 : I'd say if it's my tax dollars, then yeah it should. I probably don't want to know that info, but I think in the interest of open government and transparency, I'd side on transparency rather than not. If Nana wants a medical procedure and have it not be FOIA accessible, she shouldn't rely on the government to flip the bill.

Hmm. What if grandpa uses his SS money to buy a gun. You then agree that such info should be FOIA accessible and then publishable?

Quote from empiretc : As of right now, medicaid covers abortion in 15 states in the U.S.

Nope.

The federally-funded program known as "Medicaid" does not cover abortion services in any state, as dictated by law.

In 15 states, state-funded health insurance programs for low-income residents cover abortion.

Quote : People can cross states lines for this too!

Huh? You must be a resident of the state that offers the coverage in order to be eligible.

Quote : Give BHO more time and it will be nationwide.

Any evidence that the number of states chosing to cover abortion services has risen over the past 4 years?

Quote : Couldn't agree more! Will say it AGAIN- you should take your own advice sometimes...... Oh wait, before you BAM---- http://www.fundabortionnow.org/get-help/medicaid

Again, if you actually read the link, you'd see that it's talking about state-run health insurance programs, not Medicaid.

Quote from smegalicious : For someone so determined to inject abortion into a gun thread, it might be helpful to know that federal legislation prevents taxpayer funds from being spent on abortions. You feel free to tilt at as many windmills as you'd like.

Damn ... and here I thought Taxpayer dollars and Government included State. Sorry .. so what is the ruling body of my state called if not Government and what is the money I send in to my State's Dept. of Taxion which is call taxes on my TAX form called.

Tilt at Windmills? Maybe you better get your facts straight before you try to look down on others...

Again ... great Idea Smeg ... too bad you don't realize that some of us Do pay state TAXES and The STATE does use Taxpayer dollars to fund these abortions.

I don't have time to respond but I couldn't just let this piese of BS go.

BTW .. yes .. in the long run Federal FUnds do pay for abortions indirectly. Care to take a guess HOW?

Quote from smegalicious : you'd see that it's talking about state-run health insurance programs, not Medicaid.

WOW..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xx0CTNg_Ik

LMFAO

http://www.fundabortionnow.org/get-help/medicaid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid

Quote from smegalicious : Any evidence that the number of states chosing to cover abortion services has risen over the past 4 years?

Classic!!!

Quote from smegalicious : Should Grandma's colonoscopy be open to public inspection because it was paid for by medicare?

Grandma is taking thousands of dollars from the people's treasury. The people ought to know who is taking their money.

Quote from TRNT : Hmm. What if grandpa uses his SS money to buy a gun. You then agree that such info should be FOIA accessible and then publishable?

I'd say the fact that he is on SS and how much he receives is, but what is done with that cash compared to what might be done with money he already has is impossible to determine, so I wouldn't expect every purchase made with welfare or SS dollars to covered.

If the government bought him a gun, then I'd expect that info to be public.

Quote from Danman114 : I'd say the fact that he is on SS and how much he receives is, but what is done with that cash compared to what might be done with money he already has is impossible to determine, so I wouldn't expect every purchase made with welfare or SS dollars to covered. If the government bought him a gun, then I'd expect that info to be public.

You are accepting the extreme of an argument because it suits your position. I am sure you are familiar with Title (I think) IX or other similar laws. They work like this: if you accept even one dollar in federal guns, all of your operations must comply with Title IX. A university cannot pick and choose and say since only one portion receives funds, only that position needs to comply.

Same here: if receiving medicare opens you up to FOIA, then receiving SS should too. I, of course, think both of those claims are asinine.

If you (the generic you) don't want to reveal that you bought a gun with SS funds, and since it is also very likely that you would bitch and moan about SS, put your wallet where your mouth is and simply do not accept SS payments. Of course I think that argument is asinine too but I am just mimicking it off of rightist brethren.

Quote from smegalicious : Any evidence that the number of states chosing to cover abortion services has risen over the past 4 years?

Quote from empiretc : Classic!!!

I thought that was a very reasonable question.

Quote from TRNT : Here is how they are logically related. They are both elements of the broader gun control -- one much more reasonable and sensible than the other. You would think many gun enthusiasts would support the reasonable one and and then expect the support of the other side for the unreasonable one.

Reasonable people would agree your gun-banning ideas are unreasonable.

Quote from smegalicious : When attempting to participate in a logical debate, it's often helpful to know at least some factual information about the topic being discussed.

So much for half the people participating in these gun debates.

Quote from TRNT : You are accepting the extreme of an argument because it suits your position. I am sure you are familiar with Title (I think) IX or other similar laws. They work like this: if you accept even one dollar in federal guns, all of your operations must comply with Title IX. A university cannot pick and choose and say since only one portion receives funds, only that position needs to comply.

You mean "if you accept one dollar in federal aid..." right?

I think the big difference here (moving past the idea that federal subsidies for educational institutions are ridiculous) is that Universities are non-profit organizations, and if money is going to be channeled from taxpayers to tax-consumers (Universities) then the people want to make sure they are spending the funds appropriately, and that the funds aren't being used in a manner that allows Universities to afford lavish salaries or other wasteful expenses.

SS was never meant to be a wealth transfer in the same regard. People pay in their whole lives so that when they retire (in theory) the government provides a minimum wage to those folks.

Quote from TRNT : Same here: if receiving medicare opens you up to FOIA, then receiving SS should too. I, of course, think both of those claims are asinine.

I maybe wrong on medicare, but I don't think the citizen actually receives the money. I believe the hospitals or doctors submit claims to the government, and they receive the cash. If one doctor is performing abortions with medicare dollars, I think the public should be aware.

Quote from TRNT : If you (the generic you) don't want to reveal that you bought a gun with SS funds, and since it is also very likely that you would bitch and moan about SS, put your wallet where your mouth is and simply do not accept SS payments. Of course I think that argument is asinine too but I am just mimicking it off of rightist brethren.

You are right in that receiving SS is optional (much like federal funding in Title IX), but paying into SS is mandatory, which is a huge difference.

Personally, I think the added transparency would be great in informing Americans about how much information is collected about us.

Quote from Danman114 : If one doctor is performing abortions with medicare dollars, I think the public should be aware.

That would be front page news!!!! Granny has an abortion!

LMFAO

Quote from empiretc : That would be front page news!!!! Granny has an abortion! LMFAO

8 million people who are not senior citizens are on Medicare.

Quote from Danman114 : You mean "if you accept one dollar in federal aid..." right? I think the big difference here (moving past the idea that federal subsidies for educational institutions are ridiculous) is that Universities are non-profit organizations, and if money is going to be channeled from taxpayers to tax-consumers (Universities) then the people want to make sure they are spending the funds appropriately, and that the funds aren't being used in a manner that allows Universities to afford lavish salaries or other wasteful expenses. SS was never meant to be a wealth transfer in the same regard. People pay in their whole lives so that when they retire (in theory) the government provides a minimum wage to those folks. I maybe wrong on medicare, but I don't think the citizen actually receives the money. I believe the hospitals or doctors submit claims to the government, and they receive the cash. If one doctor is performing abortions with medicare dollars, I think the public should be aware. You are right in that receiving SS is optional (much like federal funding in Title IX), but paying into SS is mandatory, which is a huge difference. Personally, I think the added transparency would be great in informing Americans about how much information is collected about us.

I had a typo:

if you accept even one dollar in federal guns --> if you accept even one dollar in federal funds

The choice of abortion complicates the issue as there are some laws against using fed funds for abortion. Change that to colonoscopy. Why should the public know that a person receives colonoscopy or vasectomy or (medically necessary) breast reduction paid by medicare? And if so, then the same should apply to people on SS buying guns.

Also realize that just like SS people pay their entire lives for medicare. So what is the difference?

Quote from Danman114 : 8 million people who are not senior citizens are on Medicare.

Yes- for special reason, but did you mean medicaid?