Guess who wasn't invited to Republican "hearing" on Planned Parenthood?

[Atreus21]

Bullshit.

When discussing promotions and raises, are you invited into the room of managers? No. No you are not. It is a conflict of interest, you're a moron if you think otherwise.

When discussing my own promotion or raise, you bet your ass I'm invited.

 

[HomerJS]

The entire hearing is a farce.

Why have a discussion over something that is legal?

The hearing should be whether fetal tissue research should be legal in the US. They won't do that because it would involve a discussion of science. We all know the GOP and science don't get along.

Hell, Ben Carson participated and extolled the virtues of FTR but now he has to dumb it down for the base.

 

[Atreus21]

Certainly seems all non-PP, which is odd given the subject. Then again, we're talking about a party who likes to debate science with no scientists involved, or thinks public opinion somehow refutes scientific analysis.

As far as I can tell the only two females present were two "abortion survivors" who were invited to this song and dance to regale those present with horror stories of their safer-than-childbirth procedures. Might have be some in the

Probably kept the use of the word "vagina" to a minimum, which is nice as in the past we've seen it's just too offensive and inappropriate a term for these socially conservative morality warriors bent on saving women from delusions of liberty and autonomy.


Cruz 2016 - Get back in the kitchen woman!

I'm not talking about those invited. I'm talking about the committee(s) holding the hearing. Is it all-male? That's what the OP led me to question.

 

[kage69]

So are they also going to talk about the identity fraud, tax fraud, libel, illegal wiretapping, and violation of a court order done by the group that took the videos?

Why do you hate 'Merica?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

When discussing my own promotion or raise, you bet your ass I'm invited.

Keep dreaming buddy.

Any meeting to discuss (such as "performance reviews") is after the fact when the decision is already made. But keep living in your fantasy world.

 

[Bowfinger]

Keep dreaming buddy.

Any meeting to discuss (such as "performance reviews") is after the fact when the decision is already made. But keep living in your fantasy world.

As a boss, I meet with each of my employees before doing performance reviews, and require each to provide me with a self-assessment which we discuss. I use this to help me prepare each review. If your boss doesn't do the same, either he sucks as a manager or you're in a menial field with interchangeable workers.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Keep dreaming buddy.

Any meeting to discuss (such as "performance reviews") is after the fact when the decision is already made. But keep living in your fantasy world.

Off topic - but, s0me0nesmind1 is right,.. in how they work at his company as well as mine (and the others I've worked in).

There is a pool of money and managers bludgeon one another to fight for X% and/or X$ to give to their direct reports.

Direct reports/line employees do not partake in this 'exercise' - since their performance is what determines how rabid your manager will be in your name to get you a larger slice.

This may just be for big companies though.

 

[Newell Steamer]

As a boss, I meet with each of my employees before doing performance reviews, and require each to provide me with a self-assessment which we discuss. I use this to help me prepare each review. If your boss doesn't do the same, either he sucks as a manager or you're in a menial field with interchangeable workers.

And when you have that assessment of each employee, you then take it to your superiors (unless you are the owner/final decision maker) to get them X raise, right?

 

[Bowfinger]

And when you have that assessment of each employee, you then take it to your superiors (unless you are the owner/final decision maker) to get them X raise, right?

Of course, but the point is they contribute to the process and get to advocate on their own behalf. Just as Planned Parenthood should be allowed to participate in these discussions. PP doesn't get to vote, of course, but they should be able to make their case, correct misunderstandings, and challenge the propaganda being spread against them.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

As a boss, I meet with each of my employees before doing performance reviews, and require each to provide me with a self-assessment which we discuss. I use this to help me prepare each review. If your boss doesn't do the same, either he sucks as a manager or you're in a menial field with interchangeable workers.

That is NOT determining your raise/promotion.

It's basically just giving the manager ammo (from a lack of involvement with the employee) in order to argue whichever way they want to go when fighting for the top spots. It in NO WAY determines or changes how their performance is. The end result is what the manager wants to give, and the ammo is used when battling for the 2 promotion spots or however much of the bonus pool to award to.

Yes, I do stupid self assessments as well - it won't change a damn thing. It's just ammo in the manager's pocket if someone tries to argue with them.

Off topic - but, s0me0nesmind1 is right,.. in how they work at his company as well as mine (and the others I've worked in).

There is a pool of money and managers bludgeon one another to fight for X% and/or X$ to give to their direct reports.

Direct reports/line employees do not partake in this 'exercise' - since their performance is what determines how rabid your manager will be in your name to get you a larger slice.

This may just be for big companies though.

Exactly. Someone gets it.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Of course, but the point is they contribute to the process and get to advocate on their own behalf. Just as Planned Parenthood should be allowed to participate in these discussions. PP doesn't get to vote, of course, but they should be able to make their case, correct misunderstandings, and challenge the propaganda being spread against them.

Then it's a case of using a bad analogy - or applying it wrong (,.. lets see how much further we'll veer out on this one now,...)

Because employees to not partake in the joy that you as a manager get, to fight for them come bonus/promotion time.

Where as PP should be there, agreed, to indeed correct misunderstandings and counter propaganda.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

^^^sounds like he works for a big company. I've done the same in the past. Before you have the meeting you need to collect results, these are usually numbers. There is a base attainment number the employee is either far over, over, at, under goal. These numbers go into some kind of form or PeopleSoft solution then it has a raise number attached to it. A manager could escalate it for a larger sum if there is something off. Point is before the review happens the result is calculated, which sounds similar to these hearings.

 

[Atreus21]

Of course, but the point is they contribute to the process and get to advocate on their own behalf. Just as Planned Parenthood should be allowed to participate in these discussions. PP doesn't get to vote, of course, but they should be able to make their case, correct misunderstandings, and challenge the propaganda being spread against them.

To be fair, and back on topic, they were invited (if not to this particular hearing). A Texas Senate hearing. They were invited and didn't show.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015...nthood-over-sales-of-aborted-baby-body-parts/

Planned Parenthood representatives failed to appear before the senate committee to answer questions about the sale of fetal remains. Instead, their representatives held a political rally on the south side of the Capitol.

“The Senate Committee on Health and Human Services made numerous attempts to invite Planned Parenthood to testify at today’s hearing and clarify their position on the sale of fetal tissue — attempts that went completely unanswered for more than a week,” said Schwertner.

“Only minutes before the start of today’s hearing, my office received a letter from Planned Parenthood indicating their refusal to appear before this committee to answer questions regarding their position on the collection and sale of aborted fetal remains.

 

[Sonikku]

Certainly seems all non-PP, which is odd given the subject. Then again, we're talking about a party who likes to debate science with no scientists involved, or thinks public opinion somehow refutes scientific analysis.

Why should scientists ever be involved in science discussions? They're too biased on matters of science to have an objective opinion.

 

[Bowfinger]

To be fair, and back on topic, they were invited (if not to this particular hearing). A Texas Senate hearing. They were invited and didn't show.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015...nthood-over-sales-of-aborted-baby-body-parts/

Then the blame falls to Planned Parenthood in that case. In this case, the blame lies with our congressional "representatives" who have decided to make decisions based on prejudice and partisanship.

 

[kage69]

I'm not talking about those invited. I'm talking about the committee(s) holding the hearing. Is it all-male? That's what the OP led me to question.

As far as I can tell, yes, it was an all male committee. Non government females invited to speak were carefully vetted to deliver testimony that the republican led committee approved of. Normally that would be shocking, but we're talking about the moral crusaders of DC here, right? This bullshit is a time tested recipe.


"The purpose is to smear Planned Parenthood," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. In a reference to infamous hearings of the 1950s that featured unfounded allegations that some federal officials were communists, Nadler added, "Sen. Joseph McCarthy would be proud of this committee today."

Pretty much.

I'm curious as to why any social conservatives with brains are listening to Ted Cruz, let alone some of them playing along with his desire to break the government again if he doesn't get his way. A dishonestly edited video, illegally obtained, that does not indicate any evidence of wrongdoing is being used to justify the repeat of the same kind of dogmatic bullshit that cost this country a notch on our credit rating.

Conservatives are locked in their own fantasy again, and somehow think shooting themselves in each foot is going to help them next November so that they can then point the gun at everybody else. How are people still listening to Cruz when he talks about shutting the government down and not booing? Amazing.

Until anti-abortion rights people get serious about BC, post natal nutrition/support, and sex education, their opinions on abortion are duly noted, summarily dismissed. Hypocrites and idiots are part of the problem, we don't need them trying to warp a solution to something that helps them sleep better at night but disenfranchises an entire gender. Good of them to highlight why they don't deserve to be in a position of authority though. :thumbsup: I think it says a lot about 'that side of the debate' in that they could help effect dramatic positive change, practically overnight, were they to get on board with initiatives that would dramatically reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies - but that would cost them one of the most potent dogwhistles they have and their political fortunes would suffer immensely in the short term. Essentially, one side is fighting for women to have control over their bodies, and the other is fighting to keep their political landscape the way it is. Pretty much why none of the GOP anti-abortion efforts to make women seem shallow and selfish over abortion rights will ever work - the utility of abortion to women is a hell of a lot more understandable than what the practice means for conservative career politicians. The ones who make it religious just make it more sleazy IMO.

 

[kage69]

Why should scientists ever be involved in science discussions? They're too biased on matters of science to have an objective opinion.

Exactly. Facts, with their liberal bias I guess, just aren't bipartisan enough for DC. Only carefully edited, disingenuous amateur video can be used to judge an issue! This isn't environmental rocket surgery people!

Oop, almost forgot "LOL Democrats!"

 

[Bowfinger]

That is NOT determining your raise/promotion. ...

You're moving the goal posts. I didn't say employees determine their own raise, nor did you initially. You've only shifted to that now that your original analogy has been shredded. Regardless, a committee actually interested in a fair and informed evaluation of Planned Parenthood would include them. This committee clearly is not. The last thing they want is accurate information on the record, undermining their propaganda.

 

[woolfe9998]

That, and it's ridiculous to compare the behavior of private employers in determining raises for their employees with a public hearing discussing the use of tax payer funds for an organization which claims it is performing a public service, and whose input is at least theoretically relevant to evaluating that service. Government and private business are not the same thing. They do not have the same purpose and hence they ought to behave differently. This reminds me of analogies we constantly hear from the right about wanting to run the government like a business. It's a fallacy regardless of the context in which the analogy is drawn.

 

[Atreus21]

As far as I can tell, yes, it was an all male committee. Non government females invited to speak were carefully vetted to deliver testimony that the republican led committee approved of. Normally that would be shocking, but we're talking about the moral crusaders of DC here, right? This bullshit is a time tested recipe.


"The purpose is to smear Planned Parenthood," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. In a reference to infamous hearings of the 1950s that featured unfounded allegations that some federal officials were communists, Nadler added, "Sen. Joseph McCarthy would be proud of this committee today."

Pretty much.

I'm curious as to why any social conservatives with brains are listening to Ted Cruz, let alone some of them playing along with his desire to break the government again if he doesn't get his way. A dishonestly edited video, illegally obtained, that does not indicate any evidence of wrongdoing is being used to justify the repeat of the same kind of dogmatic bullshit that cost this country a notch on our credit rating.

Conservatives are locked in their own fantasy again, and somehow think shooting themselves in each foot is going to help them next November so that they can then point the gun at everybody else. How are people still listening to Cruz when he talks about shutting the government down and not booing? Amazing.

Until anti-abortion rights people get serious about BC, post natal nutrition/support, and sex education, their opinions on abortion are duly noted, summarily dismissed. Hypocrites and idiots are part of the problem, we don't need them trying to warp a solution to something that helps them sleep better at night but disenfranchises an entire gender. Good of them to highlight why they don't deserve to be in a position of authority though. :thumbsup:

Unfounded allegations?! Have you watched any of the videos?

And whatever problems are caused by poverty for lack of birth control, nutrition, or sex education, killing the anticipated victim isn't the answer.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Why are we even discussing this stupid comparison? It's more like an HR complaint being filed against you and you not being allowed to participate in the process. Not a performance review.

 

[Atreus21]

Why are we even discussing this stupid comparison? It's more like an HR complaint being filed against you and you not being allowed to participate in the process. Not a performance review.

It's my fault. I contested the original point and a threadjack ensued.

 

[kage69]

Unfounded allegations?! Have you watched any of the videos?

Is there a crime in particular you are referring to? Other than the ones cited in the making of the video I mean.

And whatever problems are caused by poverty for lack of birth control, nutrition, or sex education, killing the anticipated victim isn't the answer.

It's hard to debate answers with those who can't even bring themselves to talk about the actual problem honestly. Moreso if the same people refuse to view the world around them without a religious lens. The anti-abortion rights arm comes down firmly against the very things that would mitigate or solve the vast majority of causes for abortion. Depending on the state, they even promote measures that can actually increase unwanted pregnancies.

This sideshow is simply part of the pre-election dogwhistle event that usually kicks in, just this time it involves Ted Cruz for extra fail and doubles down on what is already suspected of the social authoritarian sect of the GOP. As I'm not interested in seeing these kind of people tell others how to live, I truly hope it gets all the press it can.

Actually, the more I think of it the more I don't care if they were invited or not. I can't really fault someone for not wanting to sit through hour after hour of a predictable, slow lambasting. That's not constructive, that's window dressing, you're declining to help your detractors cut a mountain of advertisement footage and talking points to further cloud the waters of debate after they've already shown you the lengths their go to keep their agenda limping along.

Now an actual, legitimate, non-partisan inquiry into the matter that follows the legal code, complies with things like basic math and science, something more than this Ted Cruz theater...saying no thanks to one of those would be entirely different.

 

[nickqt]

Should a pregnant woman who attempts suicide be charged with attempted murder?

Also:

Planned Parenthood has been investigated in many states, and no violations of the law are found.

But, because the GOP policy platform is a loser, they have to invent pseudo-policy-alternatives like this in order to rile up a bunch of SJWs(!) to get out the vote.

Nothin' new to see here, folks.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Will then Republicans recommend a special tax on Christians to pay for the increased costs the government has to pay as a result of unwanted pregnancies that occur from having less birth control and for not having government-funded abortion?

Shouldn't the Christians have to pay the increased costs of welfare, public schools, health care, and criminal justice costs for children born into poverty?