The Smiley Smile Message Board

Non Smiley Smile Stuff => The Sandbox => Topic started by: Bean Bag on July 30, 2015, 08:36:07 PM



Title: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on July 30, 2015, 08:36:07 PM
Are any of you following this story?  A series of undercover "sting" videos have been capturing Planned Parenthood employees trafficking baby parts -- for profit.  Which is a Federal crime.  And the videos keep coming.

Regardless of how you feel about abortion (killing babies for our convenience) -- the exposed practice of harvesting humans for their body parts is causing some pretty heavy reaction.  Congress is moving to defund them.  I don't know if the John Stewart Class out there knows anything about this, so I'm curious what ya'll thinks.

In case you get your "news" from other liberal organizations and therefore totally clueless, Planned Parenthood kills babies.  It's not about family planning, anymore than Auschwitz was about "relocating Jews."  Two out of three of these Planned Murderhood clinics are in black neighborhoods.  And since Roe V. Wade, an estimated 55 million babies have been carved out of their mothers womb -- alive.  55 million -- making the holocaust's 7 million, look like a dry run.

So what say you?

(http://www.timesnews.net/data/gnpics/2015/cd2124c307699a0d3366b6ab6f3a242f.jpg)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: alf wiedersehen on July 30, 2015, 10:45:04 PM
Sad news about Cecil.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on July 31, 2015, 02:33:10 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/30/politics/planned-parenthood-fourth-video/

Quote
"There's ample reason to think that this is merely the tried and true tactic that we have seen from some extremists on the right to edit this video and selectively release an edited version of the video that grossly distorts the position of the person who is actually speaking on the video," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. "And Planned Parenthood has indicated that's what has occurred here."

Quote
Planned Parenthood lawyers declined to enter into a contract with the individuals pretending to be researchers after seeing the contract.

But let's not a lack of facts get in the way of anyone's agenda... :)



Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: KDS on July 31, 2015, 05:32:10 AM
My beliefs tend to lean more to the right than to the left.  But I do support a woman's right to chose. 

That being said, if these stories are true, then said clinics should be shut down immediately, and the guilty parties prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on July 31, 2015, 06:20:13 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/30/politics/planned-parenthood-fourth-video/

Quote
"There's ample reason to think that this is merely the tried and true tactic that we have seen from some extremists on the right to edit this video and selectively release an edited version of the video that grossly distorts the position of the person who is actually speaking on the video," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. "And Planned Parenthood has indicated that's what has occurred here."

Quote
Planned Parenthood lawyers declined to enter into a contract with the individuals pretending to be researchers after seeing the contract.

But let's not a lack of facts get in the way of anyone's agenda... :)



 :lol  Right!  Just a big misunderstanding I'm sure.  Reminds me of that commercial for parental TV controls, where the mom is talking to a couple of mobsters from a Sopranos-type of show -- "...and last week, when you hit Vinny with the shovel"  And the mobsters look at each other and smirk, before he turns back to the mom "yeah, I do not recall that."  Classic.

However, the fact is, Loaf -- we're talking Nazi-sht. It's just a matter of time before we find the lampshades made from the hides of babies in the office of a Planned Parenthood exec.  You know it.  I know it.  And Vinny knows it.

 :lol


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on July 31, 2015, 06:31:49 AM
My beliefs tend to lean more to the right than to the left.  But I do support a woman's right to chose. 

That being said, if these stories are true, then said clinics should be shut down immediately, and the guilty parties prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

I agree.  But I gotta say, a "woman's right to choose..." cracks me up every time I hear it.  If you say it ten times... it still doesn't make sense.  Can it be applied to other areas in life?  Like spousal abuse?  Does a man have a right to choose?   :lol  What about bullying?  Does a bully have a right to choose who he or she picks on?  Actually, I suppose they do.

But, yes, I think there's enough outrage here, that finally some action is being taken.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on July 31, 2015, 06:33:45 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/30/politics/planned-parenthood-fourth-video/

Quote
"There's ample reason to think that this is merely the tried and true tactic that we have seen from some extremists on the right to edit this video and selectively release an edited version of the video that grossly distorts the position of the person who is actually speaking on the video," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. "And Planned Parenthood has indicated that's what has occurred here."

Quote
Planned Parenthood lawyers declined to enter into a contract with the individuals pretending to be researchers after seeing the contract.

But let's not a lack of facts get in the way of anyone's agenda... :)



 :lol  Right!  Just a big misunderstanding I'm sure.  Reminds me of that commercial for parental TV controls, where the mom is talking to a couple of mobsters from a Sopranos-type of show -- "...and last week, when you hit Vinny with the shovel"  And the mobsters look at each other and smirk, before he turns back to the mom "yeah, I do not recall that."  Classic.

However, the fact is, Loaf -- we're talking Nazi-sht. It's just a matter of time before we find the lampshades made from the hides of babies in the office of a Planned Parenthood exec.  You know it.  I know it.  And Vinny knows it.

 :lol
Mengele.

This isn't about choosing. It is trafficking of human body parts.  It will be hard to distance themselves from the apparent quid pro quo. Lamborghini - anyone?

Dr. Josef Mengele. History repeats. Disrespect for humans. Gays, Jews, etc.

God Bless Fox News for airing this footage. An inconvenient truth.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: KDS on July 31, 2015, 06:45:40 AM
My beliefs tend to lean more to the right than to the left.  But I do support a woman's right to chose. 

That being said, if these stories are true, then said clinics should be shut down immediately, and the guilty parties prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

I agree.  But I gotta say, a "woman's right to choose..." cracks me up every time I hear it.  If you say it ten times... it still doesn't make sense.  Can it be applied to other areas in life?  Like spousal abuse?  Does a man have a right to choose?   :lol  What about bullying?  Does a bully have a right to choose who he or she picks on?  Actually, I suppose they do.

But, yes, I think there's enough outrage here, that finally some action is being taken.

Mr. Bag,

I'll respect your opinion.  But I've learned that with such sensitive topics as religion, abortion, the death penalty, etc, it's not possible to try to sway another's belief on the subject.  So, I don't bother. 



Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on July 31, 2015, 06:59:48 AM
My beliefs tend to lean more to the right than to the left.  But I do support a woman's right to chose. 

That being said, if these stories are true, then said clinics should be shut down immediately, and the guilty parties prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

I agree.  But I gotta say, a "woman's right to choose..." cracks me up every time I hear it.  If you say it ten times... it still doesn't make sense.  Can it be applied to other areas in life?  Like spousal abuse?  Does a man have a right to choose?   :lol  What about bullying?  Does a bully have a right to choose who he or she picks on?  Actually, I suppose they do.

But, yes, I think there's enough outrage here, that finally some action is being taken.

Mr. Bag,

I'll respect your opinion.  But I've learned that with such sensitive topics as religion, abortion, the death penalty, etc, it's not possible to try to sway another's belief on the subject.  So, I don't bother. 
These recent videos are changing a lot of minds and perception about the Planned Parenthood narrative. They get a half billion a year of tax bucks, and gave 12 mil of campaign dough to the sitting president.

And you bet it's sensitive.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on July 31, 2015, 07:04:08 AM
My beliefs tend to lean more to the right than to the left.  But I do support a woman's right to chose. 

That being said, if these stories are true, then said clinics should be shut down immediately, and the guilty parties prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

I agree.  But I gotta say, a "woman's right to choose..." cracks me up every time I hear it.  If you say it ten times... it still doesn't make sense.  Can it be applied to other areas in life?  Like spousal abuse?  Does a man have a right to choose?   :lol  What about bullying?  Does a bully have a right to choose who he or she picks on?  Actually, I suppose they do.

But, yes, I think there's enough outrage here, that finally some action is being taken.

Mr. Bag,

I'll respect your opinion.  But I've learned that with such sensitive topics as religion, abortion, the death penalty, etc, it's not possible to try to sway another's belief on the subject.  So, I don't bother. 


Cool, no disrespect.  But I actually believe people's hearts and minds can be changed.  I've seen it happen.  A lot.  Especially on the three topics you mention.  Politics are more "favorite team" sport, kind of stuff.  But the serious issues; like abortion, death penalty and religion -- people wake up all the time.  Abortion is the easiest one of the three, personally.  Once you see the pictures.  The awful pictures.  Kind of freaks people out.  Or once a dad hears the heartbeat of their baby in their wife's tummy.  It's real stuff.  Not a debate topic for the college dope-heads. 

I think the country is willing to compromise.  Personally, I think we're ready for a rape/incest only compromise.  I mean we're not Nazis.  And the happy blanket of terms like Woman's Health -- or Woman's Right -- or Pro-Choice -- or Planned Parenthood -- or the offending "Clinic" -- those happy words just make it more sick.  I think people are waking up.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: KDS on July 31, 2015, 07:10:45 AM
My beliefs tend to lean more to the right than to the left.  But I do support a woman's right to chose. 

That being said, if these stories are true, then said clinics should be shut down immediately, and the guilty parties prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

I agree.  But I gotta say, a "woman's right to choose..." cracks me up every time I hear it.  If you say it ten times... it still doesn't make sense.  Can it be applied to other areas in life?  Like spousal abuse?  Does a man have a right to choose?   :lol  What about bullying?  Does a bully have a right to choose who he or she picks on?  Actually, I suppose they do.

But, yes, I think there's enough outrage here, that finally some action is being taken.

Mr. Bag,

I'll respect your opinion.  But I've learned that with such sensitive topics as religion, abortion, the death penalty, etc, it's not possible to try to sway another's belief on the subject.  So, I don't bother. 
These recent videos are changing a lot of minds and perception about the Planned Parenthood narrative. They get a half billion a year of tax bucks, and gave 12 mil of campaign dough to the sitting president.

And you bet it's sensitive.

I will reserve my judgement when more evidence comes out.  The videos came from an anti abortion group.  Some of these groups will go to extreme levels to shut down these clinics.  So, I'm going to wait until some impartial evidence comes out. 

And Bean Bag, I could see a compromise for rape/incest, but there are other circumstances.  For example, there was an example years ago where a pregnant woman was in a car accident, and the only way to save her life was to abort the baby.  Chances were actually good that, had the abortion not happened, that both of them would've died.  But some of the extremist groups still called her a murderer. 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on July 31, 2015, 09:02:01 AM
And Bean Bag, I could see a compromise for rape/incest, but there are other circumstances.  For example, there was an example years ago where a pregnant woman was in a car accident, and the only way to save her life was to abort the baby.  Chances were actually good that, had the abortion not happened, that both of them would've died.  But some of the extremist groups still called her a murderer.  

Right, right, right.  Those "other circumstances" tales.  They always sound so silly and remote and bizarre.  Like one of those bar-room "who would you rather do" conversations.  You know?   :lol  The most remote possibility is enough to entertain I suppose.  If I won the lotto...

The fact that so many people are able to cite one off hand, as a reason we need abortion, goes to the powerful money that's been spent on propaganda.  That's the way I see it.  Similar to how people who barely know their own names, can cite how marijuana should be legal, cuz it makes.... like, uh really good paper and rope.  Oh it does?  You know you can smoke it too?

Anyway... I'm not saying there could never be such a scenario, I'm no expert... buuuut, you know.  I knew this guy, who knew this guy who knew this guy's cousin, who had this friend, who's brother knew this guy who used to work for this company run by this guy, who's sister was married to this guy who's aunt had that happen to her.  Even those stranded, plane-wrecked victims had to eat the dead to survive.

Lastly why are people who expose extremists also called extremists?  The abortion bombing stuff is so overplayed.  The impression the REAL extremists like to create is, these video makers woke up and had to decide whether to strap on the hidden camera or a time bomb.  Luckily they chose the camera, eh?

 :p


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on July 31, 2015, 10:04:45 AM
My beliefs tend to lean more to the right than to the left.  But I do support a woman's right to chose. 

That being said, if these stories are true, then said clinics should be shut down immediately, and the guilty parties prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

But, yes, I think there's enough outrage here, that finally some action is being taken.

And that is the problem... there is plenty of outrage, but where are the facts?

Why edit the tape in the first place?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on July 31, 2015, 10:09:16 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/30/politics/planned-parenthood-fourth-video/

Quote
"There's ample reason to think that this is merely the tried and true tactic that we have seen from some extremists on the right to edit this video and selectively release an edited version of the video that grossly distorts the position of the person who is actually speaking on the video," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. "And Planned Parenthood has indicated that's what has occurred here."

Quote
Planned Parenthood lawyers declined to enter into a contract with the individuals pretending to be researchers after seeing the contract.

But let's not a lack of facts get in the way of anyone's agenda... :)



 :lol  Right!  Just a big misunderstanding I'm sure.  Reminds me of that commercial for parental TV controls, where the mom is talking to a couple of mobsters from a Sopranos-type of show -- "...and last week, when you hit Vinny with the shovel"  And the mobsters look at each other and smirk, before he turns back to the mom "yeah, I do not recall that."  Classic.

However, the fact is, Loaf -- we're talking Nazi-sht. It's just a matter of time before we find the lampshades made from the hides of babies in the office of a Planned Parenthood exec.  You know it.  I know it.  And Vinny knows it.

 :lol
Mengele.

This isn't about choosing. It is trafficking of human body parts.  It will be hard to distance themselves from the apparent quid pro quo. Lamborghini - anyone?

Dr. Josef Mengele. History repeats. Disrespect for humans. Gays, Jews, etc.

God Bless Fox News for airing this footage. An inconvenient truth.

Let's first establish whether it is "truth" before asking God to bless anyone for its inconvenience :)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on July 31, 2015, 01:03:26 PM
True.  But the Pro-Lifers need to pounce like a lion when the litter box is hot.  Which of course, you know, which is why you're asking for a calm investigation.  I'd prefer politicians take a stand and turn away from the money and completely defund Planned Parenthood and then work to overturn the atrocious Roe V Wade nonsense -- and allow society to decide what it wants, not evil lawyers.  After that, yes, continue with the investigation.  :-D

But yes, I agree Loaf, we should get all the facts and do a thorough investigation.  It's so bad, even Hillary (gasp!) had to come out with a statement.  You know its bad when Hillary "it ain't a baby till the mother decides to leave the hospital with it" Clinton has to come out with a statement, saying how disturbing it is.  Obama (who voted for killing infants BORN ALIVE) is silent, of course.  But he's not up for election.  Hillary is, otherwise, she'd be quiet -- and buzzing around town in a big jet, preaching how we need to use less fossil fuels.  Btich.   :lol

It's time.  Do it for Cecil.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on August 01, 2015, 05:38:23 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/30/politics/planned-parenthood-fourth-video/

Quote
"There's ample reason to think that this is merely the tried and true tactic that we have seen from some extremists on the right to edit this video and selectively release an edited version of the video that grossly distorts the position of the person who is actually speaking on the video," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. "And Planned Parenthood has indicated that's what has occurred here."

Quote
Planned Parenthood lawyers declined to enter into a contract with the individuals pretending to be researchers after seeing the contract.

But let's not a lack of facts get in the way of anyone's agenda... :)



 :lol  Right!  Just a big misunderstanding I'm sure.  Reminds me of that commercial for parental TV controls, where the mom is talking to a couple of mobsters from a Sopranos-type of show -- "...and last week, when you hit Vinny with the shovel"  And the mobsters look at each other and smirk, before he turns back to the mom "yeah, I do not recall that."  Classic.

However, the fact is, Loaf -- we're talking Nazi-sht. It's just a matter of time before we find the lampshades made from the hides of babies in the office of a Planned Parenthood exec.  You know it.  I know it.  And Vinny knows it.

 :lol
Mengele.

This isn't about choosing. It is trafficking of human body parts.  It will be hard to distance themselves from the apparent quid pro quo. Lamborghini - anyone?

Dr. Josef Mengele. History repeats. Disrespect for humans. Gays, Jews, etc.

God Bless Fox News for airing this footage. An inconvenient truth.

Let's first establish whether it is "truth" before asking God to bless anyone for its inconvenience :)
This isn't what PP would care for people to believe.  It is the false representation of how the fetus would be treated. As research to help another human, not dough for a doc's new wheels.  It was represented falsely as going to research which often helped a woman deal with an awful decision.  The fact that the body parts were quid pro quo for money is exactly why they want no more videos released.  This goes beyond "choice" for a woman.  Or right wing rhetoric.  It is crossing ethical boundaries for profit. They were caught red-handed. And are characterizing them as "highly edited!" Those words of "barter and negotiation" came right out of those doctors' mouths. 

Even Hillary, whose campaign aide recently referred to Fox News as "not really news" has made a statement as against the videos.  If they were not a representative group of investigative interviews, they would not have gone to court for an injunction (because they are afraid?) to hold off airing them.  They are afraid of their cash cow evaporating.  I believe it is the truth that they want the whistleblowers blocked...not that unlike the Snowden case. 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on August 02, 2015, 11:21:12 AM
At the end of the day the fact remains that the public wouldn't care about Planned Parenthood if it wasn't footing part of the bill. Planned Parenthood already receives the lion's share of its funding from donations and grants; what's going to change if people are no longer extorted to fund the rest? Planned Parenthood won't go out of business and it is not going out of business any time soon.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on August 05, 2015, 05:58:31 AM
At the end of the day the fact remains that the public wouldn't care about Planned Parenthood if it wasn't footing part of the bill. Planned Parenthood already receives the lion's share of its funding from donations and grants; what's going to change if people are no longer extorted to fund the rest? Planned Parenthood won't go out of business and it is not going out of business any time soon.
This "woman's health care" gap is nonsense.  The community-based health centers which are connected to hospitals do primary care for women.  PP has a "niche practice."

And the left (extreme) has created this false narrative that women won't have health care without PP.  Utter propaganda. They have cancer screenings that PP don't provide and provide a larger umbrella for health support. 

This is not about pro choice. This is not about research.  These women were hoodwinked.  It is trafficking/marketing body parts. The "extraction methods" were manipulated to achieve maximum profit, in apparent contravention of the law.

Outside of the US, stories have emerged with adults and even younger people, selling kidneys, etc., for profit on the black market.  This has become a "line item" for PP that is being underwritten by taxpayers.  PP gets a half billion a year in federal bucks.  PP gave 12 million to elect Obama. 

Where are the "grants" coming from?  Govt.? Or medical schools, indirectly trafficking in tissue? Or "grants" from private biotech industry?  It is important to know who is the grantor. 

So, I'm waiting for the investigation and indictments.  These investigative reporters are whistleblowers, no less than Snowden is.  No matter if they are anti-abortion.  They are taxpayers, who have an interest in seeing the laws upheld, and their tax money not misused. 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on August 05, 2015, 11:57:07 AM
Well said Filledeplage.   :h5

These PP videos are among the most shockingly disgusting things I have ever seen.  The holocaust footage is in b/w and 70 years old and happened in distant lands.  Slavery was even longer ago, but right here at home.  This Planned Parenthood sh-t is right here, right now.

And to see an actual elected US POLITICIAN defend this stuff on camera, like that sack of fungus Elizabeth "The Reaper" Warren did yesterday.  Just leaves me speechless.  She lies about it.  She calls it Women's FCKING Health of all things.

She just topped it all off.  The olive on the biggest, nastiest sh-t sandwich in American history.  Look at her...  she's the olive.

(http://www.shewired.com/sites/shewired.com/files/2015/08/Warren2.gif)


The only thing she didn't do, that would have made it better, is if she pulled out an aborted fetus to show us how wonderful it was for Women's Health.  Just like Christopher Reeve did on South Park.  So prophetic...

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvpf3p8OOI1qhf777o1_500.gif)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood videos exposed as fake.
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on August 06, 2015, 07:54:59 PM
What is now exposed is that these videos are faked and a hoax and you failed to update the thread on your now debunked story. It boggles the mind how so many of you use the Fox News propaganda machine as truth and fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/opinions/louis-planned-parenthood/

Not only that, it is illegal for PP to sell fetal tissue, and PP is prohibited by law to use Federal money for abortion services.

I'd like to control your right to buy a gun but it is your Constitutional right. Funny how you Republicans complain about the over reach of big govt and govt regulation but when it comes to your issues, like abortion,  you want to pass laws to control and stop it.

Yes, the woman's right to chose, Constitutional right as handed down by the Supreme Court. In case you didn't  realize, carrying around a big thing in your belly for 9 months is no trivial thing.  It  can endanger a woman's health, mess up her body permanently and affect her life in multiple ways you obviously have never seriously considered. Not to mention, deciding not to bring a child into a situation of poverty in some cases. Seems like not adding to the 50% of takers Mitt Romney and Fox NEWS love to complain about would make you happy.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood videos exposed as fake.
Post by: KDS on August 07, 2015, 05:21:26 AM
What is now exposed is that these videos are faked and a hoax and you failed to update the thread on your now debunked story. It boggles the mind how so many of you use the Fox News propaganda machine as truth and fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/opinions/louis-planned-parenthood/

Not only that, it is illegal for PP to sell fetal tissue, and PP is prohibited by law to use Federal money for abortion services.

I'd like to control your right to buy a gun but it is your Constitutional right. Funny how you Republicans complain about the over reach of big govt and govt regulation but when it comes to your issues, like abortion,  you want to pass laws to control and stop it.

Yes, the woman's right to chose, Constitutional right as handed down by the Supreme Court. In case you didn't  realize, carrying around a big thing in your belly for 9 months is no trivial thing.  It  can endanger a woman's health, mess up her body permanently and affect her life in multiple ways you obviously have never seriously considered. Not to mention, deciding not to bring a child into a situation of poverty in some cases. Seems like not adding to the 50% of takers Mitt Romney and Fox NEWS love to complain about would make you happy.

I'm a Republican, and I agree with you 100%. 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood videos exposed as fake.
Post by: filledeplage on August 07, 2015, 06:03:34 AM
What is now exposed is that these videos are faked and a hoax and you failed to update the thread on your now debunked story. It boggles the mind how so many of you use the Fox News propaganda machine as truth and fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/opinions/louis-planned-parenthood/

Not only that, it is illegal for PP to sell fetal tissue, and PP is prohibited by law to use Federal money for abortion services.

I'd like to control your right to buy a gun but it is your Constitutional right. Funny how you Republicans complain about the over reach of big govt and govt regulation but when it comes to your issues, like abortion,  you want to pass laws to control and stop it.

Yes, the woman's right to chose, Constitutional right as handed down by the Supreme Court. In case you didn't  realize, carrying around a big thing in your belly for 9 months is no trivial thing.  It  can endanger a woman's health, mess up her body permanently and affect her life in multiple ways you obviously have never seriously considered. Not to mention, deciding not to bring a child into a situation of poverty in some cases. Seems like not adding to the 50% of takers Mitt Romney and Fox NEWS love to complain about would make you happy.

I'm a Republican, and I agree with you 100%. 
Planned Parenthood is a non profit. They have tax exempt status. Doesn't mean they do not pay huge salaries. They have many politicians beholden to them. They get a half-billion a year of my tax dollars.

And, I have no doubt those videos represent what is going on.

That is the dumbest analogy I've seen in a long time.  Comparing insurance payments to body part loss.  That is from accidental loss.  Not quid pro quo for spare parts or research from extraction to maximize value. Think the baby feels no pain being crushed? 

And, I'm a democrat.   

Bring on those indictments...


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood videos exposed as fake.
Post by: SMiLE Brian on August 07, 2015, 06:42:51 AM
What is now exposed is that these videos are faked and a hoax and you failed to update the thread on your now debunked story. It boggles the mind how so many of you use the Fox News propaganda machine as truth and fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/opinions/louis-planned-parenthood/

Not only that, it is illegal for PP to sell fetal tissue, and PP is prohibited by law to use Federal money for abortion services.

I'd like to control your right to buy a gun but it is your Constitutional right. Funny how you Republicans complain about the over reach of big govt and govt regulation but when it comes to your issues, like abortion,  you want to pass laws to control and stop it.

Yes, the woman's right to chose, Constitutional right as handed down by the Supreme Court. In case you didn't  realize, carrying around a big thing in your belly for 9 months is no trivial thing.  It  can endanger a woman's health, mess up her body permanently and affect her life in multiple ways you obviously have never seriously considered. Not to mention, deciding not to bring a child into a situation of poverty in some cases. Seems like not adding to the 50% of takers Mitt Romney and Fox NEWS love to complain about would make you happy.

I'm a Republican, and I agree with you 100%. 
Agreed! :)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood videos exposed as fake.
Post by: filledeplage on August 07, 2015, 06:57:17 AM
What is now exposed is that these videos are faked and a hoax and you failed to update the thread on your now debunked story. It boggles the mind how so many of you use the Fox News propaganda machine as truth and fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/opinions/louis-planned-parenthood/

Not only that, it is illegal for PP to sell fetal tissue, and PP is prohibited by law to use Federal money for abortion services.

I'd like to control your right to buy a gun but it is your Constitutional right. Funny how you Republicans complain about the over reach of big govt and govt regulation but when it comes to your issues, like abortion,  you want to pass laws to control and stop it.

Yes, the woman's right to chose, Constitutional right as handed down by the Supreme Court. In case you didn't  realize, carrying around a big thing in your belly for 9 months is no trivial thing.  It  can endanger a woman's health, mess up her body permanently and affect her life in multiple ways you obviously have never seriously considered. Not to mention, deciding not to bring a child into a situation of poverty in some cases. Seems like not adding to the 50% of takers Mitt Romney and Fox NEWS love to complain about would make you happy.

I'm a Republican, and I agree with you 100%.  
Agreed! :)
One of those doctors has a 1.5 of 5 on a doctor review website.  Review done by patients. An eye opener.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood videos exposed as fake.
Post by: Bean Bag on August 07, 2015, 06:58:01 AM
What is now exposed is that these videos are faked and a hoax and you failed to update the thread on your now debunked story. It boggles the mind how so many of you use the Fox News propaganda machine as truth and fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/opinions/louis-planned-parenthood/

Not only that, it is illegal for PP to sell fetal tissue, and PP is prohibited by law to use Federal money for abortion services.

I'd like to control your right to buy a gun but it is your Constitutional right. Funny how you Republicans complain about the over reach of big govt and govt regulation but when it comes to your issues, like abortion,  you want to pass laws to control and stop it.

Yes, the woman's right to chose, Constitutional right as handed down by the Supreme Court. In case you didn't  realize, carrying around a big thing in your belly for 9 months is no trivial thing.  It  can endanger a woman's health, mess up her body permanently and affect her life in multiple ways you obviously have never seriously considered. Not to mention, deciding not to bring a child into a situation of poverty in some cases. Seems like not adding to the 50% of takers Mitt Romney and Fox NEWS love to complain about would make you happy.

I'm a Republican, and I agree with you 100%. 
Planned Parenthood is a non profit. They have tax exempt status. Doesn't mean they do not pay huge salaries. They have many politicians beholden to them. They get a half-billion a year of my tax dollars.

And, I have no doubt those videos represent what is going on.

That is the dumbest analogy I've seen in a long time.  Comparing insurance payments to body part loss.  That is from accidental loss.  Not quid pro quo for spare parts or research from extraction to maximize value. Think the baby feels no pain being crushed? 

And, I'm a democrat.   

Bring on those indictments...
Bingo. PP was busted. And the horrors of the slaughter of millions of innocent children has been exposed. And the callous attitude of PP and the loons supporting them, is astonishing.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood videos exposed as fake.
Post by: Bean Bag on August 07, 2015, 07:17:04 AM
I'd like to control your right to buy a gun but it is your Constitutional right. Funny how you Republicans complain about the over reach of big govt and govt regulation but when it comes to your issues, like abortion,  you want to pass laws to control and stop it.
I don't think you understand what you're saying here. People have a right to live and defend themselves. Don't they?  It's your ilk that is using Government to take those away from people.

Yes, the woman's right to chose, Constitutional right as handed down by the Supreme Court. In case you didn't  realize, carrying around a big thing in your belly for 9 months is no trivial thing.  It  can endanger a woman's health, mess up her body permanently and affect her life in multiple ways you obviously have never seriously considered. Not to mention, deciding not to bring a child into a situation of poverty in some cases. Seems like not adding to the 50% of takers Mitt Romney and Fox NEWS love to complain about would make you happy.
Constitutional right handed down by the Supreme Court, does not trump a right to live as handed down by the Supreme Being. Killing out of convenience should have ended with the fall of Nazi Germany.

And the argument that people ought to be happy that we're not adding more people to our economic burdens, proves - in written English - that that line of thinking still exists. Sadly.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood videos exposed as fake.
Post by: KDS on August 07, 2015, 10:37:18 AM
I'd like to control your right to buy a gun but it is your Constitutional right. Funny how you Republicans complain about the over reach of big govt and govt regulation but when it comes to your issues, like abortion,  you want to pass laws to control and stop it.
I don't think you understand what you're saying here. People have a right to live and defend themselves. Don't they?  It's your ilk that is using Government to take those away from people.

Yes, the woman's right to chose, Constitutional right as handed down by the Supreme Court. In case you didn't  realize, carrying around a big thing in your belly for 9 months is no trivial thing.  It  can endanger a woman's health, mess up her body permanently and affect her life in multiple ways you obviously have never seriously considered. Not to mention, deciding not to bring a child into a situation of poverty in some cases. Seems like not adding to the 50% of takers Mitt Romney and Fox NEWS love to complain about would make you happy.
Constitutional right handed down by the Supreme Court, does not trump a right to live as handed down by the Supreme Being. Killing out of convenience should have ended with the fall of Nazi Germany.

And the argument that people ought to be happy that we're not adding more people to our economic burdens, proves - in written English - that that line of thinking still exists. Sadly.

I'm not going to argue for or against this issue any further.

But I don't think that the US Government should base any laws on the belief of a "Supreme Being." 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on August 07, 2015, 12:57:28 PM
No need to fear the concept of a Supreme Being, KDS. It's where all our laws, morals, rights, common sense etc come from.  Murder = bad, and so forth.

At the very least the concept is required if only to separate ourselves from self-proclaimed messiahs. The self-proclaimed messiah-types get a tickle up their slacks when you say stuff like you just said. If you don't believe me -- ask'em.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on August 07, 2015, 11:08:36 PM
I'd like to control your right to buy a gun but it is your Constitutional right. Funny how you Republicans complain about the over reach of big govt and govt regulation but when it comes to your issues, like abortion,  you want to pass laws to control and stop it.
I don't think you understand what you're saying here. People have a right to live and defend themselves. Don't they?  It's your ilk that is using Government to take those away from people.

Yes, the woman's right to chose, Constitutional right as handed down by the Supreme Court. In case you didn't  realize, carrying around a big thing in your belly for 9 months is no trivial thing.  It  can endanger a woman's health, mess up her body permanently and affect her life in multiple ways you obviously have never seriously considered. Not to mention, deciding not to bring a child into a situation of poverty in some cases. Seems like not adding to the 50% of takers Mitt Romney and Fox NEWS love to complain about would make you happy.
Constitutional right handed down by the Supreme Court, does not trump a right to live as handed down by the Supreme Being. Killing out of convenience should have ended with the fall of Nazi Germany.

And the argument that people ought to be happy that we're not adding more people to our economic burdens, proves - in written English - that that line of thinking still exists. Sadly.
I see no need to comment further Bag. Your words have done it all for me (mic dropped and walked away).


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on August 08, 2015, 06:35:45 AM
No need to fear the concept of a Supreme Being, KDS. It's where all our laws, morals, rights, common sense etc come from.  Murder = bad, and so forth.

At the very least the concept is required if only to separate ourselves from self-proclaimed messiahs. The self-proclaimed messiah-types get a tickle up their slacks when you say stuff like you just said. If you don't believe me -- ask'em.
Bean Bag - this is a hot topic.  But the US Constitution has separation of church and state.  That is non-negotiable.  Both sides are freaking out and distorting the issues to enhance their electability.

This isn't the religious right. This isn't women's rights. It isn't women's health. That hasn't changed.  This is about "trafficking human tissue," which is spelled out clearly, that is in clear contravention of the law.  And it is not just the "harvesters" of the tissue.  It is about everyone in the "steam of distribution." Quid pro quo. Do-re-mi.

The whole biotech industry is in the background.  The pharmaceutical companies might be also in the mix.  And why everyone is grabbing the Kaopectate.  Those tissues have crossed state lines, in interstate transport and interstate commerce.  Where do the tissues end up? There is a pronouncement somewhere that only 3 states are involved. They could be distributing to the whole 50 states!

And whatever "faction" benefits unintentionally...people want to jump on, is clouding the issue and muddying the waters, politicizing the apparent crimes that have been committed.

It looks bad, because it is bad.  It is a narrow issue.  "Procedures were altered" to maximize profit and "outcome."  On the unwitting dime of the taxpayer.  PP enjoys tax exempt status.  That's a problem.

The medical or bio ethics (or lack thereof) are a "whole other story." And not unlike religion, might not be a good topic for discussion, here, as it's personal.  ;)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on August 08, 2015, 08:35:24 AM

Bean Bag - this is a hot topic.  But the US Constitution has separation of church and state.  That is non-negotiable.  Both sides are freaking out and distorting the issues to enhance their electability.

This isn't the religious right. This isn't women's rights. It isn't women's health. That hasn't changed.  This is about "trafficking human tissue," which is spelled out clearly, that is in clear contravention of the law.  And it is not just the "harvesters" of the tissue.  It is about everyone in the "steam of distribution." Quid pro quo. Do-re-mi.

The whole biotech industry is in the background.  The pharmaceutical companies might be also in the mix.  And why everyone is grabbing the Kaopectate.  Those tissues have crossed state lines, in interstate transport and interstate commerce.  Where do the tissues end up? There is a pronouncement somewhere that only 3 states are involved. They could be distributing to the whole 50 states!

And whatever "faction" benefits unintentionally...people want to jump on, is clouding the issue and muddying the waters, politicizing the apparent crimes that have been committed.

It looks bad, because it is bad.  It is a narrow issue.  "Procedures were altered" to maximize profit and "outcome."  On the unwitting dime of the taxpayer.  PP enjoys tax exempt status.  That's a problem.

The medical or bio ethics (or lack thereof) are a "whole other story." And not unlike religion, might not be a good topic for discussion, here, as it's personal.  ;)

First, I don't know what this has to do with anything -- but there's nothing about separation of Church/State in the US Constitution.  Only that the government can't establish a State religion -- which is exactly what the Secular Progressives are doing (Obama's religion for the slow-witted).  The Secular Progressives are establishing a State Religion.  Secular Progressivism.

Secondly, and most importantly, I don't think this is a religious issue at all.  It's a human rights issue.  Plain and simple.  If this were chicken parts being trafficked, it wouldn't be an issue.  Well... there is the Left's own PETA.  I take it back.

This is a human rights issue.  Just like slavery.  It's not just about the altered procedural profit-oriented trafficking of slaves -- I mean babies, and baby parts.  It's more than that.  It's about the what's being trafficked.  People.  Murdered humans.  Horrifically sad, butchered human beings.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on August 08, 2015, 09:22:16 AM

Bean Bag - this is a hot topic.  But the US Constitution has separation of church and state.  That is non-negotiable.  Both sides are freaking out and distorting the issues to enhance their electability.

This isn't the religious right. This isn't women's rights. It isn't women's health. That hasn't changed.  This is about "trafficking human tissue," which is spelled out clearly, that is in clear contravention of the law.  And it is not just the "harvesters" of the tissue.  It is about everyone in the "steam of distribution." Quid pro quo. Do-re-mi.

The whole biotech industry is in the background.  The pharmaceutical companies might be also in the mix.  And why everyone is grabbing the Kaopectate.  Those tissues have crossed state lines, in interstate transport and interstate commerce.  Where do the tissues end up? There is a pronouncement somewhere that only 3 states are involved. They could be distributing to the whole 50 states!

And whatever "faction" benefits unintentionally...people want to jump on, is clouding the issue and muddying the waters, politicizing the apparent crimes that have been committed.

It looks bad, because it is bad.  It is a narrow issue.  "Procedures were altered" to maximize profit and "outcome."  On the unwitting dime of the taxpayer.  PP enjoys tax exempt status.  That's a problem.

The medical or bio ethics (or lack thereof) are a "whole other story." And not unlike religion, might not be a good topic for discussion, here, as it's personal.  ;)

First, I don't know what this has to do with anything -- but there's nothing about separation of Church/State in the US Constitution.  Only that the government can't establish a State religion -- which is exactly what the Secular Progressives are doing (Obama's religion for the slow-witted).  The Secular Progressives are establishing a State Religion.  Secular Progressivism.

Secondly, and most importantly, I don't think this is a religious issue at all.  It's a human rights issue.  Plain and simple.  If this were chicken parts being trafficked, it wouldn't be an issue.  Well... there is the Left's own PETA.  I take it back.

This is a human rights issue.  Just like slavery.  It's not just about the altered procedural profit-oriented trafficking of slaves -- I mean babies, and baby parts.  It's more than that.  It's about the what's being trafficked.  People.  Murdered humans.  Horrifically sad, butchered human beings.
Bean Bag - maybe I explained that poorly.  As a result of these videos the religious right and all sorts of anti-PP parties are claiming victory.

Say, any undercover investigative network (or the FBI) had done this project and not an anti-abortion special interest group, it would be a different outcry.  If they were only looking at corruption of non-profits (which this seems to be) it would be a different spin. The moral issues and ethics wouldn't be involved. (Even if they are highly charged.)

If a neutral group or media network, went undercover without ties to a special interest, pro or con, it would be a different story.

And what I'm looking at is strictly the money they got, that was conditioned on abiding by certain laws, and abusing them for greed, and apparent personal gain.

It's separating personal positions from out-and out-lawbreaking.  Here, they are got an inch, getting the money, and took a mile, by breaking the regulations attached to the money. 

Following the money and investigating it's misuse, just factually, could be their undoing.

And, I hear what you're saying. But the facts and trail of the flow of money, will tell the real story, without having the waters muddied, by politics and special interest groups. 

The right could get what it wants and the left will discover that they have been "mislead by their own."  But, it has to be done analyzing the facts, only. 

One doctor ( high profile) had an online 1.5 of 5 rating.  It will be interesting how many could come out of the woodwork with complaints to the medical boards.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on August 08, 2015, 09:38:39 AM
For the record, the government doesn't give you your rights. You as a sovereign individual have the rights. They are not "gifts" from the government. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness (property), and the defense of those are the only rights one has. Anything else classified as a "right" is only backed up by government force (also known as guns...y'know, those things that progressives hate so much).

Since ORR brought up guns, let's ask one simple question. Progressives think gun control will magically control guns (never mind the fact that progressives aren't really for gun control; they just want government to control the guns - this has NEVER, EVER under ANY circumstances ended badly at all, y'dig). Does that mean abortion control will magically control abortion? Years of back-alley abortions do not seem to hold up the facade that the illegality of abortion made it go away. Banning guns won't make the guns disappear. Banning abortion or regulating abortion is not going to fix the problem. The American populace has a morality problem first and foremost - a lack of respect for human life and human decency. This is not a "progressive vs. conservative" thing, either. There is no personal responsibility. And why should there be when big government can be mommy and daddy?

Planned Parenthood does have a place in society as a provider of health services for women. It also has no right to money stolen from the productive sector of society. Its services can be provided entirely by investments and donations, and indeed, most of its funding comes from said private investments. So what's going to happen if the public is no longer extorted to help provide part of Planned Parenthood's funding? Absolutely nothing. Progressives don't want tax exemptions for the churches but they want people to fund Planned Parenthood. Newsflash - when videos like this come out and people are being robbed by the state to fund part of that racket, are you really surprised at the backlash? How about this...you want the public to leave Planned Parenthood alone? Stop demanding those who disagree with Planned Parenthood fund them. I mean hey, no one's forcing progressives to go to church or donate to them.

And on the topic of the Supreme Court, let's not hold the Supreme Court up as some haven of logic and reason in a morass of bullshit. Both sides love the Supreme Court when they agree with the decision and hate it when they disagree.

Progressive solutions are always final...and that's not a good thing. Case in point with the recent defense of this idiocy at Planned Parenthood.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on August 08, 2015, 11:07:09 AM
There are more fundamental rights to add to TRBB's list. (I agree with a lot in that post.)

Voting
Travel
and
Privacy
under Privacy comes
Contraception - sale and use. Married and unmarried.

Abortion - but may be regulated by the states, but, as long as they create no undue burden on the right to obtain one. 

Marriage - earlier landmark cases were related to bans on interracial marriage. 

Procreation - relates to contraception

Education (outside public schools)

Challenges are coming to the right to bear arms. 

Also rights of
Free Exercise of Religion
Association
Press (qualified)
Speech (qualified)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on August 08, 2015, 12:37:08 PM
Freedom of movement, privacy, freedom of religion, association, press, speech, and procreation are all covered under liberty. There is no right to education, no right to abortion, no right to contraception, and no right to vote. Voting restricts the liberty of others.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on August 08, 2015, 01:07:55 PM
Freedom of movement, privacy, freedom of religion, association, press, speech, and procreation are all covered under liberty. There is no right to education, no right to abortion, no right to contraception, and no right to vote. Voting restricts the liberty of others.
Liberty is a broad umbrella.  There are regulations that only are necessary for compelling state interests.

There is a right to educate your child ( outside of the public schools)

Those are regulated fundamental rights,  subject to strict scrutiny under equal protection. Meaning there is a compelling interest.  The burden is on the state to show the law is necessary to a compelling interest. 

Voting is regulated by residency and age.  Voting, speech and association can be regulated, secondarily by time, place and manner restrictions, which have to be reasonable to be upheld. 

There are other fundamental rights under art. 4 privileges and immunities. Like access to courts.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on August 08, 2015, 01:15:38 PM
Education, health care, and voting are examples of positive rights - they take away someone else's liberty in the process.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on August 08, 2015, 01:22:38 PM
Education, health care, and voting are examples of positive rights - they take away someone else's liberty in the process.
How do those positive rights take away someone else's liberty?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on August 08, 2015, 01:24:29 PM
I don't have kids...why should I pay for someone else's kids to be educated? I pay for my own health care...why should I pay for someone else's? If those "rights" require someone else's participation then they are not rights, they are state edicts. They are administered by force.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: SMiLE Brian on August 08, 2015, 01:27:26 PM
Should government provided BBs and moody blues albums be a right? :hat


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on August 08, 2015, 01:28:22 PM
Oh, by all means.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on August 08, 2015, 01:31:46 PM
I don't have kids...why should I pay for someone else's kids to be educated? I pay for my own health care...why should I pay for someone else's? If those "rights" require someone else's participation then they are not rights, they are state edicts. They are administered by force.
Oh, I understand what you mean.  But they are deemed to be "necessary and proper" for the "general welfare of the people."

And, I educated my kids ( for the most part) in private schools. But the rest of the population has to be educated. So I guess I paid twice.

Education is cheaper than ignorance (and jail.) Those are the laws that Congress has enacted.  I'm a citizen.  It is the price you pay.  

Your probably correct about the fact that it is "not an option."  :lol


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on August 08, 2015, 08:11:57 PM
Take our guns -- before we get on a plane.  Sounds reasonable.  But also sounds more reasonable to box-cutter packing terrorist.


So many lessons in that reality.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on August 08, 2015, 11:22:02 PM
Oh, I understand what you mean.  But they are deemed to be "necessary and proper" for the "general welfare of the people."

And, I educated my kids ( for the most part) in private schools. But the rest of the population has to be educated. So I guess I paid twice.

Education is cheaper than ignorance (and jail.) Those are the laws that Congress has enacted.  I'm a citizen.  It is the price you pay.  

Your probably correct about the fact that it is "not an option."  :lol

Yeah, I'm aware of the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution. I'm also of the opinion that the Constitution is worthless and does nothing to protect anyone's rights because so many are so willing to delegate more power to the government in exchange for security.

The rest of the population would certainly benefit from the education, but given the sorry state of public education in this country that doesn't speak too well for public-educated children. Of course, if the public schools were actually required to compete with the private schools (the places where people get real educations - no elitism there; I've seen the differences first hand) they'd go out of business.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on August 09, 2015, 05:47:16 AM
Oh, I understand what you mean.  But they are deemed to be "necessary and proper" for the "general welfare of the people."

And, I educated my kids ( for the most part) in private schools. But the rest of the population has to be educated. So I guess I paid twice.

Education is cheaper than ignorance (and jail.) Those are the laws that Congress has enacted.  I'm a citizen.  It is the price you pay.  

Your probably correct about the fact that it is "not an option."  :lol

Yeah, I'm aware of the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution. I'm also of the opinion that the Constitution is worthless and does nothing to protect anyone's rights because so many are so willing to delegate more power to the government in exchange for security.

The rest of the population would certainly benefit from the education, but given the sorry state of public education in this country that doesn't speak too well for public-educated children. Of course, if the public schools were actually required to compete with the private schools (the places where people get real educations - no elitism there; I've seen the differences first hand) they'd go out of business.
The private schools aren't under the gun for academic freedom.  They can use tried and true methods while integrating cutting edge technology.  Public schools, especially in the urban areas, have these predators called college and universities, who are paired with them, and who use the kids as "cohorts" (just like drug companies) for studies.  It means that some reading programs get switched often, so some doctoral candidate can use classes, or even a whole system to put a new re-Invented wheel in place, and get a doctorate.

They also have book companies, many of whom have bus contracts constantly haranguing teachers and principals to sell books.  The private schools can find the best books, and leave them in place.  They don't experiment on their students.  No one would put up with it.  It isn't teachers'  unions (who are far less powerful than other unions, because teachers are generally clueless about what a union really is - the exception is the vocational teachers, like union electricians who go to teacher training and know what a union is) but the administration who are in bed with book companies, who pay for meals at conventions and conferences and offer perks like drug companies have done with doctors.  And food companies who are vendors for meals.  Little sugar?

The teachers have their hands tied in public schools.  That is the reality of the situation. The unions actually can help keep the school systems honest, with caps on class size, environmental conditions, and actually having books for each kid.  The private or parochial schools should be a model for public schools. It is the administration in public schools that is the problem.  Big gravy train.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on August 25, 2015, 06:20:31 PM
Planned Parenthood Baby Parts Buyer Laughs About Shipping Severed Heads

The latest undercover Planned Parenthood video is an interview with Cate Dyer, CEO of an organization called StemExpress that buys aborted baby body parts from Planned Parenthood and sells them to researchers.

There are no graphic images in the video, but Dyer's comments about shipping the severed intact "calvarium" or skull of an aborted baby are bonechilling.

StemExpress: I know we get requests for neural [tissue]. It's the hardest thing in the world to ship.

Buyer: You do it as the whole calvarium.

StemExpress: That's it, yeah, that's the easiest way. And I mean we've actually had good success with that in the past.

Buyer: Yeah, Make sure the eyes are closed!

StemExpress: [Loud Laughter] Tell the lab it's coming. So they don't open the box and go, "Oh God!" [Laughter] So yeah, whereas so many of the academic labs cannot fly like that. They're just not capable.

Buyer: Why is that? I don't understand that.

StemExpress: It's almost like they don't want to know where it comes from. I can see that. Where they're like, "We need limbs, but no hands and feet need to be attached." [...] They want you to take it all off, like, "Make it so that we don't know what it is."

Buyer: Yeah. Bone the chicken for me and then I'll eat it.

StemExpress: That's it. But we know what it is [Laughter]. [...] Their lab techs freak out, and have meltdowns, and so it's just like, yeah.



Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on August 27, 2015, 08:52:40 AM
Planned Parenthood Baby Parts Buyer Laughs About Shipping Severed Heads

The latest undercover Planned Parenthood video is an interview with Cate Dyer, CEO of an organization called StemExpress that buys aborted baby body parts from Planned Parenthood and sells them to researchers.

There are no graphic images in the video, but Dyer's comments about shipping the severed intact "calvarium" or skull of an aborted baby are bonechilling.

StemExpress: I know we get requests for neural [tissue]. It's the hardest thing in the world to ship.

Buyer: You do it as the whole calvarium.

StemExpress: That's it, yeah, that's the easiest way. And I mean we've actually had good success with that in the past.

Buyer: Yeah, Make sure the eyes are closed!

StemExpress: [Loud Laughter] Tell the lab it's coming. So they don't open the box and go, "Oh God!" [Laughter] So yeah, whereas so many of the academic labs cannot fly like that. They're just not capable.

Buyer: Why is that? I don't understand that.

StemExpress: It's almost like they don't want to know where it comes from. I can see that. Where they're like, "We need limbs, but no hands and feet need to be attached." [...] They want you to take it all off, like, "Make it so that we don't know what it is."

Buyer: Yeah. Bone the chicken for me and then I'll eat it.

StemExpress: That's it. But we know what it is [Laughter]. [...] Their lab techs freak out, and have meltdowns, and so it's just like, yeah.


I'm not quite sure what's "bonechilling" about it?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on August 27, 2015, 04:39:43 PM
But what if you reach a point in your life where stuff like this is gross?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on August 28, 2015, 01:56:39 PM
But what if you reach a point in your life where stuff like this is gross?

Yeah, but which part is bone chilling to you?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on August 28, 2015, 08:17:24 PM
Don't be silly Loaf.  It's a very delicate age.  Those children deserve the best care possible.  Not an executioner.

Now, I'm not a doctor.  But I don't think they should be talking about how to best remove the child's heads.  And how to ship them with the eyes closed, so when the person opens it, they're not freaked out.  Call me old fashioned.

Am I getting through, by the way?  Is this thing on?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood videos exposed as fake.
Post by: Alex on August 30, 2015, 05:53:25 PM
I'd like to control your right to buy a gun but it is your Constitutional right. Funny how you Republicans complain about the over reach of big govt and govt regulation but when it comes to your issues, like abortion,  you want to pass laws to control and stop it.
I don't think you understand what you're saying here. People have a right to live and defend themselves. Don't they?  It's your ilk that is using Government to take those away from people.

Yes, the woman's right to chose, Constitutional right as handed down by the Supreme Court. In case you didn't  realize, carrying around a big thing in your belly for 9 months is no trivial thing.  It  can endanger a woman's health, mess up her body permanently and affect her life in multiple ways you obviously have never seriously considered. Not to mention, deciding not to bring a child into a situation of poverty in some cases. Seems like not adding to the 50% of takers Mitt Romney and Fox NEWS love to complain about would make you happy.
Constitutional right handed down by the Supreme Court, does not trump a right to live as handed down by the Supreme Being. Killing out of convenience should have ended with the fall of Nazi Germany.

And the argument that people ought to be happy that we're not adding more people to our economic burdens, proves - in written English - that that line of thinking still exists. Sadly.

The so-called "Supreme Being" is an imaginary one, created by ancient humans thousands of years ago before the advent of modern science.

And I think the late great George Carlin had some choice things to say about abortion:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9kCyqBKewr4


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on August 31, 2015, 06:20:39 AM
What evidence is there that science replaces religion?  And what's the imagination anyway?  Why is it capable of producing things that, don't exist?



Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on August 31, 2015, 06:25:43 AM
Science is a religion.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on August 31, 2015, 06:38:44 AM
Well said TRBB.  If someone is using something to "replace" religion -- look out.  Religion, at the very least, is practiced and designed for the purpose of comprehending what we don't know, and guiding us accordingly.

Filling that gap with the usual suspects:  science, government or some evil fanatic religion -- or the most common and flat-out worst religion of them all -- "self" -- are all shallow and remarkably short-sighted paths.  

If one isn't enamored with religion, believe me, I get it.  But make yourself aware of it.  At the very least read what Jesus said -- he never hurt anyone.  That's a pretty damn good guarantee.  No church required.

Science is awesome, by the way.  But filled with just as many zealots and crooks as any other academy.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on August 31, 2015, 06:47:15 AM
Religion is just a tool.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on August 31, 2015, 03:44:26 PM
Don't be silly Loaf.  It's a very delicate age.  Those children deserve the best care possible.  Not an executioner.

Now, I'm not a doctor.  But I don't think they should be talking about how to best remove the child's heads.  And how to ship them with the eyes closed, so when the person opens it, they're not freaked out.  Call me old fashioned.

Am I getting through, by the way?  Is this thing on?

You still aren't making your position clear… I gather that you are against abortion, but do you think research on foetal/stem cell tissue shouldn't be allowed?

Or is it just the practicality of stem cell research that you don't agree with?

Or both?

I am genuinely interested.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on August 31, 2015, 03:44:59 PM
Science is a religion.

That's only said by people who don't work in science :)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: 18thofMay on August 31, 2015, 04:53:31 PM
My family and I live in Australia, we have a great Country as you all know. I absolutely loved travelling to the USA last year, I fell in love with New York and other parts of your wonderful Country. But I have to say, people like Bean Bag scare the living f*** outta me. I have watched you post about gun control, abortion, PP, Obamacare etc, some of you views are frightening.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Alex on August 31, 2015, 05:59:43 PM
My family and I live in Australia, we have a great Country as you all know. I absolutely loved travelling to the USA last year, I fell in love with New York and other parts of your wonderful Country. But I have to say, people like Bean Bag scare the living f*** outta me. I have watched you post about gun control, abortion, PP, Obamacare etc, some of you views are frightening.

Sometimes I wonder if he trolling for shock value.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 31, 2015, 06:06:30 PM
Science is a religion.

That's only said by people who don't work in science :)

Most people trapped inside a cult are unaware of it, so no surprise.  :)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on August 31, 2015, 06:40:00 PM
Don't be silly Loaf.  It's a very delicate age.  Those children deserve the best care possible.  Not an executioner.

Now, I'm not a doctor.  But I don't think they should be talking about how to best remove the child's heads.  And how to ship them with the eyes closed, so when the person opens it, they're not freaked out.  Call me old fashioned.

Am I getting through, by the way?  Is this thing on?

You still aren't making your position clear… I gather that you are against abortion, but do you think research on foetal/stem cell tissue shouldn't be allowed?

Or is it just the practicality of stem cell research that you don't agree with?

Or both?

I am genuinely interested.

My position isn't clear?  Loaf!!  :lol  You're killing me -- no pun intended.  But, I've got one guy who's so frightened of me and my stark opinions, that he's hopped the first boat back to Happyland Central, where ever that is -- where I assume nothing bad happens or the people are so cooked, they have yet to form opinions about it.  And then I've got you -- and you're stumped and fascinated at, what I must assume to you is my "aboriginal mindset?"  Just a hunch.  So... now I'm actually interested!  You've kicked it up a notch 'round here.  Thank you!

OK.  So... you've gathered I'm against abortion.  Good, that's good.  But you're also asking me if I'm against performing research on aborted bodies.  Well.  I don't mean to be gross here, Loaf -- but I have ethics about killing people for research.  I mean, don't you?  Don't answer that.  How about this -- we let them use your tissue?  Are you against having your tissue being used for research?  Now, understand what it'll take to get it Loaf -- and the incentive I've created.  Cash.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on August 31, 2015, 07:41:41 PM
Science is a religion.

That's only said by people who don't work in science :)

Most people trapped inside a cult are unaware of it, so no surprise.  :)

Pray tell, what cult am I trapped within? Apparently I've not been made aware of this.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Empire Of Love on August 31, 2015, 07:46:39 PM
Science is a religion.

That's only said by people who don't work in science :)

Most people trapped inside a cult are unaware of it, so no surprise.  :)

Pray tell, what cult am I trapped within? Apparently I've not been made aware of this.

I was agreeing with you TRBB.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on August 31, 2015, 07:47:17 PM
Ohhhhhh, my bad. Didn't know.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: alf wiedersehen on August 31, 2015, 08:00:49 PM
This is a seriously weird area of the internet.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on August 31, 2015, 08:04:41 PM
You've never been on /b/, have you?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: alf wiedersehen on August 31, 2015, 08:10:33 PM
See, that's the thing - I have.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on August 31, 2015, 08:17:07 PM
So clearly we need to post tits and ass to take the edge off here. :lol


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on September 01, 2015, 06:28:46 AM
My family and I live in Australia, we have a great Country as you all know. I absolutely loved travelling to the USA last year, I fell in love with New York and other parts of your wonderful Country. But I have to say, people like Bean Bag scare the living f*** outta me. I have watched you post about gun control, abortion, PP, Obamacare etc, some of you views are frightening.

Sometimes I wonder if he trolling for shock value.

Alex -- It's good to open and discuss issues that have been deemed politically incorrect, "settled" and silenced.  Especially when they're not settled.  If they were truly settled there wouldn't be the spicy conversation.  Our culture, I believe, is getting comfortable "bottling up" the bad, suppressing their thoughts and emotions, and that's scary.

For example... most people have opinions on abortion.  And the outbreak of Planned Parenthood videos are seriously disgusting.  When that disgust is voiced, there's push back, panic and all sorts of fireworks.  So apparently it wasn't settled.  The Supreme Court's arrogant decision on this and on things like Gay Marriage are attempts to shut it down and bottle it up.  Not healthy.  And very much not the idea behind this Country's free principles.

I don't expect to solve these issues or "convert" anybody -- whatever the hell that means.  Not the point.  I don't even necessarily care what the opinions are -- we all have them.

The point is to simply get people to share them.  It would be nice if we could learn to do it without insulting each other.  But I'm not arrogant enough to assume everyone can do that.  So, I'm ok with being the punching bag for those who are new or find this challenging.  It's part of the process, and it really doesn't hurt anyway.

Understand -- the fact that we even dare to talk about something like abortion, global warming, gun control, liberals, race -- much less in a manner outside of the politically correct and approved opinions -- is a big deal.  And you know it's a big deal when people start running away, proclaiming they're frightened.  They set the tone.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 01, 2015, 12:22:29 PM
Don't be silly Loaf.  It's a very delicate age.  Those children deserve the best care possible.  Not an executioner.

Now, I'm not a doctor.  But I don't think they should be talking about how to best remove the child's heads.  And how to ship them with the eyes closed, so when the person opens it, they're not freaked out.  Call me old fashioned.

Am I getting through, by the way?  Is this thing on?

You still aren't making your position clear… I gather that you are against abortion, but do you think research on foetal/stem cell tissue shouldn't be allowed?

Or is it just the practicality of stem cell research that you don't agree with?

Or both?

I am genuinely interested.

My position isn't clear?  Loaf!!  :lol  You're killing me -- no pun intended.  But, I've got one guy who's so frightened of me and my stark opinions, that he's hopped the first boat back to Happyland Central, where ever that is -- where I assume nothing bad happens or the people are so cooked, they have yet to form opinions about it.  And then I've got you -- and you're stumped and fascinated at, what I must assume to you is my "aboriginal mindset?"  Just a hunch.  So... now I'm actually interested!  You've kicked it up a notch 'round here.  Thank you!

OK.  So... you've gathered I'm against abortion.  Good, that's good.  But you're also asking me if I'm against performing research on aborted bodies.  Well.  I don't mean to be gross here, Loaf -- but I have ethics about killing people for research.  I mean, don't you?  Don't answer that.  How about this -- we let them use your tissue?  Are you against having your tissue being used for research?  Now, understand what it'll take to get it Loaf -- and the incentive I've created.  Cash.

I'm not sure why you keep talking around in circles, you still haven't answered my questions.

You create a straw-man argument about being against killing people for research, but that isn't what's happening here. People aren't being killed for research, tissue from foetuses already aborted are being used for research. Despite what your paranoia might suggest, there isn't a killing-to-order going on here.

Abortion is legal, and it is legal under some circumstances to use that tissue for scientific research.

So, how about answering my questions from my previous post, so we can have a reasoned debate? You want people to share and discuss their opinions, but you seem to be reluctant to answer questions about your own opinions.

To answer your question, I am happy for my organs to be donated for others to use after I die, and any remaining tissue can be used for scientific research. I like the idea of helping after I am gone.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 01, 2015, 12:23:25 PM
Science is a religion.

That's only said by people who don't work in science :)

Most people trapped inside a cult are unaware of it, so no surprise.  :)

"lol".

I don't understand why so many Americans are afraid of science. Care to share?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Empire Of Love on September 01, 2015, 12:51:24 PM
Science is a religion.

That's only said by people who don't work in science :)

Most people trapped inside a cult are unaware of it, so no surprise.  :)

"lol".

I don't understand why so many Americans are afraid of science. Care to share?

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you explain it to me, I'll try to answer.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 01, 2015, 01:02:44 PM
Science is a religion.

That's only said by people who don't work in science :)

Most people trapped inside a cult are unaware of it, so no surprise.  :)

"lol".

I don't understand why so many Americans are afraid of science. Care to share?

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you explain it to me, I'll try to answer.

I don't know why you stated that scientists are trapped inside a cult. Using that language makes it seem that you don't understand scientific research or scientific principles beyond a tabloid level.

And if your understanding of science is at a tabloid level, then you'll likely only have registered the scientific headlines that cover breakthroughs (such as "Miracle Cure for Cancer on the Horizon") or the scare stories.

And based on your siding with TRBB, i'd guess that the scare stories have registered strongest with you, so I asked what it is that you might be scared of?

I'm also assuming that you are (culturally) American, but you didn't correct me on that.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Empire Of Love on September 01, 2015, 02:20:11 PM
Science is a religion.

That's only said by people who don't work in science :)

Most people trapped inside a cult are unaware of it, so no surprise.  :)

"lol".

I don't understand why so many Americans are afraid of science. Care to share?

I'm not sure what you mean, but if you explain it to me, I'll try to answer.

I don't know why you stated that scientists are trapped inside a cult. Using that language makes it seem that you don't understand scientific research or scientific principles beyond a tabloid level.

And if your understanding of science is at a tabloid level, then you'll likely only have registered the scientific headlines that cover breakthroughs (such as "Miracle Cure for Cancer on the Horizon") or the scare stories.

And based on your siding with TRBB, i'd guess that the scare stories have registered strongest with you, so I asked what it is that you might be scared of?

I'm also assuming that you are (culturally) American, but you didn't correct me on that.

If we define science as observation and measurement, and if we define faith as believing what someone else has told us, then what I would like for you to see is that most of what people claim they believe on the basis of science they in fact believe on the basis of faith.  I'll make the point this way, in regards to topics such as global warming, the age of the universe, does God exist, etc, what percentage do you believe based on observation and measurement and what percentage do you believe based on what someone else has told you?  You see, I don't understand why so many people, European, American, Candian, Chinese, Russian, are afraid to acknowledge that most of what they believe in regards to such issues is based on what someone else has told them, on faith, and not on observation and measurement, science. 

Now perhaps you are a scienctist and you have dated fossils and rocks and measured ground temperatures and what not.  If that is the case I would ask you a slightly different set of questions, this time in regards to your pre-suppositions.  To do this I would need to know a bit more about your philosophical views, your epistemology, in particular, and your ontology.  Are you a realist or an idealist?  Are you naturalist?  Your appeal to science leads me to believe you are at least a moderate realist, but I am willing to bet there are neo-platonic idealist presuppositions hidden throughout your view of the world.  I won't try to ferret them out, but if I spy one I will let you know.  Regardless, once your presuppositions are considered it will become clear that you, too, believe far more based on what you have been told (in regards to these issues) than on observation and measurement.

With that said, I am still confounded in regards to your statement about people being afraid of science.  I've met people who are set in their ways and won't consider reasoned argument, but I've found just as many on the science side of the fence as I have on the "afraid of science" side of the fence.  No matter which side of the fence most people are on they consider those on the other side to be unreasonable, illogical, etc...all the while blind to their own presuppositions, biases, poorly reasoned arguments, etc.  Each side resorts to logical fallacies, mockery, and shouting down the other side rather than reasoned discussion.  I won't be surpised if this thread goes in the same direction.

EoL


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 01, 2015, 04:02:40 PM
I'll try to address your points, and try to keep this useful, but your definitions of science and faith (whether or not in terms of religions and cults) are a little lacking and I do not agree with them.

Scientific arguments are evidence-based, peer-reviewed and open-access. See for example the case of (ex-Doctor) Andrew Wakefield and his (now discredited) claim that the MMR vaccine caused autism. His 'evidence' was available for scrutiny and was found to be unfounded. Faith is a judgement based on a lack of objective evidence. This is different to your claim that faith is anything not personally validated.

As in the following example: I haven't personally created any polio vaccines, but does that mean that (a) the polio vaccine works on FAITH, or (b) because I can observe that the polio vaccine works (no one around me has polio), it is SCIENCE? It is possible for something to be scientific if others have done the scientific research, even if i haven't personally done it.

Let's sort out a definition of science and faith first, then we can tackle the other stuff :)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on September 01, 2015, 08:30:36 PM
I'm not sure why you keep talking around in circles, you still haven't answered my questions.

You create a straw-man argument about being against killing people for research, but that isn't what's happening here. People aren't being killed for research, tissue from foetuses already aborted are being used for research. Despite what your paranoia might suggest, there isn't a killing-to-order going on here.

Abortion is legal, and it is legal under some circumstances to use that tissue for scientific research.

So, how about answering my questions from my previous post, so we can have a reasoned debate? You want people to share and discuss their opinions, but you seem to be reluctant to answer questions about your own opinions.

To answer your question, I am happy for my organs to be donated for others to use after I die, and any remaining tissue can be used for scientific research. I like the idea of helping after I am gone.

Hold your horses.  Wait a second.  Stop the train.  We can't debate.  You have different definitions than I have.  I define a fetus as a life (or anchor baby, if you're a Hillary kinda person).

It's sorta like arguing with Himmler -- I say "hey you're killing people!"  And Himmler says "no we're not.  We're killing Jews."  So... you know, it's not gonna work, you and me.


By the way... thanks for being an organ donor.  But do you recall seeing a checkbox for "Right Now."


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 02, 2015, 02:20:20 AM
I'm not sure why you keep talking around in circles, you still haven't answered my questions.

You create a straw-man argument about being against killing people for research, but that isn't what's happening here. People aren't being killed for research, tissue from foetuses already aborted are being used for research. Despite what your paranoia might suggest, there isn't a killing-to-order going on here.

Abortion is legal, and it is legal under some circumstances to use that tissue for scientific research.

So, how about answering my questions from my previous post, so we can have a reasoned debate? You want people to share and discuss their opinions, but you seem to be reluctant to answer questions about your own opinions.

To answer your question, I am happy for my organs to be donated for others to use after I die, and any remaining tissue can be used for scientific research. I like the idea of helping after I am gone.

Hold your horses.  Wait a second.  Stop the train.  We can't debate.  You have different definitions than I have.  I define a fetus as a life (or anchor baby, if you're a Hillary kinda person).

It's sorta like arguing with Himmler -- I say "hey you're killing people!"  And Himmler says "no we're not.  We're killing Jews."  So... you know, it's not gonna work, you and me.


By the way... thanks for being an organ donor.  But do you recall seeing a checkbox for "Right Now."

I see you've invoked Godwin's law and are backing down. Righty-ho :)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on September 02, 2015, 04:58:44 AM
Right, right, right.  We disagree on the fundamentals, seems kind of pointless, no?  I'll walk you through it again, if you like.  Just didn't want you to get dizzy again.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 03, 2015, 02:17:24 AM
Right, right, right.  We disagree on the fundamentals, seems kind of pointless, no?  I'll walk you through it again, if you like.  Just didn't want you to get dizzy again.

Which fundamentals?

You still haven't answered my questions :)

It's hard to get a straight answer out of you.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on September 03, 2015, 05:42:02 AM
Are you serious -- or just trying to be difficult?  ???  A fetus is a human being.  I would have thought the rest was easy, but....


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Empire Of Love on September 03, 2015, 07:28:45 AM
Let's sort out a definition of science and faith first, then we can tackle the other stuff :)

Loaf,

I want to continue this discussion but I'm unbelievably tied up.  I'll try to post in the next day or so.

EoL


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 03, 2015, 09:31:02 AM
Let's sort out a definition of science and faith first, then we can tackle the other stuff :)

Loaf,

I want to continue this discussion but I'm unbelievably tied up.  I'll try to post in the next day or so.

EoL

That's cool, there's no rush. Thanks for letting me know.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 03, 2015, 09:54:51 AM
Are you serious -- or just trying to be difficult?  ???  A fetus is a human being.  I would have thought the rest was easy, but....

I understand your position on abortion. That is not what i was asking you about.

To put it crudely, a dead body is just tissue. Dead bodies can be used for a number of useful and practical things: cadaver dissection for training doctors, organ donation, stem cells and other forms of scientific research.

You mentioned previously that you have an ethical stance against killing people for research. However, people are not killed to order for the purposes of research. Women do not decide to get pregnant and have an abortion because they initially wanted to donate a foetus. They are two separate legal issues. Women are legally allowed to choose to have an abortion. Women are also then allowed to choose whether tissue from the foetus can be used for research. Note also that the sale of foetal tissue is non-profit.

My initial question, many posts ago, what was asking you what you found so bonechilling in the conversation about the practical implications of shipping donated tissue, and with an implied undertone of whether or not you agree with using dead bodies (human or foetal) for scientific research.

An answer to that question is not easy to fill in, so if you feel up to answering the question, then go ahead. I won't get dizzy.

Just as an fyi, my own position on abortion is that it is an incredibly complex issue. If I were a pregnant woman, I do not know whether i could go ahead with an abortion, but I think that it should be legal for women to have an abortion. I do not think it is a decision to be taken lightly, or without counselling or without understanding the psychological or physical ramifications of the procedure. I think a lot of support should be provided for these women, and I think there is a grim irony that men decide the (legal) fate of women's bodies.



Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on September 03, 2015, 10:01:37 AM
Here's a brainwave; women, if you are not in a stable relationship with a partner who wants to have a child then don't get knocked up in the first place. It's not exactly rocket science.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: alf wiedersehen on September 03, 2015, 11:06:22 AM
Newsflash, men: if you're not in a stable relationship with a partner who wants a child, don't impregnate your significant other.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on September 03, 2015, 12:29:46 PM
I think it's pretty funny to watch a bunch of men argue about abortion and Planned Parenthood with each other as if any of their opinions on the subject mattered.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on September 03, 2015, 01:41:53 PM
I think it's pretty funny to watch a bunch of men argue about abortion and Planned Parenthood with each other as if any of their opinions on the subject mattered.

I'm sure slave owners (white or black, male or female) thought it was funny to watch abolitionists (white or black, male or female) talk about ending slavery.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: alf wiedersehen on September 03, 2015, 02:00:12 PM
I think it's pretty funny to watch a bunch of men argue about abortion and Planned Parenthood with each other as if any of their opinions on the subject mattered.

I'm thinking about starting a thread where women can decide whether men can have vasectomies or not.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on September 03, 2015, 02:10:16 PM
Are you serious -- or just trying to be difficult?  ???  A fetus is a human being.  I would have thought the rest was easy, but....

I understand your position on abortion. That is not what i was asking you about.

To put it crudely, a dead body is just tissue. Dead bodies can be used for a number of useful and practical things: cadaver dissection for training doctors, organ donation, stem cells and other forms of scientific research.

You mentioned previously that you have an ethical stance against killing people for research. However, people are not killed to order for the purposes of research. Women do not decide to get pregnant and have an abortion because they initially wanted to donate a foetus. They are two separate legal issues. Women are legally allowed to choose to have an abortion. Women are also then allowed to choose whether tissue from the foetus can be used for research. Note also that the sale of foetal tissue is non-profit.

My initial question, many posts ago, what was asking you what you found so bonechilling in the conversation about the practical implications of shipping donated tissue, and with an implied undertone of whether or not you agree with using dead bodies (human or foetal) for scientific research.

An answer to that question is not easy to fill in, so if you feel up to answering the question, then go ahead. I won't get dizzy.

Just as an fyi, my own position on abortion is that it is an incredibly complex issue. If I were a pregnant woman, I do not know whether i could go ahead with an abortion, but I think that it should be legal for women to have an abortion. I do not think it is a decision to be taken lightly, or without counselling or without understanding the psychological or physical ramifications of the procedure. I think a lot of support should be provided for these women, and I think there is a grim irony that men decide the (legal) fate of women's bodies.



They're killing unborn babies Loaf.  This is not a morgue, though that term would be slightly closer than the one they're using.  But these, eh-hmm, "clinics" (how they can use that term, I don't know) are killing half of their patients -- and discussing the best methods to do so, in order to extrapolate the best gain, in this case financial.

I appreciate the discussion, but this was all covered in the syllabus. Please tell me I've answered the question to your satisfaction!   :-D

---------

Regarding the ones that are already dead.  Remember they had to be alive before they were dead.  And I don't think they were capable of "checking the organ donor box" on their driver's license (as you were) before they were killed.  Killed, not died.  Killed.  Even though they were legally killed -- please remember to thank them for their donation when you get to the pearly gates.

Please tell me we're good on this question.

---------

Regarding your personal opinion on abortion -- that's fine.  I'm appreciate you sharing it.  But I find it silly that anyone would label it "complex" then proceed to school those who find it easy.  Either you're OK with it or not.  But if you're OK with it, just understand what you are doing.

Sorry for my condescending tone.  It's actually part of the presentation, as it emphasizes the basic logic and morality that needs to be brushed aside in order to excuse some pretty strange behavior.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on September 03, 2015, 02:11:46 PM
I think it's pretty funny to watch a bunch of men argue about abortion and Planned Parenthood with each other as if any of their opinions on the subject mattered.

I'm thinking about starting a thread where women can decide whether men can have vasectomies or not.

 :lol  Even better, start up a thread where people who disagree with you can do whatever they want to you.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on September 03, 2015, 04:04:23 PM
Newsflash, men: if you're not in a stable relationship with a partner who wants a child, don't impregnate your significant other.

One of the ways a woman can make sure her significant other does not impregnate her is by making him wear a condom.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on September 03, 2015, 04:16:05 PM
One of the ways a woman can make sure her significant other does not impregnate her is by making him wear a condom.

And why would they do that when government provides incentives to spawn a whole shitload of bastard children?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: alf wiedersehen on September 03, 2015, 04:46:38 PM
Newsflash, men: if you're not in a stable relationship with a partner who wants a child, don't impregnate your significant other.

One of the ways a woman can make sure her significant other does not impregnate her is by making him wear a condom.

One of the ways men can make sure to not impregnate people is by wearing a condom without being forced to because there's no reason to place all the responsibility for a two-person interaction onto only one of the people involved.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on September 03, 2015, 04:51:19 PM
Newsflash, men: if you're not in a stable relationship with a partner who wants a child, don't impregnate your significant other.

One of the ways a woman can make sure her significant other does not impregnate her is by making him wear a condom.

One of the ways men can make sure to not impregnate people is by wearing a condom without being forced to because there's no reason to place all the responsibility for a two-person interaction onto only one of the people involved.

Absolutely, but as it's the woman who is left holding the bag, so to speak, the buck really has to stop with them.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on September 04, 2015, 08:00:42 AM
Are you serious -- or just trying to be difficult?  ???  A fetus is a human being.  I would have thought the rest was easy, but....

I understand your position on abortion. That is not what i was asking you about.

To put it crudely, a dead body is just tissue. Dead bodies can be used for a number of useful and practical things: cadaver dissection for training doctors, organ donation, stem cells and other forms of scientific research.

You mentioned previously that you have an ethical stance against killing people for research. However, people are not killed to order for the purposes of research. Women do not decide to get pregnant and have an abortion because they initially wanted to donate a foetus. They are two separate legal issues. Women are legally allowed to choose to have an abortion. Women are also then allowed to choose whether tissue from the foetus can be used for research. Note also that the sale of foetal tissue is non-profit.

My initial question, many posts ago, what was asking you what you found so bonechilling in the conversation about the practical implications of shipping donated tissue, and with an implied undertone of whether or not you agree with using dead bodies (human or foetal) for scientific research.

An answer to that question is not easy to fill in, so if you feel up to answering the question, then go ahead. I won't get dizzy.

Just as an fyi, my own position on abortion is that it is an incredibly complex issue. If I were a pregnant woman, I do not know whether i could go ahead with an abortion, but I think that it should be legal for women to have an abortion. I do not think it is a decision to be taken lightly, or without counselling or without understanding the psychological or physical ramifications of the procedure. I think a lot of support should be provided for these women, and I think there is a grim irony that men decide the (legal) fate of women's bodies.
Loaf - nonprofits are notoriously non-transparent. They get tax breaks. And most purport to have a charitable or educational purpose. There are many nonprofits whose CEO's make several hundred "large" a year.  I don't consider that charity.  Or education.  

They can't "show a profit" but that doesn't mean they are free from corruption, or kickbacks. The whole "Lamborghini" scenario doesn't sound like there was "non-profit" but this has little to do with whether it is legal. Salaries and perks are often constructed into a non-profit budget to end up with a zero balance at the end of the year.  More money comes in? Bigger salary, next year. When I discovered the local United Way CEO was making $300k (back in the late 90's) I stopped donating to them.  They are often "top heavy" in salaries and "bottom light" in direct services. If you have to raise a million dollars to get a quarter of a million in charitable service, isn't something "rotten in Denmark?" (Shakespeare- Hamlet) The math doesn't work, when you get 25 cents on a dollar. If you're lucky.

The sale or "quid pro quo" for things of "value" ( not always money) for "intact body parts," is procribed. It has nothing to do with the "right to choose" which is legal.  And there is the whole area of "consent" to exploit the "proceeds" of the contents of a woman's uterus. The "sales pitch" prior to abortion procedures is that the "contents" of her uterus would be going for "medical life saving research." It was used to sooth the conscience of the woman undergoing the procedure ( a false representation.)  Not for non-consensual organ sale to a "for profit" entity.  

And, oddly, many who were pro-choice, have found their positions being changed by the "visualization technology" which has evolved since Roe v. Wade. What was "abstract" in philosophy, in the mid 1970's, is now visually, a 3D phenomenon.  ;)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Robbie Mac on September 04, 2015, 02:01:02 PM
I think it's pretty funny to watch a bunch of men argue about abortion and Planned Parenthood with each other as if any of their opinions on the subject mattered.

I'm thinking about starting a thread where women can decide whether men can have vasectomies or not.


Yeah, that'll go over like a lead balloon...


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on September 05, 2015, 06:26:34 AM
I think it's pretty funny to watch a bunch of men argue about abortion and Planned Parenthood with each other as if any of their opinions on the subject mattered.

When their tax dollars are supporting Planned Parenthood and, by proxy, abortions? Yes, they do matter. If women and their fellow cuckolds who defend Planned Parenthood are so empowered and don't really care about the opinions of non-cuckold (read: real) men then why don't they pay for their own abortions? See, it's really easy for women and their fellow cuckolds to say that men's opinions shouldn't matter. Pay for your own abortions if that's how you feel.

Would you make that same comment about women who don't support abortion or Planned Parenthood? I'd hazard a guess and say no because that would be "sexist" on your part.

I'm thinking about starting a thread where women can decide whether men can have vasectomies or not.

You're comparing apples and oranges.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on September 05, 2015, 07:14:19 AM
Be realistic.  If tax money didn't go towards abortions, would the taxpayers be saving money?  No, the government would just find something else to spend the money on.  So what's the difference?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Niko on September 05, 2015, 09:54:30 AM
I think it's pretty funny to watch a bunch of men argue about abortion and Planned Parenthood with each other as if any of their opinions on the subject mattered.

I'm sure slave owners (white or black, male or female) thought it was funny to watch abolitionists (white or black, male or female) talk about ending slavery.

Spot on point bro.

Jk. You're insane


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on September 06, 2015, 07:24:30 AM
I think it's pretty funny to watch a bunch of men argue about abortion and Planned Parenthood with each other as if any of their opinions on the subject mattered.
When their tax dollars are supporting Planned Parenthood and, by proxy, abortions? Yes, they do matter. If women and their fellow cuckolds who defend Planned Parenthood are so empowered and don't really care about the opinions of non-cuckold (read: real) men then why don't they pay for their own abortions? See, it's really easy for women and their fellow cuckolds to say that men's opinions shouldn't matter. Pay for your own abortions if that's how you feel.

Would you make that same comment about women who don't support abortion or Planned Parenthood? I'd hazard a guess and say no because that would be "sexist" on your part.

I'm thinking about starting a thread where women can decide whether men can have vasectomies or not.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
The waters are muddied.  The issue is that women have been given choice for reproduction. However, they have had their "choice" robbed, as Planned Parenthood have used the "proceeds" (the organs and tissue of their foeti for commercial gain, and specific research) and they consent for research but not for commercial bartering and exchanges.

Ultrasounds are reported to have been taken, but not shown to the women.  This could mean a lower threshold they have used for "consent" matters.  PP would not want to lose the financial advantage by allowing the women to see what is rightfully theirs growing in utero.  Fewer might opt to go through with the procedure.  They have been deceptive in their practices.

When you buy a car, you want the "carfax."  This is analogous to that. As it is an unfair and deceptive practice in the marketplace, as medicine is a business.

Once the philosophical and religious influences are removed from the equation, it is easy to see that wrong has been going on for financial gain, for many years, and likely makes fools of those who advocated for reproductive freedom.  They, unwittingly, made the compelling argument for those who were opposed to abortion for religious and philosophical reasons  and betrayed their biggest sponsors.  It was like a self-fulfilling prophesy.  They did it to themselves.  



Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 07, 2015, 06:27:09 AM
Are you serious -- or just trying to be difficult?  ???  A fetus is a human being.  I would have thought the rest was easy, but....

I understand your position on abortion. That is not what i was asking you about.

To put it crudely, a dead body is just tissue. Dead bodies can be used for a number of useful and practical things: cadaver dissection for training doctors, organ donation, stem cells and other forms of scientific research.

You mentioned previously that you have an ethical stance against killing people for research. However, people are not killed to order for the purposes of research. Women do not decide to get pregnant and have an abortion because they initially wanted to donate a foetus. They are two separate legal issues. Women are legally allowed to choose to have an abortion. Women are also then allowed to choose whether tissue from the foetus can be used for research. Note also that the sale of foetal tissue is non-profit.

My initial question, many posts ago, what was asking you what you found so bonechilling in the conversation about the practical implications of shipping donated tissue, and with an implied undertone of whether or not you agree with using dead bodies (human or foetal) for scientific research.

An answer to that question is not easy to fill in, so if you feel up to answering the question, then go ahead. I won't get dizzy.

Just as an fyi, my own position on abortion is that it is an incredibly complex issue. If I were a pregnant woman, I do not know whether i could go ahead with an abortion, but I think that it should be legal for women to have an abortion. I do not think it is a decision to be taken lightly, or without counselling or without understanding the psychological or physical ramifications of the procedure. I think a lot of support should be provided for these women, and I think there is a grim irony that men decide the (legal) fate of women's bodies.



They're killing unborn babies Loaf.  This is not a morgue, though that term would be slightly closer than the one they're using.  But these, eh-hmm, "clinics" (how they can use that term, I don't know) are killing half of their patients -- and discussing the best methods to do so, in order to extrapolate the best gain, in this case financial.

I appreciate the discussion, but this was all covered in the syllabus. Please tell me I've answered the question to your satisfaction!   :-D

---------

Regarding the ones that are already dead.  Remember they had to be alive before they were dead.  And I don't think they were capable of "checking the organ donor box" on their driver's license (as you were) before they were killed.  Killed, not died.  Killed.  Even though they were legally killed -- please remember to thank them for their donation when you get to the pearly gates.

Please tell me we're good on this question.

---------

Regarding your personal opinion on abortion -- that's fine.  I'm appreciate you sharing it.  But I find it silly that anyone would label it "complex" then proceed to school those who find it easy.  Either you're OK with it or not.  But if you're OK with it, just understand what you are doing.

Sorry for my condescending tone.  It's actually part of the presentation, as it emphasizes the basic logic and morality that needs to be brushed aside in order to excuse some pretty strange behavior.

So you're against foetal tissue used for research, not because the foetus was killed, but because the foetus didn't have an organ donor card?

You can do better than that, surely.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on September 07, 2015, 09:48:30 AM
Are you serious -- or just trying to be difficult?  ???  A fetus is a human being.  I would have thought the rest was easy, but....
I understand your position on abortion. That is not what i was asking you about.

To put it crudely, a dead body is just tissue. Dead bodies can be used for a number of useful and practical things: cadaver dissection for training doctors, organ donation, stem cells and other forms of scientific research.

You mentioned previously that you have an ethical stance against killing people for research. However, people are not killed to order for the purposes of research. Women do not decide to get pregnant and have an abortion because they initially wanted to donate a foetus. They are two separate legal issues. Women are legally allowed to choose to have an abortion. Women are also then allowed to choose whether tissue from the foetus can be used for research. Note also that the sale of foetal tissue is non-profit.

My initial question, many posts ago, what was asking you what you found so bonechilling in the conversation about the practical implications of shipping donated tissue, and with an implied undertone of whether or not you agree with using dead bodies (human or foetal) for scientific research.

An answer to that question is not easy to fill in, so if you feel up to answering the question, then go ahead. I won't get dizzy.

Just as an fyi, my own position on abortion is that it is an incredibly complex issue. If I were a pregnant woman, I do not know whether i could go ahead with an abortion, but I think that it should be legal for women to have an abortion. I do not think it is a decision to be taken lightly, or without counselling or without understanding the psychological or physical ramifications of the procedure. I think a lot of support should be provided for these women, and I think there is a grim irony that men decide the (legal) fate of women's bodies.
They're killing unborn babies Loaf.  This is not a morgue, though that term would be slightly closer than the one they're using.  But these, eh-hmm, "clinics" (how they can use that term, I don't know) are killing half of their patients -- and discussing the best methods to do so, in order to extrapolate the best gain, in this case financial.

I appreciate the discussion, but this was all covered in the syllabus. Please tell me I've answered the question to your satisfaction!   :-D

---------

Regarding the ones that are already dead.  Remember they had to be alive before they were dead.  And I don't think they were capable of "checking the organ donor box" on their driver's license (as you were) before they were killed.  Killed, not died.  Killed.  Even though they were legally killed -- please remember to thank them for their donation when you get to the pearly gates.

Please tell me we're good on this question.

---------

Regarding your personal opinion on abortion -- that's fine.  I'm appreciate you sharing it.  But I find it silly that anyone would label it "complex" then proceed to school those who find it easy.  Either you're OK with it or not.  But if you're OK with it, just understand what you are doing.

Sorry for my condescending tone.  It's actually part of the presentation, as it emphasizes the basic logic and morality that needs to be brushed aside in order to excuse some pretty strange behavior.

So you're against foetal tissue used for research, not because the foetus was killed, but because the foetus didn't have an organ donor card?

You can do better than that, surely.
Consider that a little better than 30% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage.  Isn't that often and naturally occurring event, often also in the medical setting, enough "stock on hand?"


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on September 07, 2015, 08:12:30 PM
So you're against foetal tissue used for research, not because the foetus was killed, but because the foetus didn't have an organ donor card?

You can do better than that, surely.

Oooo, you gettin' sassy.  Why do I have to do better?  This is your hurdle.  :-D Take the donor card and shove it, if you're hung up on that metaphor.  The point is you get a say. 

If slavery were still legal,would you so peppy about people killing slaves for "research?"  Oh, I forgot, the slave was already dead.  Right.  Right. ::)

People of "loose" morals typically don't need a reason.  But, hey this is research, I get it.  I hear you, Loaf.  The holy church of research.  "You standin' in the way of "research, boy?"

It's a shame that we have to keep doing this.  It's all the same loaf of sh-t.  Different time, different victim.  You people... I swear.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Jim V. on September 07, 2015, 08:42:08 PM
So you're against foetal tissue used for research, not because the foetus was killed, but because the foetus didn't have an organ donor card?

You can do better than that, surely.

Oooo, you gettin' sassy.  Why do I have to do better?  This is your hurdle.  :-D Take the donor card and shove it, if you're hung up on that metaphor.  The point is you get a say. 

If slavery were still legal,would you so peppy about people killing slaves for "research?"  Oh, I forgot, the slave was already dead.  Right.  Right. ::)

People of "loose" morals typically don't need a reason.  But, hey this is research, I get it.  I hear you, Loaf.  The holy church of research.  "You standin' in the way of "research, boy?"

It's a shame that we have to keep doing this.  It's all the same loaf of sh-t.  Different time, different victim.  You people... I swear.

I think you need more words in italics in your next post to get more points across. Some more bolding of words and perhaps a picture will work as well.

And don't forget to make sure you either compare everyone who disagrees with you to either a Nazi or a slave owner.

And the funniest part about this argument is I'm actually pro-life. But you just can't debate with anybody on this board without saying the other side is basically evil. Weird.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 08, 2015, 10:12:04 AM
So you're against foetal tissue used for research, not because the foetus was killed, but because the foetus didn't have an organ donor card?

You can do better than that, surely.

Oooo, you gettin' sassy.  Why do I have to do better?  This is your hurdle.  :-D Take the donor card and shove it, if you're hung up on that metaphor.  The point is you get a say. 

If slavery were still legal,would you so peppy about people killing slaves for "research?"  Oh, I forgot, the slave was already dead.  Right.  Right. ::)

People of "loose" morals typically don't need a reason.  But, hey this is research, I get it.  I hear you, Loaf.  The holy church of research.  "You standin' in the way of "research, boy?"

It's a shame that we have to keep doing this.  It's all the same loaf of sh-t.  Different time, different victim.  You people... I swear.

If it's the consent that's crucial, this newborn girl didn't get a say in donating her organs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30878890), but her parents willingly agreed, so do you disapprove of situations such as this?

Research conducted using foetal tissue has been used in many applications, including vaccines for polio and rubella. Foetal tissue research has saved millions of lives around the world. If you've had the polio vaccine, then you have directly benefitted from foetal tissue research. Even those who haven't had the vaccine have benefitted from the herd immunity provided by those who have had it.

I'm just trying to understand your point of view on these things.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on September 08, 2015, 03:25:33 PM
My position is easy to understand. If you believe a baby is a human being. You're stuck on what we do after the body or head arrives "eyes closed" to avoid the horror of opening the box. I don't care if they're making soup to feed the homeless. It's wrong.

The point of these horrendous videos (that most human beings find bone chilling) is the callous and breezy nature with which this is conducted -- illustrating a human society that has devolved into something most find unrecognizable.  The depths of depravity and selfishness required to accept this sort of behavior -- let alone to conduct it as casually as ordering a f-cking pizza -- is beyond me.

Sorry if I thought this was self-explanatory.  :(. But that is the whole point.  You don't see it yourself.  


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: runnersdialzero on September 08, 2015, 09:15:05 PM
My position is easy to understand. If you believe a baby is a human being. You're stuck on what we do after the body or head arrives "eyes closed" to avoid the horror of opening the box. I don't care if they're making soup to feed the homeless. It's wrong.

The point of these horrendous videos (that most human beings find bone chilling) is the callous and breezy nature with which this is conducted -- illustrating a human society that has devolved into something most find unrecognizable.  The depths of depravity and selfishness required to accept this sort of behavior -- let alone to conduct it as casually as ordering a f-cking pizza -- is beyond me.

Sorry if I thought this was self-explanatory.  :(. But that is the whole point.  You don't see it yourself.  

You should become a vegetarian like me.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 09, 2015, 05:41:01 AM
My position is easy to understand. If you believe a baby is a human being. You're stuck on what we do after the body or head arrives "eyes closed" to avoid the horror of opening the box. I don't care if they're making soup to feed the homeless. It's wrong.

The point of these horrendous videos (that most human beings find bone chilling) is the callous and breezy nature with which this is conducted -- illustrating a human society that has devolved into something most find unrecognizable.  The depths of depravity and selfishness required to accept this sort of behavior -- let alone to conduct it as casually as ordering a f-cking pizza -- is beyond me.

Sorry if I thought this was self-explanatory.  :(. But that is the whole point.  You don't see it yourself.  

Thanks for the response, and I completely understand this point of view.

In an ideal world, abortion would be legal but no one would ever feel the need to get one. This would mean no tissue for foetal research, but that's not the priority here.

Having said that, and this i guess is where we disagree, my own personal take on it is that the subsequent tissue (with parental consent) can be used for research which has done and will continue to benefit everyone. That also means that there are practical implications involved in getting that tissue from point A to a science lab. It is troubling to think about in detail, but i am not ethically against the use of the tissue.

Research is conducted on post-mortem child and adult tissue too, and there are similar practical implications in obtaining and transporting it, and it seems highly likely that similar conversations are involved about packaging and presentation, but because they are not linked to a hot-button topic such as abortion, people don't protest it. The 1988 Fetal Tissue Transplantation Panel, appointed by Ronald Reagan, and including members who opposed abortion rights, decided that abortion and the use of the parentally-consented tissue for research were two separate issues. Not that everyone has to believe this to be the case, but under a Republican President-appointed panel, these were its findings.

Anyway, there's probably not any more to be said and I'm just thinking out loud at this point. I'm glad we could get to this point.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on September 09, 2015, 06:05:44 AM
Yeah, sure... but what's with the backhanded "torching the oil fields" smear of Reagan?  ::)  The Left is always slashing and burning and attacking.  The incessant twisted revisionist propaganda against Reagan is a pale attempt to loot the unsuspecting of their worthy admiration and keep the Left's adversaries on the defensive.  They're never happy.  I'm not going down that path and chasing that rabbit at the moment, but I do want people to understand what's happening and the devious sort we're dealing with.

 ;D

Reagan's history on abortion is not what his adversaries want it to be...
http://www.amazon.com/Abortion-Conscience-Nation-Ronald-Reagan-ebook/dp/B004NEVLMU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441803099&sr=8-1&keywords=reagan+abortion


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on September 09, 2015, 06:11:04 AM
So you're against foetal tissue used for research, not because the foetus was killed, but because the foetus didn't have an organ donor card?

You can do better than that, surely.

Oooo, you gettin' sassy.  Why do I have to do better?  This is your hurdle.  :-D Take the donor card and shove it, if you're hung up on that metaphor.  The point is you get a say. 

If slavery were still legal,would you so peppy about people killing slaves for "research?"  Oh, I forgot, the slave was already dead.  Right.  Right. ::)

People of "loose" morals typically don't need a reason.  But, hey this is research, I get it.  I hear you, Loaf.  The holy church of research.  "You standin' in the way of "research, boy?"

It's a shame that we have to keep doing this.  It's all the same loaf of sh-t.  Different time, different victim.  You people... I swear.

If it's the consent that's crucial, this newborn girl didn't get a say in donating her organs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30878890), but her parents willingly agreed, so do you disapprove of situations such as this?

Research conducted using foetal tissue has been used in many applications, including vaccines for polio and rubella. Foetal tissue research has saved millions of lives around the world. If you've had the polio vaccine, then you have directly benefitted from foetal tissue research. Even those who haven't had the vaccine have benefitted from the herd immunity provided by those who have had it.

I'm just trying to understand your point of view on these things.
Polio vaccine production is all over the map, and very troublesome.  A peek into the history of contaminated monkey tissue to make polio vaccine, potentially causing future cancer in vaccine recipients is just the tip of the iceberg.  

When my kids were vaccinated they got about 8 shots, that were well spaced.  Now kids get about 60! They are combined, even 5 different vaccines in one shot. Kids get reactions and now the autism numbers are off the chart.  It is a mess.  And shots are done on schedules that are convenient for the health care providers, and government regulators for public health departments compliance issues and not in the interest of kids maturing immune systems.  JMHO

After kids have reactions, and are forever compromised, parents start networking and digging for research and often yield information that is very inconvenient for vax manufacturers and doctors who just do what they are told, and docs who question the establishment often become blackballed by the industry for not playing the game. No one spends more money to influence congress than the medical industry.  Not the banks, not the oil companies, not the insurance industry.  They want their vaccines and drugs fast tracked through the FDA.  OxyContin sound familiar?  They all knew the risks.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on September 09, 2015, 06:21:42 AM
You should become a vegetarian like me.

 :-D  What if someone becomes a vegetarian AND a tree-hugger?  Let alone, if they're a college "educated" Leftist, which sees mankind as a disease and the planet's biggest threat -- do they become cannibals?

The answer is yes.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 09, 2015, 10:10:59 AM
Yeah, sure... but what's with the backhanded "torching the oil fields" smear of Reagan?  ::)  The Left is always slashing and burning and attacking.  The incessant twisted revisionist propaganda against Reagan is a pale attempt to loot the unsuspecting of their worthy admiration and keep the Left's adversaries on the defensive.  They're never happy.  I'm not going down that path and chasing that rabbit at the moment, but I do want people to understand what's happening and the devious sort we're dealing with.

 ;D

Reagan's history on abortion is not what his adversaries want it to be...
http://www.amazon.com/Abortion-Conscience-Nation-Ronald-Reagan-ebook/dp/B004NEVLMU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441803099&sr=8-1&keywords=reagan+abortion

I have no idea what this post even means? What are you trying to say?

Are you even disputing anything I wrote?

However, to paraphrase TRBB, your logical fallacies are your straw men :)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 09, 2015, 10:21:48 AM

Polio vaccine production is all over the map, and very troublesome.  A peek into the history of contaminated monkey tissue to make polio vaccine, potentially causing future cancer in vaccine recipients is just the tip of the iceberg.  

When my kids were vaccinated they got about 8 shots, that were well spaced.  Now kids get about 60! They are combined, even 5 different vaccines in one shot. Kids get reactions and now the autism numbers are off the chart.  It is a mess.  And shots are done on schedules that are convenient for the health care providers, and government regulators for public health departments compliance issues and not in the interest of kids maturing immune systems.  JMHO

After kids have reactions, and are forever compromised, parents start networking and digging for research and often yield information that is very inconvenient for vax manufacturers and doctors who just do what they are told, and docs who question the establishment often become blackballed by the industry for not playing the game. No one spends more money to influence congress than the medical industry.  Not the banks, not the oil companies, not the insurance industry.  They want their vaccines and drugs fast tracked through the FDA.  OxyContin sound familiar?  They all knew the risks.

I am very interested in discussing this with you.

The polio vaccine = cancer has been thoroughly debunked (see http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/polio-vaccines-cancer-debunking-myth/)

Similarly, the vaccine = autism link has no basis in scientific evidence. In fact the person (Andrew Wakefield) who made the initial claim was subsequently stripped of the title "doctor", and struck off the UK medical register because his data was falsified, his report was an elaborate fraud and he stood to gain financially from the situation.

Would you care to cite reliable sources for your information?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on September 09, 2015, 11:16:39 AM

Polio vaccine production is all over the map, and very troublesome.  A peek into the history of contaminated monkey tissue to make polio vaccine, potentially causing future cancer in vaccine recipients is just the tip of the iceberg.  

When my kids were vaccinated they got about 8 shots, that were well spaced.  Now kids get about 60! They are combined, even 5 different vaccines in one shot. Kids get reactions and now the autism numbers are off the chart.  It is a mess.  And shots are done on schedules that are convenient for the health care providers, and government regulators for public health departments compliance issues and not in the interest of kids maturing immune systems.  JMHO

After kids have reactions, and are forever compromised, parents start networking and digging for research and often yield information that is very inconvenient for vax manufacturers and doctors who just do what they are told, and docs who question the establishment often become blackballed by the industry for not playing the game. No one spends more money to influence congress than the medical industry.  Not the banks, not the oil companies, not the insurance industry.  They want their vaccines and drugs fast tracked through the FDA.  OxyContin sound familiar?  They all knew the risks.

I am very interested in discussing this with you.

The polio vaccine = cancer has been thoroughly debunked (see http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/polio-vaccines-cancer-debunking-myth/)

Similarly, the vaccine = autism link has no basis in scientific evidence. In fact the person (Andrew Wakefield) who made the initial claim was subsequently stripped of the title "doctor", and struck off the UK medical register because his data was falsified, his report was an elaborate fraud and he stood to gain financially from the situation.

Would you care to cite reliable sources for your information?
Loaf - absent any issues with temporally related autism and other vaccines injuries, a fund has been in effect since October 1, 1988, The National Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (just after the vaccine schedule was ramped in 1986.) Public Law 99-660.  It is considered a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims.  (Individual personal injury suits.)

The three federal agencies involved are DHS, The Dept of Heatth and Human Services, DOJ, Dept. of Justice, and U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  There is a $ .75 excise tax on vaccines recommended by the CDC. And the MMR is taxed at $2.25 because it covers three diseases. (Measles, Mumps and Rubella)

And I'm not an anti vax proponent, but the schedule and amount of shots is insane.  The CDC is subject to political manipulation to amend this schedule.

Thimoserol is a Mercury based preservative.  We don't have mercury in thermometers.  If one breaks the hazmat people get called in but it is injected into newborns.  I have a real problem with that practice. 

Much of the information from "studies" are funded by the industry who are desiring an advantageous result.  Before I give any study any cred, I now want to know who funded it, and who stands to profit from a good outcome.  And that skepticism flows right to the colleges and universities, where drug companies look to recruit new researchers.



Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on September 09, 2015, 09:41:36 PM
Yeah, sure... but what's with the backhanded "torching the oil fields" smear of Reagan?  ::)  The Left is always slashing and burning and attacking.  The incessant twisted revisionist propaganda against Reagan is a pale attempt to loot the unsuspecting of their worthy admiration and keep the Left's adversaries on the defensive.  They're never happy.  I'm not going down that path and chasing that rabbit at the moment, but I do want people to understand what's happening and the devious sort we're dealing with.

 ;D

Reagan's history on abortion is not what his adversaries want it to be...
http://www.amazon.com/Abortion-Conscience-Nation-Ronald-Reagan-ebook/dp/B004NEVLMU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441803099&sr=8-1&keywords=reagan+abortion

I have no idea what this post even means? What are you trying to say?

Are you even disputing anything I wrote?

However, to paraphrase TRBB, your logical fallacies are your straw men :)

Cut the "I'm slow.  Explain yourself to me, I'm just a simple farmer" routine.  You're a liberal.  You're cocked and loaded.  The two acts don't mesh as well as you think.

And if you're truly a stumped bumpkin -- and frankly, I'm starting to believe -- I'll grant you a 2 week pass.  But, please.  Do not respond until you've thought about it for 2 weeks. 

Two weeks, Loaf. Two whole fcking weeks.   :lol

----

For those who are versed on these matters (not you Loaf, you sit the rest of this post out) -- liberals have to change the subject.  They have to.  That's what they do.  And yes, often to Reagan, as Loaf just did.  Liberals are hung up on the guy so badly.  They feel the need to discredit him.  They can't let it go.  Even though he's dead.  They can't accept it.

Anyway... the "do you dispute anything I wrote?" act, is the lame bait for the subject change.  That's what liberals do.  That's the tactic.  Liberalism is a puny little arrogant ideology whose whole agenda is to keep people from believing what they know in their heart is true.  Write that down.

And if attacking an accomplished warrior like Reagan is something that they think will make people doubt what they believe is good and true (it won't) -- then by God, they'll do it.  So if someone wants to play cat and mouse with Loaf on Reagan's history on abortion, please be my guest.  Loaf seems like a reasonable guy, and will eventually admit when the jig's up.  But you have to do the dance.  For me, life's too short and I'd rather dance with my wife.  So, I'll let him stew for 2 weeks.

Gosh, I sure hope Loaf didn't read any of that.  Do you think he did?  I beginning to think nobody reads anything I write...   :-\


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 10, 2015, 03:42:10 AM
Yeah, sure... but what's with the backhanded "torching the oil fields" smear of Reagan?  ::)  The Left is always slashing and burning and attacking.  The incessant twisted revisionist propaganda against Reagan is a pale attempt to loot the unsuspecting of their worthy admiration and keep the Left's adversaries on the defensive.  They're never happy.  I'm not going down that path and chasing that rabbit at the moment, but I do want people to understand what's happening and the devious sort we're dealing with.

 ;D

Reagan's history on abortion is not what his adversaries want it to be...
http://www.amazon.com/Abortion-Conscience-Nation-Ronald-Reagan-ebook/dp/B004NEVLMU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441803099&sr=8-1&keywords=reagan+abortion

I have no idea what this post even means? What are you trying to say?

Are you even disputing anything I wrote?

However, to paraphrase TRBB, your logical fallacies are your straw men :)

Cut the "I'm slow.  Explain yourself to me, I'm just a simple farmer" routine.  You're a liberal.  You're cocked and loaded.  The two acts don't mesh as well as you think.

And if you're truly a stumped bumpkin -- and frankly, I'm starting to believe -- I'll grant you a 2 week pass.  But, please.  Do not respond until you've thought about it for 2 weeks. 

Two weeks, Loaf. Two whole fcking weeks.   :lol

----

For those who are versed on these matters (not you Loaf, you sit the rest of this post out) -- liberals have to change the subject.  They have to.  That's what they do.  And yes, often to Reagan, as Loaf just did.  Liberals are hung up on the guy so badly.  They feel the need to discredit him.  They can't let it go.  Even though he's dead.  They can't accept it.

Anyway... the "do you dispute anything I wrote?" act, is the lame bait for the subject change.  That's what liberals do.  That's the tactic.  Liberalism is a puny little arrogant ideology whose whole agenda is to keep people from believing what they know in their heart is true.  Write that down.

And if attacking an accomplished warrior like Reagan is something that they think will make people doubt what they believe is good and true (it won't) -- then by God, they'll do it.  So if someone wants to play cat and mouse with Loaf on Reagan's history on abortion, please be my guest.  Loaf seems like a reasonable guy, and will eventually admit when the jig's up.  But you have to do the dance.  For me, life's too short and I'd rather dance with my wife.  So, I'll let him stew for 2 weeks.

Gosh, I sure hope Loaf didn't read any of that.  Do you think he did?  I beginning to think nobody reads anything I write...   :-\


Your paranoia is getting the better of you :)

There were no judgement calls on Reagan, just a statement of facts, that a government panel was appointed under his Presidency to look into the issue of abortion and foetal tissue research, and that one of the outcomes of that panel's findings was that abortion and the issue of foetal tissue for research were two separate issues. Feel free to debate this issue.

Much like a politician, you try to steer any question or statement, regardless of its content or intent, back to your personal agenda and hotlist of topics.

i'm beginning to think you aren't actually interested in a debate, just opportunities for pushing your biased political rhetoric  :-D


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 10, 2015, 04:24:28 AM

Polio vaccine production is all over the map, and very troublesome.  A peek into the history of contaminated monkey tissue to make polio vaccine, potentially causing future cancer in vaccine recipients is just the tip of the iceberg.  

When my kids were vaccinated they got about 8 shots, that were well spaced.  Now kids get about 60! They are combined, even 5 different vaccines in one shot. Kids get reactions and now the autism numbers are off the chart.  It is a mess.  And shots are done on schedules that are convenient for the health care providers, and government regulators for public health departments compliance issues and not in the interest of kids maturing immune systems.  JMHO

After kids have reactions, and are forever compromised, parents start networking and digging for research and often yield information that is very inconvenient for vax manufacturers and doctors who just do what they are told, and docs who question the establishment often become blackballed by the industry for not playing the game. No one spends more money to influence congress than the medical industry.  Not the banks, not the oil companies, not the insurance industry.  They want their vaccines and drugs fast tracked through the FDA.  OxyContin sound familiar?  They all knew the risks.

I am very interested in discussing this with you.

The polio vaccine = cancer has been thoroughly debunked (see http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/polio-vaccines-cancer-debunking-myth/)

Similarly, the vaccine = autism link has no basis in scientific evidence. In fact the person (Andrew Wakefield) who made the initial claim was subsequently stripped of the title "doctor", and struck off the UK medical register because his data was falsified, his report was an elaborate fraud and he stood to gain financially from the situation.

Would you care to cite reliable sources for your information?
Loaf - absent any issues with temporally related autism and other vaccines injuries, a fund has been in effect since October 1, 1988, The National Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (just after the vaccine schedule was ramped in 1986.) Public Law 99-660.  It is considered a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims.  (Individual personal injury suits.)

The three federal agencies involved are DHS, The Dept of Heatth and Human Services, DOJ, Dept. of Justice, and U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  There is a $ .75 excise tax on vaccines recommended by the CDC. And the MMR is taxed at $2.25 because it covers three diseases. (Measles, Mumps and Rubella)

And I'm not an anti vax proponent, but the schedule and amount of shots is insane.  The CDC is subject to political manipulation to amend this schedule.

Thimoserol is a Mercury based preservative.  We don't have mercury in thermometers.  If one breaks the hazmat people get called in but it is injected into newborns.  I have a real problem with that practice. 

Much of the information from "studies" are funded by the industry who are desiring an advantageous result.  Before I give any study any cred, I now want to know who funded it, and who stands to profit from a good outcome.  And that skepticism flows right to the colleges and universities, where drug companies look to recruit new researchers.



I can see your point in terms of the number of vaccines received in the US. However, the vaccination schedule is different in the UK, I would guess because the public-funded NHS has a motive to reduce costs where possible, whereas the profit-driven health care system in the US seeks to maximise its profit at the expense of its customers. This doesn't have anything to do with the vaccines themselves, but the lack of governance and responsibility to patients in the health care system in place in the US.

In terms of the use of thimerosol, and possible links to autism, associated with vaccines, have a read of this:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6155.2009.00194.x/full

It's an open-access fully-referenced article that reviews the scientific literature and studies (from around the world, from a number of scientific fields, from people who do not stand to benefit financially from vaccines) around the issue. Their overwhelming conclusion is that there is no established link.

Interestingly, the above review quoted this (although i will say that I haven't looked into this case beyond this statement. However, if you wish to debate any thing on this issue, then we can go through it):
Quote
As a result of public concern about autism and vaccines, thousands of claims have been submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. On February 12, 2009, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims published decisions about these claims, which were considered as a group under the Omnibus Autism Proceeding. The Court found, after reviewing 5,000 pages of transcripts, 939 medical articles, 50 expert reports, and hearing testimony from 28 experts, that the MMR and thimerosal-containing vaccines, independently or together, were not causal factors in the development of autism or ASD (U.S. Court of Federal Claims, n.d.).

As a side note, I'm just curious, if mercury is a problematic issue for you personally, do you still eat fish? This isn't supposed to sound snarky or rhetorical, i'm just curious as to where you stand, i.e. is any trace of mercury bad, or do you think that there are acceptable doses of mercury that human metabolism can tolerate? As full disclosure, I eat fish maybe 1/2 times a month and think that exposure to that level of mercury won't adversely affect my health.

So, back on topic, i'm just curious if can you cite any reliable sources (i.e not including "wellness" websites, or Jenny McCarthy) that shows a link between vaccines (especially the polio vaccine) and autism? Or is your opinion based on media perception?

And if we're also taking into account suspicion of the motives of those who stand to benefit financially from trying to link vaccines to autism, let's not forget that the media has a financial stake in increasing ad revenues through fear-based coverage and clickbait webpages :)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on September 10, 2015, 06:39:52 AM
Loaf - my basis of experience with this is on several levels.  Personally having most of the diseases that vaccines were created to "manage" except smallpox (which they don't give) and polio.  Then, as a parent taking my kids for vaccines.  And, as a teacher, registering children for school, and verifying that vaccine administration had taken place, and seeing the numbers required as "mandatory for admission" increased seven times.  Then, much later, wading into environmental research and causation factors for certain illnesses.

Your article isn't available to me without paying $38.00.

However, what I do know is that some factors have changed on the landscape.  First, there are many more kids being diagnosed with autism spectrum, sitting right in my classroom.  So much so that school systems have had to react to the need, and the tool to diagnose has been "amended" and in my opinion,  to minimize the numbers diagnosed to shield the industries at play.  The DSM manuals.

Many military entrants have been "over vaccinated" although they have provided proof of vaccination. I know two personally.  Some never make it out of basic training because they have been "double or triple dosed" with vaccines which are in the "procurement" scheme as between the manufacturers and the military.  And those injured recruits live with the consequences.

And corruption has many faces.  Recently some Harvard docs (psychiatrists) were caught "fudging research" to prescribe meds, and so that makes everyone suspect in my book.  They aren't alone.  They just were the ones who got caught.

The UK might have a different set of standards for vaccines.  I am not familiar with those.  What is the common thread, here, is that the vaccine administration was an "event" in the person's life.  And parents saw an immediate change in developmental milestones and behavioral activity.  Some up all day and night with previously content children, who now screamed and could not be comforted.  One, I know is a college professor, now an activist, who witnessed this "event." I listen to parents because they know their kids best. And believe them. So if Jenny McCarthy says her kid was normal before getting a vaccine and the damage happened overnight, I believe her.  And don't give a rat's butt what some scientist making millions on vaccines or some vaccine sales person has to say.  If she has galvanized others "similarly situated" whose kids had a "vaccine event" I say "good for her." The industry is scared to death of losing profit.  Too bad. Too many drinking at the trough. They should rot in jail.  Then, in hell.

What I can tell you is that much vaccine development, including giving flu shots to young babies, is driven by the industries where parents work and who don't want productivity reduced for absenteeism from taking care of sick kids, and those who are in large day care facilities who don't want the flu spread and messing up their attendance rates (with kids who don't pay if they don't attend.) I was taken care of at home for however long it took, to recover from "childhood illnesses" alongside my siblings.  

So, the picture is a large one.  I had most of these "childhood illnesses" as a child and it was a normal process of growing up.  Your immune system had a chance to fight off germs and become stronger. And, now you get a shot, with chemicals which may cause harm, that is hard to connect down the line. The body does not get a "workout" for the immune system. It is all artificially and chemically managed. We see what high fructose corn syrup has done in the U.S. It is industry influence. Then the diabetes "industry" has cropped up in the States.

Of course, I exclude the illnesses such as smallpox and polio, because the effects are calamitous.  But, I can question the methods and procedures for which, even these vaccines were created, and whether the vaccines were created with contaminated tissues and other substances.  It is apolitical.  

There is an aspect of organized crime in organized medicine and the pharma industries and many lies, via the conspiratorial aspects of fraudulent concealment of potential adverse effects that have been perpetrated upon the general population, who looked to them in good faith, and who believed they would always act in the best interest of the people...

Now we know there are liars among researchers, doctors, and drug companies who put their bottom line ahead of the health and welfare of those people who were in the distribution stream of their often injurious products and knew that some ingredients in the vaccines would cause future illnesses without disclosing such information to the people who could then make an "informed decision."

The FDA and CDC are agencies, subject to policies made by politicians and well-connected docs, researchers, who lobby politicians ($$$) to put their brands or formulations of vaccines into the mandatory schedules for school admissions and military service, knowing they might cause future or immediate harm to those who received them.

There would be no "vaccine fund" if there were no "vaccine damaged" people.  It exists as "appeasement" or to "counter" the adverse outcomes.  And has nothing to do with liberal, conservative or moderate political stances. The injured human body knows no political affiliation.  The existence of the fund should cause you to do your own investigation.  


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 10, 2015, 07:15:53 AM
I appreciate your response, but it seems that what you are saying is that you cannot cite any credible sources other than your own subjective experience and Jenny McCarthy? This isn't meant to be sarcastic, it's just that it's difficult to debate someone's subjective experience.

it's a shame you can't see the article. If you are a teacher, you should try to request free access from the publishers through your school. In the Article Tools panel on the right hand side, click on Request Persmissions. It is an excellent article that covers arguments from many sides of the debate, including a lot of issues that you raise.

If the US military decides to dope up its soldiers with experimental drugs, then that should be a separate discussion. The US military has its own history of unethical drug administration, and we shouldn't let that inform this discussion, which started with your assertion that polio vaccine production is troublesome.

As for the production of the polio vaccine, please cite any reliable sources that confirm the contaminated tissue angle.

I am interested in this and where you derive your point of view from, because many Americans share your opinions on this matter, but they seem to me to arise from hearsay and media coverage rather than any basis in scientific evidence.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on September 10, 2015, 07:31:09 AM
I appreciate your response, but it seems that what you are saying is that you cannot cite any credible sources other than your own subjective experience and Jenny McCarthy?

it's a shame you can't see the article. If you are a teacher, you should try to request free access from the publishers through your school. In the Article Tools panel on the right hand side, click on Request Persmissions. It is an excellent article that covers arguments from many sides of the debate, including a lot of issues that you raise.

If the US military decides to dope up its soldiers with experimental drugs, then that should be a separate discussion. The US military has its own history of unethical drug administration, and we shouldn't let that inform this discussion, which started with your assertion that polio vaccine production is troublesome.

As for the production of the polio vaccine, please cite any reliable sources that confirm the contaminated tissue angle.

I am interested in this and where you derive your point of view from, because many Americans share your opinions on this matter, but they seem to me to arise from hearsay and media coverage rather than any basis in scientific evidence.

The fact I mentioned Jenny McCarthy is only because you referenced it, but she is an activist.  It takes no experience but a willingness to either cause some sunlight on a concealed industry and its practices.  And to help make it right.  Now, the U.S. Military is an outgrowth of the schools because they "directly recruit from the public schools" so it is a flow of events.  This is for basic vaccinations and not specialized ones for combat overseas.  I know more about than the latter.  A little digging will yield plenty of info. But as between the U.S. and the UK, I think the UK is more transparent, as well as Europe, generally.  If I come across more in that domain, I will make at effort to post it. I have read some on that subject.  But if you are interested, your own perspective is better served by your search terms and not mine. 



Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 10, 2015, 07:46:00 AM

There would be no "vaccine fund" if there were no "vaccine damaged" people.  It exists as "appeasement" or to "counter" the adverse outcomes.  And has nothing to do with liberal, conservative or moderate political stances. The injured human body knows no political affiliation.  The existence of the fund should cause you to do your own investigation.  


This is an interesting point.

Do you think that the existence of the Fund may be more related to the US culture of excessive litigation, and the close ties of Big Pharma to US government, than the idea that vaccines inherently cause damage? A similar fund doesn't exist in the UK as far as i'm aware. Does this lack of a fund cause you to reconsider your viewpoint?

There is a second, more scientifically valid reason, that I will propose. As each individual person has a unique genome, it is entirely possible that a (hypothetical) vaccine may cause an unforeseeable and unpredictable reaction in someone (or more than one person) due to their unique genetic make-up. It may affect such a small minority of people that the years of Phase trials for the drugs could not have statistically been expected to pick it up. The reaction may be severe only in these few specific individuals, and with absolutely no effect whatsoever in everyone else, and may be directly attributable to the vaccine. Under this scenario, the legislation has been passed (admittedly to protect Big Pharma, because they are closely tied to US policy) to limit the financial damage they could incur from a (hypothetical) vaccine that otherwise works efficiently, but the Fund exists to provide some recompense for the affected individual(s).

In my opinion, a mixture of both of these viewpoints seems far more likely, and scientifically valid, than the viewpoint that vaccines negatively affect large numbers of people in the long-term and need paying off.

Do you have any data on cases brought to the Fund? (Other than the one i quoted in my earlier reply, which refuted a large scale attempt to claim that thimerosal-containing vaccines caused autism).


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 10, 2015, 07:50:53 AM
I appreciate your response, but it seems that what you are saying is that you cannot cite any credible sources other than your own subjective experience and Jenny McCarthy?

it's a shame you can't see the article. If you are a teacher, you should try to request free access from the publishers through your school. In the Article Tools panel on the right hand side, click on Request Persmissions. It is an excellent article that covers arguments from many sides of the debate, including a lot of issues that you raise.

If the US military decides to dope up its soldiers with experimental drugs, then that should be a separate discussion. The US military has its own history of unethical drug administration, and we shouldn't let that inform this discussion, which started with your assertion that polio vaccine production is troublesome.

As for the production of the polio vaccine, please cite any reliable sources that confirm the contaminated tissue angle.

I am interested in this and where you derive your point of view from, because many Americans share your opinions on this matter, but they seem to me to arise from hearsay and media coverage rather than any basis in scientific evidence.

The fact I mentioned Jenny McCarthy is only because you referenced it, but she is an activist.  It takes no experience but a willingness to either cause some sunlight on a concealed industry and its practices.  And to help make it right.  Now, the U.S. Military is an outgrowth of the schools because they "directly recruit from the public schools" so it is a flow of events.  This is for basic vaccinations and not specialized ones for combat overseas.  I know more about than the latter.  A little digging will yield plenty of info. But as between the U.S. and the UK, I think the UK is more transparent, as well as Europe, generally.  If I come across more in that domain, I will make at effort to post it. I have read some on that subject.  But if you are interested, your own perspective is better served by your search terms and not mine. 


Thanks for response (and i'll drop the Jenny McCarthy references now), but I am still curious why you find the polio vaccine troublesome. All that I've read on the subject suggests that the claims are nothing more than scaremongering by ill-informed people, so i'd be interested why you think the way you do, and whether you would be willing to change your mind if you couldn't back up the assertion?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on September 10, 2015, 08:03:55 AM
I appreciate your response, but it seems that what you are saying is that you cannot cite any credible sources other than your own subjective experience and Jenny McCarthy?

it's a shame you can't see the article. If you are a teacher, you should try to request free access from the publishers through your school. In the Article Tools panel on the right hand side, click on Request Persmissions. It is an excellent article that covers arguments from many sides of the debate, including a lot of issues that you raise.

If the US military decides to dope up its soldiers with experimental drugs, then that should be a separate discussion. The US military has its own history of unethical drug administration, and we shouldn't let that inform this discussion, which started with your assertion that polio vaccine production is troublesome.

As for the production of the polio vaccine, please cite any reliable sources that confirm the contaminated tissue angle.

I am interested in this and where you derive your point of view from, because many Americans share your opinions on this matter, but they seem to me to arise from hearsay and media coverage rather than any basis in scientific evidence.

The fact I mentioned Jenny McCarthy is only because you referenced it, but she is an activist.  It takes no experience but a willingness to either cause some sunlight on a concealed industry and its practices.  And to help make it right.  Now, the U.S. Military is an outgrowth of the schools because they "directly recruit from the public schools" so it is a flow of events.  This is for basic vaccinations and not specialized ones for combat overseas.  I know more about than the latter.  A little digging will yield plenty of info. But as between the U.S. and the UK, I think the UK is more transparent, as well as Europe, generally.  If I come across more in that domain, I will make at effort to post it. I have read some on that subject.  But if you are interested, your own perspective is better served by your search terms and not mine. 


Thanks for response (and i'll drop the Jenny McCarthy references now), but I am still curious why you find the polio vaccine troublesome. All that I've read on the subject suggests that the claims are nothing more than scaremongering by ill-informed people, so i'd be interested why you think the way you do, and whether you would be willing to change your mind if you couldn't back up the assertion?
Hey Loaf - I don't like your term scaremongering.  And the "ill informed" people remark. 

What I can tell you is that this is also about efficaciousness. And propaganda. This year we had a flu vaccine that was pushed on everyone (for sales!) and for it was less than 28% effective in those under the age of 50 and 13% for those over 65, who were mass vaccinated.  People were herded to be vaccinated and shamed if they weren't by the media.  It is sales.  Now people are going back to find out about how these vaccines were produced to find out why they don't work, and why they are being foisted on the whole society. 

The UK may have a different legal system for damage recovery.  The U.S. has formats of administrative law that are exclusive remedies, such as Worker's Comp.  This difference in system doesn't mean fewer employees injuries but claims on the books or in the dockets. 

We also have arbitration which conceals many damage cases. That way no one knows the settlement amount and the fault of the party who caused the injury. It never gets to court and so that the public is no wiser.



Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 11, 2015, 08:45:22 AM
I appreciate your response, but it seems that what you are saying is that you cannot cite any credible sources other than your own subjective experience and Jenny McCarthy?

it's a shame you can't see the article. If you are a teacher, you should try to request free access from the publishers through your school. In the Article Tools panel on the right hand side, click on Request Persmissions. It is an excellent article that covers arguments from many sides of the debate, including a lot of issues that you raise.

If the US military decides to dope up its soldiers with experimental drugs, then that should be a separate discussion. The US military has its own history of unethical drug administration, and we shouldn't let that inform this discussion, which started with your assertion that polio vaccine production is troublesome.

As for the production of the polio vaccine, please cite any reliable sources that confirm the contaminated tissue angle.

I am interested in this and where you derive your point of view from, because many Americans share your opinions on this matter, but they seem to me to arise from hearsay and media coverage rather than any basis in scientific evidence.

The fact I mentioned Jenny McCarthy is only because you referenced it, but she is an activist.  It takes no experience but a willingness to either cause some sunlight on a concealed industry and its practices.  And to help make it right.  Now, the U.S. Military is an outgrowth of the schools because they "directly recruit from the public schools" so it is a flow of events.  This is for basic vaccinations and not specialized ones for combat overseas.  I know more about than the latter.  A little digging will yield plenty of info. But as between the U.S. and the UK, I think the UK is more transparent, as well as Europe, generally.  If I come across more in that domain, I will make at effort to post it. I have read some on that subject.  But if you are interested, your own perspective is better served by your search terms and not mine. 


Thanks for response (and i'll drop the Jenny McCarthy references now), but I am still curious why you find the polio vaccine troublesome. All that I've read on the subject suggests that the claims are nothing more than scaremongering by ill-informed people, so i'd be interested why you think the way you do, and whether you would be willing to change your mind if you couldn't back up the assertion?
Hey Loaf - I don't like your term scaremongering.  And the "ill informed" people remark. 

What I can tell you is that this is also about efficaciousness. And propaganda. This year we had a flu vaccine that was pushed on everyone (for sales!) and for it was less than 28% effective in those under the age of 50 and 13% for those over 65, who were mass vaccinated.  People were herded to be vaccinated and shamed if they weren't by the media.  It is sales.  Now people are going back to find out about how these vaccines were produced to find out why they don't work, and why they are being foisted on the whole society. 

The UK may have a different legal system for damage recovery.  The U.S. has formats of administrative law that are exclusive remedies, such as Worker's Comp.  This difference in system doesn't mean fewer employees injuries but claims on the books or in the dockets. 

We also have arbitration which conceals many damage cases. That way no one knows the settlement amount and the fault of the party who caused the injury. It never gets to court and so that the public is no wiser.


Thanks for replying. I'll address your points about "scaremongering" and "ill-informed" first, because that is what happens. See these links as four examples:

http://preventdisease.com/news/13/071713_CDC-Admits-98-Million-Americans-Received-Polio-Vaccine-In-An-8-Year-Span-When-It-Was-Contaminated-With-Cancer-Virus.shtml

http://www.nvic.org/nvic-archives/testimony/testimonyspetember102003.aspx (sadly the references in this article are dead, it would be interesting to see what they said originally, and i'll see how many i can track down).

How about this headline: "ALL the vaccines are contaminated - every last one of them" (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/november292011/vaccines-contaminated-se.php)

"When It Comes to Vaccines, Don’t Sit On The Fence!" (https://worldtruthtoday.wordpress.com/tag/dr-robert-bell/)

Reading these articles, and others, we see the same "facts" get trotted out and treated as conclusive evidence that the polio vaccine will give cancer to untold millions of Americans. Articles like these love to quote a man named Dr Robert Bell, who is listed as a former Vice President of the International Society for Cancer Research, British Cancer Hospital. Dr Robert Bell said,

Quote
“The chief, if not the sole, cause of the monstrous increase in cancer has been vaccination”

Sounds scary, right? He's a doctor. Of cancer research. He rose to a position of Vice President, so he clearly knew what he was talking about. He's British. And he worked at a hospital. Impeccable credentials, right? Dr Robert Bell is clearly a leading proponent of anti-vaccination, of the quest for truth and the right for parents to make an informed choice, right? Why else would he be quoted in so many online articles?

The only downside is... he is dead. He died in 1926. His research was repudiated in a 1911 article in the British Medical Journal entitled "Cancer Credulity and Quackery". You can download a free pdf of the article here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2333936/pdf/brmedj07832-0005.pdf

The primary aim of the four articles like these, it seems to me, is to instill fear in the reader. And as it turns out that these "facts" are incorrectly reported, and that the authors (and countless others) did not seek to cite the countless scientifically-valid reports to the contrary, wouldn't that make the authors "ill-informed"? How else can you explain the fact that they quote a man who died more than 25 years before the Salk polio vaccine? Whose research was refuted more than 40 years before the Salk polio vaccine?

On the subject of scaremongering and ill-informed authors, I am fully prepared to amend my position if you can cite one credible article that discusses this issue using valid science and without trying to instill fear.


I appreciate your response above, but let's stick to the polio vaccine for now, as I am still very interested in your initial viewpoint that the polio vaccine is troublesome, and I'd like to know why you think this way.

I would also like to know, if credible evidence cannot be found that the polio vaccine is troublesome, and if credible evidence can be found that the polio vaccine is safe, whether you would consider amending your position that the polio vaccine is troublesome?





Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on September 11, 2015, 09:56:59 AM
I appreciate your response, but it seems that what you are saying is that you cannot cite any credible sources other than your own subjective experience and Jenny McCarthy?

it's a shame you can't see the article. If you are a teacher, you should try to request free access from the publishers through your school. In the Article Tools panel on the right hand side, click on Request Persmissions. It is an excellent article that covers arguments from many sides of the debate, including a lot of issues that you raise.

If the US military decides to dope up its soldiers with experimental drugs, then that should be a separate discussion. The US military has its own history of unethical drug administration, and we shouldn't let that inform this discussion, which started with your assertion that polio vaccine production is troublesome.

As for the production of the polio vaccine, please cite any reliable sources that confirm the contaminated tissue angle.

I am interested in this and where you derive your point of view from, because many Americans share your opinions on this matter, but they seem to me to arise from hearsay and media coverage rather than any basis in scientific evidence.

The fact I mentioned Jenny McCarthy is only because you referenced it, but she is an activist.  It takes no experience but a willingness to either cause some sunlight on a concealed industry and its practices.  And to help make it right.  Now, the U.S. Military is an outgrowth of the schools because they "directly recruit from the public schools" so it is a flow of events.  This is for basic vaccinations and not specialized ones for combat overseas.  I know more about than the latter.  A little digging will yield plenty of info. But as between the U.S. and the UK, I think the UK is more transparent, as well as Europe, generally.  If I come across more in that domain, I will make at effort to post it. I have read some on that subject.  But if you are interested, your own perspective is better served by your search terms and not mine.  


Thanks for response (and i'll drop the Jenny McCarthy references now), but I am still curious why you find the polio vaccine troublesome. All that I've read on the subject suggests that the claims are nothing more than scaremongering by ill-informed people, so i'd be interested why you think the way you do, and whether you would be willing to change your mind if you couldn't back up the assertion?
Hey Loaf - I don't like your term scaremongering.  And the "ill informed" people remark.  

What I can tell you is that this is also about efficaciousness. And propaganda. This year we had a flu vaccine that was pushed on everyone (for sales!) and for it was less than 28% effective in those under the age of 50 and 13% for those over 65, who were mass vaccinated.  People were herded to be vaccinated and shamed if they weren't by the media.  It is sales.  Now people are going back to find out about how these vaccines were produced to find out why they don't work, and why they are being foisted on the whole society.  

The UK may have a different legal system for damage recovery.  The U.S. has formats of administrative law that are exclusive remedies, such as Worker's Comp.  This difference in system doesn't mean fewer employees injuries but claims on the books or in the dockets.  

We also have arbitration which conceals many damage cases. That way no one knows the settlement amount and the fault of the party who caused the injury. It never gets to court and so that the public is no wiser.


Thanks for replying. I'll address your points about "scaremongering" and "ill-informed" first, because that is what happens. See these links as four examples:

http://preventdisease.com/news/13/071713_CDC-Admits-98-Million-Americans-Received-Polio-Vaccine-In-An-8-Year-Span-When-It-Was-Contaminated-With-Cancer-Virus.shtml

http://www.nvic.org/nvic-archives/testimony/testimonyspetember102003.aspx (sadly the references in this article are dead, it would be interesting to see what they said originally, and i'll see how many i can track down).

How about this headline: "ALL the vaccines are contaminated - every last one of them" (http://www.salem-news.com/articles/november292011/vaccines-contaminated-se.php)

"When It Comes to Vaccines, Don’t Sit On The Fence!" (https://worldtruthtoday.wordpress.com/tag/dr-robert-bell/)

Reading these articles, and others, we see the same "facts" get trotted out and treated as conclusive evidence that the polio vaccine will give cancer to untold millions of Americans. Articles like these love to quote a man named Dr Robert Bell, who is listed as a former Vice President of the International Society for Cancer Research, British Cancer Hospital. Dr Robert Bell said,

Quote
“The chief, if not the sole, cause of the monstrous increase in cancer has been vaccination”

Sounds scary, right? He's a doctor. Of cancer research. He rose to a position of Vice President, so he clearly knew what he was talking about. He's British. And he worked at a hospital. Impeccable credentials, right? Dr Robert Bell is clearly a leading proponent of anti-vaccination, of the quest for truth and the right for parents to make an informed choice, right? Why else would he be quoted in so many online articles?

The only downside is... he is dead. He died in 1926. His research was repudiated in a 1911 article in the British Medical Journal entitled "Cancer Credulity and Quackery". You can download a free pdf of the article here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2333936/pdf/brmedj07832-0005.pdf

The primary aim of the four articles like these, it seems to me, is to instill fear in the reader. And as it turns out that these "facts" are incorrectly reported, and that the authors (and countless others) did not seek to cite the countless scientifically-valid reports to the contrary, wouldn't that make the authors "ill-informed"? How else can you explain the fact that they quote a man who died more than 25 years before the Salk polio vaccine? Whose research was refuted more than 40 years before the Salk polio vaccine?

On the subject of scaremongering and ill-informed authors, I am fully prepared to amend my position if you can cite one credible article that discusses this issue using valid science and without trying to instill fear.


I appreciate your response above, but let's stick to the polio vaccine for now, as I am still very interested in your initial viewpoint that the polio vaccine is troublesome, and I'd like to know why you think this way.

I would also like to know, if credible evidence cannot be found that the polio vaccine is troublesome, and if credible evidence can be found that the polio vaccine is safe, whether you would consider amending your position that the polio vaccine is troublesome?
Loaf - I'm not looking for you to "amend your position." And I fail to understand why you are looking for me to "amend my position." My position is always "caveat emptor" or "let the buyer beware." Education and forming positions is a lifetime process, largely driven by more information.

And I've become more skeptical over time. I don't blindly listen to doctors, as in the past, but filter and research every bit of advice they dispense, and inquire as to, generally whether the docs are getting remuneration for dispensing prescriptions or administering vaccines. It ain't the old days of Marcus Welby which equated docs with God.

A networked friend pointed out the polio vaccine to me ( there are several versions) as connected to SV40 and a future cancer marker, identifiable in the process of diagnosis.  I liked that the CDC article you linked, showed the "scrubbed" section in the cached page. The U.S. Is great for scrubbing the non-flattering research, because it sullied their image. Problems with transparency. To its credit, the UK and Europe seem to do this less often.

At the time I was shared this info, I had been working (as a layperson) on another biohazard in another unrelated context.  They all bear the same markings: first, the offending agent adversely affects human health, second, "highly credentialed persons" are involved, third, humans are damaged, and, fourth, there is generally a "coverup" (not unlike PP practices, recently exposed) and there are hoards ducking for cover.

What those charged with human health do, are often tainted by greed, academic publication (some tainted by fudging research) and conduct themselves, not as self-less "healers" but as shareholders in medical research and products.  Sad, but true.

Here is a link that I found.  I'm not giving it an imprimatur, but only suggesting it is a place to "start" and not "finish." When we research, we are never "finished" as the term "commencement" as in "graduation" means "beginning."

http://www.henrymakow.com/hidden_history_of_vaccines.html. (Hidden history of Polio Vaccine)

Hope it copies...

But, we live in an age of smartphones, where consumers of medical products would do well to be as informed as possible, about what is put into their bodies and those of their children. There is no excuse not to be fully informed.

It would behoove them to learn as much as possible before they become a "cohort" in a study unwittingly.  And check every prescription for "black box" warnings and "adverse effects" before they take them.  Before I take a prescription, I discuss adverse effects with the doc.

And, if the risk outweighs the benefits, I ask for an alternative that has fewer adverse effects. It's just caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware.  ;)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: runnersdialzero on September 11, 2015, 06:13:59 PM
You should become a vegetarian like me.

 :-D  What if someone becomes a vegetarian AND a tree-hugger?  Let alone, if they're a college "educated" Leftist, which sees mankind as a disease and the planet's biggest threat -- do they become cannibals?

The answer is yes.

oic
i
c


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Jim V. on September 12, 2015, 06:32:08 AM
Hey Bean Bag...


BENGHAZI!!!


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on September 12, 2015, 08:21:27 PM
You should become a vegetarian like me.

 :-D  What if someone becomes a vegetarian AND a tree-hugger?  Let alone, if they're a college "educated" Leftist, which sees mankind as a disease and the planet's biggest threat -- do they become cannibals?

The answer is yes.

oic
i
c
Well, yea.  But I think vegetarianism, is pretty cool.  I do mean that.  As a kid I thought they were crazy people.  And ... shoot, maybe they still are.  Killing and eating the vegetables.  BUT... I do appreciate vegetables more at my stage.  So I'm practically there.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on September 13, 2015, 07:07:39 AM
You should become a vegetarian like me.

 :-D  What if someone becomes a vegetarian AND a tree-hugger?  Let alone, if they're a college "educated" Leftist, which sees mankind as a disease and the planet's biggest threat -- do they become cannibals?

The answer is yes.
Bean Bag - FYI - the first congressional hearing took place this past Wednesday for defunding PP, and has been repeated on CSPAN. 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Loaf on September 14, 2015, 10:24:31 AM
Thanks for the reply.

I've had a look into the Henry Makow webpage. Makow appears to be an utterly paranoid crank (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Henry_Makow). From wikipedia:
Quote
The Beatles were Illuminati mind controllers who promoted drug use, free sex and the New Age movement. [...] Makow knows this because of a gesture John Lennon made with his hand on the cover of Yellow Submarine

and so i certainly wouldn't trust anything he puts on his page  :)

The article itself, heavily excerpted and edited by Makow, is unreferenced and unscientific, and is very economical with the truth, if you follow up some of the stories reported elsewhere on the internet. The article's original author, Tom Valentine (a "veteran health commentator" according to Makow) is an alternative-medicine proponent who makes money off of "enzyme" supplements (https://www.carotec.com/aboutus), and whose company's products are thoroughly debunked here (https://sciencebasedpharmacy.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/wobenzym-n-a-closer-look-at-systemic-enzyme-therapy/)

And so I certainly wouldn't trust the original, also unreferenced, unscientific 1996 article by Tom Valentine, which he didn't even give a title to. Just "By Tom Valentine, Winter 1996", from what i could find online.


So, if you put stock in being skeptical of the people behind any allegation, Henry Makow and Tom Valentine would certainly come very far down the list in people whose viewpoints i would trust. They are like those people you see hanging around at bus stations even though they aren't waiting for a bus.


This discussion is going to go around in circles, however the best (and most succinct) that I can find on the subject (and this only refers to Polio vaccine 1955-1962, and not to any polio vaccine after this date) is a well-referenced paragraph on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SV40
Quote
The hypothesis that SV40 might cause cancer in humans has been a particularly controversial area of research.[11] Several methods have detected SV40 in a variety of human cancers, although how reliable these detection methods are, and whether SV40 has any role in causing these tumors, remains unclear.[12] As a result of these uncertainties, academic opinion remains divided, with some arguing that this hypothesis is not supported by the data[13] and others arguing that some cancers may involve SV40.[14][15] The US National Cancer Institute announced in 2004 that although SV40 does cause cancer in some animal models, "substantial epidemiological evidence has accumulated to indicate that SV40 likely does not cause cancer in humans".[16] This announcement was based on two studies.[17][18] This 2004 announcement is in contrast to a 2002 study performed by The National Academy of Sciences Immunization Safety Review committee that stated, "The committee concludes that the biological evidence is moderate that SV40 exposure could lead to cancer in humans under natural conditions.”[19] However, Namika, Goodison,...and Rosser found that the SV40 large t-antigen, in combination with mycoplasma, often a contaminate of vaccines and which were also likely to have infected Eddy's hamsters, can cause prostate cells to turn cancerous. Whether or not this is true for other human cells is debated.[20]

This admits the debate, but says that evidence that the vaccine did cause cancer is inconclusive at best.

This is a viewpoint repeated over and over again by credible sources:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221113/
Quote
Some of the polio vaccine administered from 1955–1963 was contaminated with a virus, called simian virus 40 (SV40). The virus came from the monkey kidney cell cultures used to produce the vaccine. Most, but not all, of the contamination was in the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). Once the contamination was recognized, steps were taken to eliminate it from future vaccines. Researchers have long wondered about the effects of the contaminated vaccine on people who received it. Although SV40 has biological properties consistent with a cancer-causing virus, it has not been conclusively established whether it might have caused cancer in humans. Studies of groups of people who received polio vaccine during 1955–1963 provide evidence of no increased cancer risk. However, because these epidemiologic studies are sufficiently flawed, the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded that the evidence was inadequate to conclude whether or not the contaminated polio vaccine caused cancer. In light of the biological evidence supporting the theory that SV40-contamination of polio vaccines could contribute to human cancers, the committee recommends continued public health attention in the form of policy analysis, communication, and targeted biological research.

And for a more pop-science take on it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1860042.stm

So i'm not denying there is reason to investigate here, but when scientifically addressed, the data is inconclusive at best.


I would also like it to be noted that the above articles mentions scientific reports from both sides of the argument. Science gets quite a bashing on here, and elsewhere, with people saying that all scientists are paid off by Big Pharma, or under the government control, or have their conflicting data repressed. And this just isn't true (in by far the majority of circumstances). It's a viewpoint peddled repeatedly, usually by those such as Henry Makow, who want to benefit from sufficient doubt to put people off, and it's a viewpoint people trot out over and over again.

However, from the last few pages of posts on vaccines and the validity of the research, what we have seen, over and over again, is that scientific data is open and available to scrutiny and addresses both sides of a debate. A scientific viewpoint will start with a question, and seek to address that question.

What we have seen from the "vaccines = evil" side of things is that they start with their endpoint (Vaccines = evil) and work back from there, selectively including half-truths and quotes from debunked long-dead doctors to support their viewpoint.

It seems to me that this is more an issue of trust than the actual scientific data. There is an extreme culture in the USA of distrust (Preppers, Birthers, Truthers, anti-vaxers, and certainly anything that even seems remotely "intellectual" or educated) that simply doesn't exist to such an extent in the rest of the developed world. And i think before taking a stance on an issue, this peculiar unique-to-American culture viewpoint ought to be addressed :)

Sorry for the essay above, but why do Americans have such a distrust of these things? I'm genuinely curious. What is it about American culture that creates this fear?



Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on September 14, 2015, 11:21:45 AM
Loaf - most boomers know at least one person who had polio or who has post-polio symptom recurrence. I know several.

If you think about an epidemic in the 1950's (including a President of the U.S.) people might think that a remote chance of cancer down the line is outweighed by a vaccination or series of them, to prevent the disease with poor or little treatment.

But as people look around and become networked and enlightened, more info about corrupt scientific practices come to light.  We have learned that large batches of vaccines were sent overseas to be used on others. This is while concealing information that the vaccines were problematic. And many find that morally repugnant.  The polio vaccine thing is just incidental to the autism issues. 

Motivated parents are not going to allow corrupt practices in science or medicine deter them from finding a source for the damage to their children.  It is Big Pharma's biggest fear.  They had been entrusted with the confidence of the public and they violated that trust. 

Speaking for myself, we were trained to question authority, and think critically.  And not believe everything you hear or are taught.  And if an author who is opening the door to an opposing viewpoint, and contrary thinking gets published, of course it is subject to attack but it also opens the dialogue concerning that subject.  That is a good thing. 

Some of us take our medicine with a healthy dose of skepticism.  ;)



Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on September 14, 2015, 06:28:16 PM
What is it about American culture that creates this fear?

There's a lot more money here and it's way more accessible than in say a communist or socialist "paradise" where the wealth and power has been secured for the ruling class.  So there's still money available (though it's dwindled greatly under Obama).  And there's also liberty.  With liberty comes social mobility which can acquire things like money and power.

So... in America, a culture that traditionally embraces liberty and free will, there's a healthy distrust for things that don't.  Such as single payer, abortion and other choice-less endeavors.  Anything requiring a citizen to comply and give up their rights (often in the name of "granting" them a new right -- gotta love that one!) -- just isn't trusted.  Simple as that.  For the reasons I mentioned.  Take away people's liberty... you take away their ability to acquire wealth and power.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Alex on September 15, 2015, 02:36:31 PM

Sorry for the essay above, but why do Americans have such a distrust of these things? I'm genuinely curious. What is it about American culture that creates this fear?



I'm an American and I always ask myself that same question. I don't think I know of anyone in my corner of the rural upstate New York that acts like that. The paranoia, fear, distrust, etc. is just something I see on the news, and it seems to come a lot from the Southern and Western parts of the country.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: KDS on September 16, 2015, 07:28:20 AM

Sorry for the essay above, but why do Americans have such a distrust of these things? I'm genuinely curious. What is it about American culture that creates this fear?



I'm an American and I always ask myself that same question. I don't think I know of anyone in my corner of the rural upstate New York that acts like that. The paranoia, fear, distrust, etc. is just something I see on the news, and it seems to come a lot from the Southern and Western parts of the country.

The human mind is a funny thing, and the internet can trick people in believing anything. 

Just look at how many people suddenly have "gluten allergies." 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: alf wiedersehen on September 16, 2015, 08:54:18 AM
They're charging a couple dollars more for "gluten-free milk" at a grocery store near me.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on September 16, 2015, 10:22:11 AM
(http://www.geekbinge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Gluten-Free-Ebola-Dick-Fly-Off.png)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Alex on September 19, 2015, 11:32:15 AM

Sorry for the essay above, but why do Americans have such a distrust of these things? I'm genuinely curious. What is it about American culture that creates this fear?



I'm an American and I always ask myself that same question. I don't think I know of anyone in my corner of the rural upstate New York that acts like that. The paranoia, fear, distrust, etc. is just something I see on the news, and it seems to come a lot from the Southern and Western parts of the country.

The human mind is a funny thing, and the internet can trick people in believing anything. 

Just look at how many people suddenly have "gluten allergies." 

People with Celiac's disease legitimately do need gluten free food.


Then there are the idiots who think gluten free automatically equals healthier and are willing to blow wads of cash on "gluten free" everything. If you have Celiac's, then yes gluten free is healthier than the alternative. But for everybody else whose bodies have no problem processing gluten, there's really no difference.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on September 21, 2015, 08:33:30 AM
Oh, we could do a whole thread on the latest health/diet fads.  Coffee's gonna kill ya.  Coffee's gonna make you live longer.  Bacon is evil -- bacon is not evil.  Eggs will kill you.  Eggs are good for you.  Fiber.  Vitamins.  antioxidants.  Blueberries. 

Kale.

 :lol


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: KDS on September 21, 2015, 08:36:21 AM
Oh, we could do a whole thread on the latest health/diet fads.  Coffee's gonna kill ya.  Coffee's gonna make you live longer.  Bacon is evil -- bacon is not evil.  Eggs will kill you.  Eggs are good for you.  Fiber.  Vitamins.  antioxidants.  Blueberries. 

Kale.

 :lol

The big one a couple years ago was high fructose corn syrup. 

Don't forget that ever evil aspartame. 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Rocky Raccoon on November 27, 2015, 07:37:49 PM
There was a shooting at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado.  11 people injured, 3 dead.  The shooter is being hailed as a hero by pro-life advocates.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on November 28, 2015, 12:18:16 AM
There was a shooting at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado.  11 people injured, 3 dead.  The shooter is being hailed as a hero by pro-life advocates.

Yes, and we can thank the right wing fanatics (some of whom recentlly faked/altered a bunch of videos) and Republicans posturing in Congress for votes. The fear mongers whipped up atleast one nut job into killing a bunch of innocent people. This kindof hate seems to  resemble what went on in Nazi Germany. Pro life my ass!


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on November 28, 2015, 06:06:12 AM
There was a shooting at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado.  11 people injured, 3 dead.  The shooter is being hailed as a hero by pro-life advocates.

Disgusting beyond belief.  And few pro-life people would ever advocate this type of "self-help" - If you are pro-life you are pro "every life" - it will likely come out that this was a likely a seriously mentally ill person taking the law into his own hands. 

This is not unlike the movie house shooter.  Or the Newtown school shooter.  Mentally ill and "passed through" a medical system that has put mental illness on the back burner because it is so "inconvenient" and can't be seen on an x-ray like a broken bone.  It will be interesting as this develops to learn whether this person was treated in a psychiatric facility or was on some medications that made him completely irrational or psychotic from some illegal drugs he took all by himself.  There will be a lot of media commentary and crime theories out there until an investigation is completed.

If this was "personally and actively encouraged" by any pro-life advocates, they should perhaps be charged as accessories. But, I highly doubt that this the case.  Sounds and looks so far, more like a lone-wolf.





Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on November 28, 2015, 08:01:51 AM
<<sarcastic comment regarding the double standard in evaluating what drives terrorism with different agendas>>


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 08:15:06 AM
To repeat what I said in another thread on here, nobody put a gun in this man's hands and forced him to kill a bunch of people. It's on him and him alone. No pro lifers should be feeling guilty because a wacko shot up an abortion clinic.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: alf wiedersehen on November 28, 2015, 10:30:31 AM
To repeat what I said in another thread on here, nobody put a gun in this man's hands and forced him to kill a bunch of people. [...] No pro lifers should be feeling guilty because a wacko shot up an abortion clinic.

Should pro-lifers have felt bad if someone had put a gun in his hand and made him kill innocent people? How does that work?

The man is a product of fear mongering and right-wing fanaticism. This is what they have wrought.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on November 28, 2015, 10:52:42 AM
To repeat what I said in another thread on here, nobody put a gun in this man's hands and forced him to kill a bunch of people. It's on him and him alone. No pro lifers should be feeling guilty because a wacko shot up an abortion clinic.
Just as no Syrians or Muslims should feel guilty, held liable, or be treated differently socially or legally because of what a few did, right?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on November 28, 2015, 10:55:23 AM
From a CNN article today, " Speculation immediately swirled that Planned Parenthood was targeted because one of the services it provides is abortion.

At least three Planned Parenthood buildings have been vandalized since September, when the organization was criticized in Washington and by some Republican presidential candidates after an anti-abortion group released videos alleging that it sold fetal organs and parts for profit. Planned Parenthood has disputed the veracity of the videos, contending that they are heavily edited and provide a distorted account.".

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/28/us/colorado-planned-parenthood-shooting/index.html


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on November 28, 2015, 11:19:36 AM
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/some-pro-life-supporters-cheered-planned-parenthood-shooting#.qmkN3lMKe

"Pro Life" supporters cheering the shooter.

You know, we need PP all over  the world. In case you haven't noticed, the world's population is skyrocketing and expected to double to 15 billion by 2100. Natural resources are reaching a breaking point, water shortages all too common. Million are born into horrific poverty. STD rates are on the rise.

The apocalypse we are headed for is not the fictional one from the bible!


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 11:25:53 AM
To repeat what I said in another thread on here, nobody put a gun in this man's hands and forced him to kill a bunch of people. It's on him and him alone. No pro lifers should be feeling guilty because a wacko shot up an abortion clinic.
Just as no Syrians or Muslims should feel guilty, held liable, or be treated differently socially or legally because of what a few did, right?

Depends on where the Syrian or Muslim stands on terrorist attacks. Or do you honestly think an ISIS supporter/sympathiser  should be given the same rights of freedom of speech as a pro-lifer?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 11:31:27 AM
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/some-pro-life-supporters-cheered-planned-parenthood-shooting#.qmkN3lMKe

"Pro Life" supporters cheering the shooter.

You know, we need PP all over  the world. In case you haven't noticed, the world's population is skyrocketing and expected to double to 15 billion by 2100. Natural resources are reaching a breaking point, water shortages all too common. Million are born into horrific poverty. STD rates are on the rise.

The apocalypse we are headed for is not the fictional one from the bible!

I agree totally with you that an increasing population is the biggest problem facing the word today. However, I do think that it is better to prevent the unwanted pregnancy from happening in the first place rather then killing the unborn child in the womb.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 28, 2015, 11:39:56 AM
To repeat what I said in another thread on here, nobody put a gun in this man's hands and forced him to kill a bunch of people. It's on him and him alone. No pro lifers should be feeling guilty because a wacko shot up an abortion clinic.
Just as no Syrians or Muslims should feel guilty, held liable, or be treated differently socially or legally because of what a few did, right?

Depends on where the Syrian or Muslim stands on terrorist attacks.

To you, anyone who is Islamic is a terrorist. Why are you pretending now as if it "depends"?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on November 28, 2015, 11:43:32 AM
Increasing population is good.  Babies are good.

I love how the left is ready for action when one of their baby slaughter-houses and body-part harvesting factories are attacked... but when kids are mowed down in a French nightclub, or on the street enjoying the nightlife, or in their mother's womb clinging to life -- nah.  "Let's not over-react."

Funny liberals.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 11:45:12 AM
To repeat what I said in another thread on here, nobody put a gun in this man's hands and forced him to kill a bunch of people. It's on him and him alone. No pro lifers should be feeling guilty because a wacko shot up an abortion clinic.
Just as no Syrians or Muslims should feel guilty, held liable, or be treated differently socially or legally because of what a few did, right?

Depends on where the Syrian or Muslim stands on terrorist attacks.

To you, anyone who is Islamic is a terrorist. Why are you pretending now as if it "depends"?

Please quote where I wrote "Anyone who is Islamic is a terrorist". And when you fail to do so, how about a nice apology?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 28, 2015, 11:49:45 AM
To repeat what I said in another thread on here, nobody put a gun in this man's hands and forced him to kill a bunch of people. It's on him and him alone. No pro lifers should be feeling guilty because a wacko shot up an abortion clinic.
Just as no Syrians or Muslims should feel guilty, held liable, or be treated differently socially or legally because of what a few did, right?

Depends on where the Syrian or Muslim stands on terrorist attacks.

To you, anyone who is Islamic is a terrorist. Why are you pretending now as if it "depends"?

Please quote where I wrote "Anyone who is Islamic is a terrorist". And when you fail to do so, how about a nice apology?

Your words:

Quote
Declare Islam (by virtue of its political/legal/military aims) as an ideology far beyond that of a religion and therefore not a candidate for religious protection in the West.
Then outlaw it as a terror group, like Hamas or Hezbollah.

Here's the full post:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,23034.msg547703.html#msg547703


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 11:52:53 AM
That's extreme Islam as in it's political/military ideology as I stated.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 28, 2015, 11:56:26 AM
That's extreme Islam as in it's political/military ideology as I stated.

No, you did not state that. What you stated was that Islam because of its political and military aims was not a religion. And here I'm quoting word for word your statements, which can be read above. If you only meant an element of Islam, then how on earth does it make sense to declare Islam to be "an ideology far beyond that of a religion"?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 12:01:45 PM
Here's the sentence I typed just before the part you quoted which oddly enough, you chose not to include.

If their beliefs tie in with those who think they are justified to kill civillians on religious grounds, then they havn't a leg to stand on as far as I'm concerned.

And I'm not pretending nothing, I knew exactly what I meant when I typed that.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 28, 2015, 12:05:13 PM
Here's the sentence I typed just before the part you quoted which oddly enough, you chose not to include.

If their beliefs tie in with those who think they are justified to kill civillians on religious grounds, then they havn't a leg to stand on as far as I'm concerned.

Which you go on to state is those who practice Islam. You aren't simply condeming those "who think they are justified to kill civilians on religious grounds" you are critiquing those whose "beliefs tie in" with those people (emphasis mine).

Please explain what you meant when you stated that we should declare Islam to be "an ideology far beyond that of a religion"


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on November 28, 2015, 12:11:15 PM
Increasing population is good.  Babies are good.

I love how the left is ready for action when one of their baby slaughter-houses and body-part harvesting factories are attacked... but when kids are mowed down in a French nightclub, or on the street enjoying the nightlife, or in their mother's womb clinging to life -- nah.  "Let's not over-react."

Funny liberals.
Obviously, you pick and chose who you read and watch. Of course you would not turn on msnbc after Paris. Last night when the PP shooting was going down, Megan Kelly on Fox is doing a show about a 15 year old incident of a black murder suspect taking a white woman hostage. Stoke the flames of fear, ignore the reality of gun violence and hate!

And it is obvious you live in a glass bubble. You have never bern to a slum, never been to Africa, the Middle East, have no idea what is happening in the world around you. You have no idea what PP does. You just have no idea.... The world needs less people, like you!


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 12:15:28 PM
Here's the sentence I typed just before the part you quoted which oddly enough, you chose not to include.

If their beliefs tie in with those who think they are justified to kill civillians on religious grounds, then they havn't a leg to stand on as far as I'm concerned.

Which you go on to state is those who practice Islam. You aren't simply condeming those "who think they are justified to kill civilians on religious grounds" you are critiquing those whose "beliefs tie in" with those people (emphasis mine).


And here's the next line of my post which you also forgot to include -

Then outlaw it as a terror group, like Hamas or Hezbollah. Then crack down on their hideouts, the Wahabbi funded mosques which is where much of the radicalization is coming from. (emphasis mine)

So when you put all three quotes together, it should be crystal clear to anybody with the ability to interpret basic English that I was talking about extreme Islamic teachings.

Also this is muddying up a completely different thread topic.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 28, 2015, 12:17:49 PM
And here's the next line of my post which you also forgot to include -

Then outlaw it as a terror group, like Hamas or Hezbollah. Then crack down on their hideouts, the Wahabbi funded mosques which is where much of the radicalization is coming from. (emphasis mine)

So when you put all three quotes together, it should be crystal clear to anybody with the ability to interpret basic English that I was talking about extreme Islamic teachings.

Also this is muddying up a completely different thread topic.

I didn't forget to include anything. If you'll note I linked to the entire post.

Would you think that based on these attacks on Planned Parenthood that we should declare Christianity to be an ideology far beyond that of a religion if it turns out that the attack was based on religious grounds. If not, why not?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on November 28, 2015, 12:19:07 PM
Increasing population is good.  Babies are good.

I love how the left is ready for action when one of their baby slaughter-houses and body-part harvesting factories are attacked... but when kids are mowed down in a French nightclub, or on the street enjoying the nightlife, or in their mother's womb clinging to life -- nah.  "Let's not over-react."

Funny liberals.
Planned Parenthood Contributions to Federal Candidates 2012 cycle on opensecrets.org

So, I find it to be paid outrage...http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00314617&cycle=2012

Found it very interesting that the loudest voices in their defense have received the biggest contributions.  

Mind boggling how a non-profit has so much money each year to keep contributing to political candidates.  

The site opensecrets.org from the Center for Responsive Politics, is an intersting site where you can see who is benefitting from which industries.

Food for thought.  Just follow the money.  

There are photos surfacing of the mug shots from the shooter.  He does not look to put together.  And he is not local to the area.  From North Carolina and lived in a cabin, and not very cognitive, a mental health eval will be part of the investigation...according to an AP story.  


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 12:23:18 PM
And here's the next line of my post which you also forgot to include -

Then outlaw it as a terror group, like Hamas or Hezbollah. Then crack down on their hideouts, the Wahabbi funded mosques which is where much of the radicalization is coming from. (emphasis mine)

So when you put all three quotes together, it should be crystal clear to anybody with the ability to interpret basic English that I was talking about extreme Islamic teachings.

Also this is muddying up a completely different thread topic.

I didn't forget to include anything. If you'll note I linked to the entire post.

Would you think that based on these attacks on Planned Parenthood that we should declare Christianity to be an ideology far beyond that of a religion if it turns out that the attack was based on religious grounds. If not, why not?

Did the guy definitely shoot those people on religious grounds? I'm not a Christian and I think abortion is wrong.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 28, 2015, 12:26:19 PM
And here's the next line of my post which you also forgot to include -

Then outlaw it as a terror group, like Hamas or Hezbollah. Then crack down on their hideouts, the Wahabbi funded mosques which is where much of the radicalization is coming from. (emphasis mine)

So when you put all three quotes together, it should be crystal clear to anybody with the ability to interpret basic English that I was talking about extreme Islamic teachings.

Also this is muddying up a completely different thread topic.

I didn't forget to include anything. If you'll note I linked to the entire post.

Would you think that based on these attacks on Planned Parenthood that we should declare Christianity to be an ideology far beyond that of a religion if it turns out that the attack was based on religious grounds. If not, why not?

Did the guy definitely shoot those people on religious grounds? I'm not a Christian and I think abortion is wrong.

I don't know but that has nothing to do with what I asked.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 12:32:33 PM
You changed your post from what I was initially replying to. Your original post read that it was a forgone conclusion that the guy killed due to Christian beliefs.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 28, 2015, 12:35:38 PM
You changed your post from what I was initially replying to. Your original post read that it was a forgone conclusion that the guy killed due to Christian beliefs.

You're right. But that's not even the post that you were responding to. And it wouldn't be the first time that an act of terror carried out by an anti-abortion Christian.

Can you please respond to the question?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 12:41:42 PM
You changed your post from what I was initially replying to. Your original post read that it was a forgone conclusion that the guy killed due to Christian beliefs.

You're right. But that's not even the post that you were responding to. And it wouldn't be the first time that an act of terror carried out by an anti-abortion Christian.

Can you please respond to the question?

If there are Christian churches out there where it is being preached to kill anyone that has an abortion or works in an abortion clinic, then that is an ideology far beyond that of a religion. As such, it should be treated as hate speech and not protected under law.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on November 28, 2015, 12:43:57 PM
You changed your post from what I was initially replying to. Your original post read that it was a forgone conclusion that the guy killed due to Christian beliefs.

You're right. But that's not even the post that you were responding to. And it wouldn't be the first time that an act of terror carried out by an anti-abortion Christian.

Can you please respond to the question?
The AP story on Yahoo with neighbors from North Carolina says that "Dear seemed to have few religious or political leanings." He went after a guy who was in the parking lot.  Took shots that went through the guys windshield as he was backing up to escape.  

http://news.yahoo.com/lightbox/colorado-springs-shooting-suspect-robert-lewis-dear-north-photo-150950491.html    

Hope it copies.  


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 28, 2015, 12:44:14 PM
If there are Christian churches out there where it is being preached to kill anyone that has an abortion or works in an abortion clinic, then that is an ideology far beyond that of a religion.

Which Islamic churches do anything like this? Can you point those out? Furthermore, what do you mean by "that"? By "that," do you mean Christianity?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 12:48:11 PM
If there are Christian churches out there where it is being preached to kill anyone that has an abortion or works in an abortion clinic, then that is an ideology far beyond that of a religion.

Which Islamic churches do anything like this? Can you point those out? Furthermore, what do you mean by "that"? By "that," do you mean Christianity?

Where the f*** did I say anywhere that Islamic churches are preaching to kill people who practice abortion? This is like having a conversation in the Twilight Zone. 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on November 28, 2015, 12:52:16 PM
You changed your post from what I was initially replying to. Your original post read that it was a forgone conclusion that the guy killed due to Christian beliefs.

You're right. But that's not even the post that you were responding to. And it wouldn't be the first time that an act of terror carried out by an anti-abortion Christian.

Can you please respond to the question?

If there are Christian churches out there where it is being preached to kill anyone that has an abortion or works in an abortion clinic, then that is an ideology far beyond that of a religion. As such, it should be treated as hate speech and not protected under law.

Of course that would not be protected.  I know of no churches where that is, or ever has been preached or violence is ever espoused as an answer.  

Generally there would be prayer vigils or advertisements/billboards where that forum for publicity is used.  Never violence.

And if people know of such behavior, or encouraged such behavior, then it should be reported.  

If there are, I'd like to know where they are. This shooter appears from the mug shot photo very disconnected.

He doesn't appear to fit the mold of an activist.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 28, 2015, 12:53:55 PM
If there are Christian churches out there where it is being preached to kill anyone that has an abortion or works in an abortion clinic, then that is an ideology far beyond that of a religion.

Which Islamic churches do anything like this? Can you point those out? Furthermore, what do you mean by "that"? By "that," do you mean Christianity?

Where the f*** did I say anywhere that Islamic churches are preaching to kill people who practice abortion? This is like having a conversation in the Twilight Zone. 

I suppose I didn't make myself clear. Please point me to an Islamic church that encourage its members to be terrorists. If you can't do that, please explain what you mean when you say that we should declare Islam to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion".


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 12:58:30 PM
You changed your post from what I was initially replying to. Your original post read that it was a forgone conclusion that the guy killed due to Christian beliefs.

You're right. But that's not even the post that you were responding to. And it wouldn't be the first time that an act of terror carried out by an anti-abortion Christian.

Can you please respond to the question?

If there are Christian churches out there where it is being preached to kill anyone that has an abortion or works in an abortion clinic, then that is an ideology far beyond that of a religion. As such, it should be treated as hate speech and not protected under law.

Of course that would not be protected.  I know of no churches where that is, or ever has been preached or violence is ever espoused as an answer.  

Generally there would be prayer vigils or advertisements/billboards where that forum for publicity is used.  Never violence.

And if people know of such behavior, or encouraged such behavior, then it should be reported.  

If there are, I'd like to know where they are.

I very much doubt there is either. I'm just playing devil's advocate in response to yet another of CSM's bizarre hypothetical questions.  


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 01:00:40 PM
If there are Christian churches out there where it is being preached to kill anyone that has an abortion or works in an abortion clinic, then that is an ideology far beyond that of a religion.

Which Islamic churches do anything like this? Can you point those out? Furthermore, what do you mean by "that"? By "that," do you mean Christianity?

Where the f*** did I say anywhere that Islamic churches are preaching to kill people who practice abortion? This is like having a conversation in the Twilight Zone. 

I suppose I didn't make myself clear. Please point me to an Islamic church that encourage its members to be terrorists. If you can't do that, please explain what you mean when you say that we should declare Islam to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion".

You have the google function - use it.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 28, 2015, 01:08:34 PM
If there are Christian churches out there where it is being preached to kill anyone that has an abortion or works in an abortion clinic, then that is an ideology far beyond that of a religion.

Which Islamic churches do anything like this? Can you point those out? Furthermore, what do you mean by "that"? By "that," do you mean Christianity?

Where the f*** did I say anywhere that Islamic churches are preaching to kill people who practice abortion? This is like having a conversation in the Twilight Zone. 

I suppose I didn't make myself clear. Please point me to an Islamic church that encourage its members to be terrorists. If you can't do that, please explain what you mean when you say that we should declare Islam to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion".

You have the google function - use it.

In other words you are incapable of reinforcing your claims.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on November 28, 2015, 01:12:28 PM
If there are Christian churches out there where it is being preached to kill anyone that has an abortion or works in an abortion clinic, then that is an ideology far beyond that of a religion.

Which Islamic churches do anything like this? Can you point those out? Furthermore, what do you mean by "that"? By "that," do you mean Christianity?

Where the f*** did I say anywhere that Islamic churches are preaching to kill people who practice abortion? This is like having a conversation in the Twilight Zone. 

I suppose I didn't make myself clear. Please point me to an Islamic church that encourage its members to be terrorists. If you can't do that, please explain what you mean when you say that we should declare Islam to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion".

You have the google function - use it.

In other words you are incapable of reinforcing your claims.

Read the Paris bombing thread, and you'd understand why.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 01:16:52 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/05/isis-recruitment-moves-to-radical-network-and-mosques

http://mobile.nation.co.ke/news/Muslim-clerics-blamed-for-Mombasa-violence/-/1950946/2198362/-/format/xhtml/-/kfj2v5z/-/index.html

http://news.sky.com/story/1288664/cardiff-mosque-denies-radicalising-isis-fighters

Seeing as it was too much effort to look it up yourself.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on November 28, 2015, 01:20:30 PM
There are radicals and extremists with every religious group.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 01:25:06 PM
There are radicals and extremists with every religious group.

True but only one seems to be blowing up buildings, trains, heavily populated streets frequently in the West at the moment.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 28, 2015, 01:32:53 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/05/isis-recruitment-moves-to-radical-network-and-mosques

http://mobile.nation.co.ke/news/Muslim-clerics-blamed-for-Mombasa-violence/-/1950946/2198362/-/format/xhtml/-/kfj2v5z/-/index.html

http://news.sky.com/story/1288664/cardiff-mosque-denies-radicalising-isis-fighters

Seeing as it was too much effort to look it up yourself.

I make the effort to back up my own claims in my posts and don't force others to do the work for me.

But given these examples, do you think that one should declare Islam to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion"?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 28, 2015, 01:36:38 PM
There are radicals and extremists with every religious group.

True but only one seems to be blowing up buildings, trains, heavily populated streets frequently in the West at the moment.

In the West, those sorts of actions are supported by political extremists not religious extremists.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 01:38:43 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/05/isis-recruitment-moves-to-radical-network-and-mosques

http://mobile.nation.co.ke/news/Muslim-clerics-blamed-for-Mombasa-violence/-/1950946/2198362/-/format/xhtml/-/kfj2v5z/-/index.html

http://news.sky.com/story/1288664/cardiff-mosque-denies-radicalising-isis-fighters

Seeing as it was too much effort to look it up yourself.

I make the effort to back up my own claims in my posts and don't force others to do the work for me.

But given these examples, do you think that one should declare Islam to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion"?
(Yawn) Haven't I already addressed this?
This is not a conversation or debate we are having here. This is you asking a string of questions. Which I answer. Which you then ask again, having reworded the question. Or you ask a new one based on your failing to comprehend what I've typed.
My turn for a question.
Do you think that the links that I provided are all untrue? If so why? (actually that was two but who's counting)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on November 28, 2015, 01:39:27 PM
To repeat what I said in another thread on here, nobody put a gun in this man's hands and forced him to kill a bunch of people. It's on him and him alone. No pro lifers should be feeling guilty because a wacko shot up an abortion clinic.
Just as no Syrians or Muslims should feel guilty, held liable, or be treated differently socially or legally because of what a few did, right?

Depends on where the Syrian or Muslim stands on terrorist attacks. Or do you honestly think an ISIS supporter/sympathiser  should be given the same rights of freedom of speech as a pro-lifer?
Absolutely. I wouldn't propose abridging anyone's freedom of speech.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 01:41:50 PM
There are radicals and extremists with every religious group.

True but only one seems to be blowing up buildings, trains, heavily populated streets frequently in the West at the moment.

In the West, those sorts of actions are supported by political extremists not religious extremists.

I think you'll find it's a mixture of both.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 01:43:26 PM
To repeat what I said in another thread on here, nobody put a gun in this man's hands and forced him to kill a bunch of people. It's on him and him alone. No pro lifers should be feeling guilty because a wacko shot up an abortion clinic.
Just as no Syrians or Muslims should feel guilty, held liable, or be treated differently socially or legally because of what a few did, right?

Depends on where the Syrian or Muslim stands on terrorist attacks. Or do you honestly think an ISIS supporter/sympathiser  should be given the same rights of freedom of speech as a pro-lifer?
Absolutely. I wouldn't propose abridging anyone's freedom of speech.

Which is where you and I fundamentally differ.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on November 28, 2015, 01:43:40 PM
Increasing population is good.  Babies are good.

I love how the left is ready for action when one of their baby slaughter-houses and body-part harvesting factories are attacked... but when kids are mowed down in a French nightclub, or on the street enjoying the nightlife, or in their mother's womb clinging to life -- nah.  "Let's not over-react."

Funny liberals.
I, anyway, am not ready for any action in either case outside of standard legal procedures. I just object to the anti-Islamic bigotry that allows some people to generalize to Muslims in general when an extremist does something, but not to Christians in general when an extremist does something.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 28, 2015, 01:44:25 PM
(Yawn) Haven't I already addressed this?
This is not a conversation or debate we are having here. This is you asking a string of questions. Which I answer. Which you then ask again, having reworded the question. Or you ask a new one based on your failing to comprehend what I've typed.
My turn for a question.
Do you think that the links that I provided are all untrue? If so why? (actually that was two but who's counting)

No, I don't think they are untrue. Why do you think I said, "given those examples?"

Have you addressed this? No. You've really ignored the question as you substantially ignored my question on the other thread which was asking if you supported a policy to decrease the threat of terror. If your answer is that you actually meant to say "radical Islam" rather than "Islam," then do you think it's justifiable to conflate radical Christianity with Christianity?

In other words, if I found that there was one Christian church that promoted terrorism, would you agree with the basic point that we should declare Christianity to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion"?


I guess the basic question is: do you really think we should declare Islam to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion" as you said or did you actually mean something else?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on November 28, 2015, 01:48:46 PM
Increasing population is good.  Babies are good.

I love how the left is ready for action when one of their baby slaughter-houses and body-part harvesting factories are attacked... but when kids are mowed down in a French nightclub, or on the street enjoying the nightlife, or in their mother's womb clinging to life -- nah.  "Let's not over-react."

Funny liberals.
Planned Parenthood Contributions to Federal Candidates 2012 cycle on opensecrets.org

So, I find it to be paid outrage...http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00314617&cycle=2012

Found it very interesting that the loudest voices in their defense have received the biggest contributions.  

Mind boggling how a non-profit has so much money each year to keep contributing to political candidates.  

The site opensecrets.org from the Center for Responsive Politics, is an intersting site where you can see who is benefitting from which industries.

Food for thought.  Just follow the money.  

There are photos surfacing of the mug shots from the shooter.  He does not look to put together.  And he is not local to the area.  From North Carolina and lived in a cabin, and not very cognitive, a mental health eval will be part of the investigation...according to an AP story.  
If I were to run for office, it would make sense for planned parenthood to support me, because I support them. When my vote supports them, it's not because they gave me money; they gave me money because my vote supports them. Just like it would make sense for a pro-coal mining organization to support you. Sometimes the vote follows the money, but sometimes the money follows the vote. There is nothing inherently suspicious about receiving funds from an organization you agree with. Otherwise, it would only be unsuspicious if candidates received money from things they don't support. Which of course wouldn't happen.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on November 28, 2015, 01:52:09 PM
There are radicals and extremists with every religious group.

True but only one seems to be blowing up buildings, trains, heavily populated streets frequently in the West at the moment.
U.S. Christian and/or right wing extremists sometimes use bombs, but more often guns, so you're right there. I just don't really see the ethical or practical difference.

Sorry for the discontinuity... I'm busy today so I just stopped to catch up.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 01:53:09 PM
(Yawn) Haven't I already addressed this?
This is not a conversation or debate we are having here. This is you asking a string of questions. Which I answer. Which you then ask again, having reworded the question. Or you ask a new one based on your failing to comprehend what I've typed.
My turn for a question.
Do you think that the links that I provided are all untrue? If so why? (actually that was two but who's counting)

No, I don't think they are untrue. Why do you think I said, "given those examples?"

Have you addressed this? No. You've really ignored the question as you substantially ignored my question on the other thread which was asking if you supported a policy to decrease the threat of terror. If your answer is that you actually meant to say "radical Islam" rather than "Islam," then do you think it's justifiable to conflate radical Christianity with Christianity?

In other words, if I found that there was one Christian church that promoted terrorism, would you agree with the basic point that we should declare Christianity to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion"?


I've answered it again and again. You just don't think I have because I don't agree with your basic proposition that all conflict in the Middle East is caused by the West.
As for your hypothetical "if I found that there was one Christian church that promoted terrorism, would you agree with the basic point that we should declare Christianity to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion" question, show me the proof that this is happening and I'll address it.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 02:02:24 PM
There are radicals and extremists with every religious group.

True but only one seems to be blowing up buildings, trains, heavily populated streets frequently in the West at the moment.
U.S. Christian and/or right wing extremists sometimes use bombs, but more often guns, so you're right there. I just don't really see the ethical or practical difference.

Sorry for the discontinuity... I'm busy today so I just stopped to catch up.

Don't worry, Billy and CSM are keeping me busy.  ;D


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 28, 2015, 02:03:51 PM
I've answered it again and again. You just don't think I have because I don't agree with your basic proposition that all conflict in the Middle East is caused by the West.

That's not my basic proposition. Second, you have not answered it because you have yet to acknowledge the fact that particular actions from the West have led to an increase to the threat of terror. This, by the way, is not my proposition. I'm merely quoting the leading experts on the topic, such as the FBI, the Department of Defense, one of the leading counter-terrorist experts in France, etc. So you are not disagreeing with me -- you are disagreeing with the leading experts on the subject.

So is your answer then that you disagree with the FBI, the CIA, Department of Defense, the National Security Council, recently one of the leading military officers in the war on terror, and leading counter-terrorist experts and believe that we are not increasing the threat of terror so we might as well continue with the actions that all of these sources are saying are contributing to the threat?

Quote
As for your hypothetical "if I found that there was one Christian church that promoted terrorism, would you agree with the basic point that we should declare Christianity to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion" question, show me the proof that this is happening and I'll address it.

It's not happening. That's why it is a hypothetical question. I'm sure you are capable of responding to a hypothetical.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on November 28, 2015, 02:10:40 PM
There are radicals and extremists with every religious group.
Exactly! Like this crazy Christian nut job who just did the PP shooting.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 28, 2015, 02:13:52 PM
Also, this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_%28United_States%29



Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on November 28, 2015, 02:14:03 PM
Increasing population is good.  Babies are good.

I love how the left is ready for action when one of their baby slaughter-houses and body-part harvesting factories are attacked... but when kids are mowed down in a French nightclub, or on the street enjoying the nightlife, or in their mother's womb clinging to life -- nah.  "Let's not over-react."

Funny liberals.
Planned Parenthood Contributions to Federal Candidates 2012 cycle on opensecrets.org

So, I find it to be paid outrage...http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00314617&cycle=2012

Found it very interesting that the loudest voices in their defense have received the biggest contributions.  

Mind boggling how a non-profit has so much money each year to keep contributing to political candidates.  

The site opensecrets.org from the Center for Responsive Politics, is an intersting site where you can see who is benefitting from which industries.

Food for thought.  Just follow the money.  

There are photos surfacing of the mug shots from the shooter.  He does not look to put together.  And he is not local to the area.  From North Carolina and lived in a cabin, and not very cognitive, a mental health eval will be part of the investigation...according to an AP story.  
If I were to run for office, it would make sense for planned parenthood to support me, because I support them. When my vote supports them, it's not because they gave me money; they gave me money because my vote supports them. Just like it would make sense for a pro-coal mining organization to support you. Sometimes the vote follows the money, but sometimes the money follows the vote. There is nothing inherently suspicious about receiving funds from an organization you agree with. Otherwise, it would only be unsuspicious if candidates received money from things they don't support. Which of course wouldn't happen.
Emily - Political campaigns are big business.  On that site, you can click on an election year and discover who got money from Planned Parenthood.  These are not individuals donating $25 or $50 to defray postage or radio time.  These are congress people and senators, some of whom got thousands in election cycles, from a non-profit.  Politics is a quid-pro-quo business.  This is Latin for "this for that" and who expect support in return for money.  If you look at the PACs list you will see some pretty high profile donations and lobbying groups who represent the special interests of many companies and groups.

If a group gives 10 grand, they expect votes, screaming and hollering for them.  I recognized some familiar names who got 10 grand or so and who have been the most vocal for Planned Parenthood, and wonder of wonders, they were high on the list.

So, non-profits are not taxed.  Non-profits are set up to not show a profit.  Does not mean that some at the top don't get several hundred "large" a year.  There is very little transparency as to their financial books.  And they get a tax break.  So, I am thinking that "following the money" shows the beneficial relationship as between and among people who are elected to vote according to other standards besides who is filling the campaign coffers.  

They are gaining an unfair advantage because their relationships are not for good government but being incentivized by organizations who should not have all this money that they get from donations, and whose donors are likely unaware that as their money is going to fund political campaigns, when donors are told that money is going to "women's health."      


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 02:33:38 PM
I've answered it again and again. You just don't think I have because I don't agree with your basic proposition that all conflict in the Middle East is caused by the West.

That's not my basic proposition. Second, you have not answered it because you have yet to acknowledge the fact that particular actions from the West have led to an increase to the threat of terror. This, by the way, is not my proposition. I'm merely quoting the leading experts on the topic, such as the FBI, the Department of Defense, one of the leading counter-terrorist experts in France, etc. So you are not disagreeing with me -- you are disagreeing with the leading experts on the subject.

So is your answer then that you disagree with the FBI, the CIA, Department of Defense, the National Security Council, and leading counter-terrorist experts and believe that we are not increasing the threat of terror so we might as well continue with the actions that all of these sources are saying are contributing to the threat?


Whoops, I forgot the Middle East was a peaceful Utopia before the Bush's blundered along.
 FOR THE LAST TIME!!!! I think we should leave the middle east countries alone. I can't be any clearer on the subject.


Quote
As for your hypothetical "if I found that there was one Christian church that promoted terrorism, would you agree with the basic point that we should declare Christianity to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion" question, show me the proof that this is happening and I'll address it.

It's not happening. That's why it is a hypothetical question. I'm sure you are capable of responding to a hypothetical.

It's a straw man question and I've been led down the garden path with your hypothetical questions one too many times now, so I choose not to answer.
Also you've just inadvertently admitted that we are potentially more at risk from Muslims then we are from Christians.
WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT I THINK EVERYONE OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION IS A TERRORIST.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 02:37:38 PM
*WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT I THINK EVERYONE OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION IS A TERRORIST.

Maybe I should attach this disclaimer to every post from now on to avoid the barrage of bull this topic seems to rain down on me?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on November 28, 2015, 02:39:38 PM
*WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT I THINK EVERYONE OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION IS A TERRORIST.



But anybody of Islamic faith should stay in their own country,  right?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 02:42:08 PM
*WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT I THINK EVERYONE OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION IS A TERRORIST.



But anybody of Islamic faith should stay in their own country,  right?

Certainly, until a handle on this current situation can be sorted I think it would be a wise move.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on November 28, 2015, 02:43:40 PM
http://takimag.com/article/trouble_with_islam/

This, along with the research cited, confirms a theory I've held for a long time.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on November 28, 2015, 02:48:57 PM
*WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT I THINK EVERYONE OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION IS A TERRORIST.



But anybody of Islamic faith should stay in their own country,  right?

Certainly, until a handle on this current situation can be sorted I think it would be a wise move.

No one's concerned about the "peaceful" ones. When the numbers point to anywhere between 20-25% being "radicals," however, preservation becomes a major point. There is no "refugee crisis" in Europe. No refugee crisis consists of nearly 77% able-bodied males in their twenties and thirties. That's an invasion. We can sit in the grass, stop working, bang on the drums all day, and sing Kumbaya...or we can recognize that maybe, just maybe, there really is a problem on our hands here in Western civilization.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on November 28, 2015, 02:51:13 PM
*WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT I THINK EVERYONE OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION IS A TERRORIST.



But anybody of Islamic faith should stay in their own country,  right?

Certainly, until a handle on this current situation can be sorted I think it would be a wise move.

Wow. So does that include deportation,  by chance?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 02:57:10 PM
*WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT I THINK EVERYONE OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION IS A TERRORIST.



But anybody of Islamic faith should stay in their own country,  right?

Certainly, until a handle on this current situation can be sorted I think it would be a wise move.

Wow. So does that include deportation,  by chance?

I've already clearly stated this. ANYONE with known links to ISIS or any other form of radical groups needs to be sent packing or locked up. Not 'monitored', one of the Paris bombers had been under surveillance for some time - look how that turned out. Religious freedom ends the second you align yourself with murderers.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on November 28, 2015, 02:59:31 PM
In order to preserve liberty, elements who are loathe to embrace liberty must be ostracized from society.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 03:03:10 PM
*WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT I THINK EVERYONE OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION IS A TERRORIST.



But anybody of Islamic faith should stay in their own country,  right?

Certainly, until a handle on this current situation can be sorted I think it would be a wise move.

No one's concerned about the "peaceful" ones. When the numbers point to anywhere between 20-25% being "radicals," however, preservation becomes a major point. There is no "refugee crisis" in Europe. No refugee crisis consists of nearly 77% able-bodied males in their twenties and thirties. That's an invasion. We can sit in the grass, stop working, bang on the drums all day, and sing Kumbaya...or we can recognize that maybe, just maybe, there really is a problem on our hands here in Western civilization.

Which is exactly what I have been saying. No matter how great or small the threat may be, our elected leaders are playing Russian Roulette with it's people's safety here.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on November 28, 2015, 03:07:09 PM
*WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT I THINK EVERYONE OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION IS A TERRORIST.



But anybody of Islamic faith should stay in their own country,  right?

Certainly, until a handle on this current situation can be sorted I think it would be a wise move.

Wow. So does that include deportation,  by chance?

I've already clearly stated this. ANYONE with known links to ISIS or any other form of radical groups needs to be sent packing or locked up. Not 'monitored', one of the Paris bombers had been under surveillance for some time - look how that turned out. Religious freedom ends the second you align yourself with murderers.

Just to clarify. ...ONLY those with known links to ISIS,  right? Not rounding up every Muslim and deporting them, just the ones known to be affiliated with terror groups.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on November 28, 2015, 03:09:08 PM
I'd say it's cut and dried. If these people have any link to ISIS that would suggest a differing loyalty against the land whose taxpayers they're most likely sponging off of, then yes, they should be deported, never allowed back in, let the Wahhabis sort 'em out later.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 03:20:53 PM
*WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT I THINK EVERYONE OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION IS A TERRORIST.



But anybody of Islamic faith should stay in their own country,  right?

Certainly, until a handle on this current situation can be sorted I think it would be a wise move.

Wow. So does that include deportation,  by chance?

I've already clearly stated this. ANYONE with known links to ISIS or any other form of radical groups needs to be sent packing or locked up. Not 'monitored', one of the Paris bombers had been under surveillance for some time - look how that turned out. Religious freedom ends the second you align yourself with murderers.

Just to clarify. ...ONLY those with known links to ISIS,  right? Not rounding up every Muslim and deporting them, just the ones known to be affiliated with terror groups.

Yes. Haven't I already said this several times now? Here's what I said early on in the Paris thread;

Round up any already living in the west that are known to support, have links, ties, sympathise or preach radical Islamic ideology and deport them if they are migrants or lock them up if they are second/third generation settlers under grounds of treason. And that includes those that would support any form of Sharia Law.



Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on November 28, 2015, 04:33:07 PM
Increasing population is good.  Babies are good.

I love how the left is ready for action when one of their baby slaughter-houses and body-part harvesting factories are attacked... but when kids are mowed down in a French nightclub, or on the street enjoying the nightlife, or in their mother's womb clinging to life -- nah.  "Let's not over-react."

Funny liberals.
Planned Parenthood Contributions to Federal Candidates 2012 cycle on opensecrets.org

So, I find it to be paid outrage...http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00314617&cycle=2012

Found it very interesting that the loudest voices in their defense have received the biggest contributions.  

Mind boggling how a non-profit has so much money each year to keep contributing to political candidates.  

The site opensecrets.org from the Center for Responsive Politics, is an intersting site where you can see who is benefitting from which industries.

Food for thought.  Just follow the money.  

There are photos surfacing of the mug shots from the shooter.  He does not look to put together.  And he is not local to the area.  From North Carolina and lived in a cabin, and not very cognitive, a mental health eval will be part of the investigation...according to an AP story.  
If I were to run for office, it would make sense for planned parenthood to support me, because I support them. When my vote supports them, it's not because they gave me money; they gave me money because my vote supports them. Just like it would make sense for a pro-coal mining organization to support you. Sometimes the vote follows the money, but sometimes the money follows the vote. There is nothing inherently suspicious about receiving funds from an organization you agree with. Otherwise, it would only be unsuspicious if candidates received money from things they don't support. Which of course wouldn't happen.
Emily - Political campaigns are big business.  On that site, you can click on an election year and discover who got money from Planned Parenthood.  These are not individuals donating $25 or $50 to defray postage or radio time.  These are congress people and senators, some of whom got thousands in election cycles, from a non-profit.  Politics is a quid-pro-quo business.  This is Latin for "this for that" and who expect support in return for money.  If you look at the PACs list you will see some pretty high profile donations and lobbying groups who represent the special interests of many companies and groups.

If a group gives 10 grand, they expect votes, screaming and hollering for them.  I recognized some familiar names who got 10 grand or so and who have been the most vocal for Planned Parenthood, and wonder of wonders, they were high on the list.

So, non-profits are not taxed.  Non-profits are set up to not show a profit.  Does not mean that some at the top don't get several hundred "large" a year.  There is very little transparency as to their financial books.  And they get a tax break.  So, I am thinking that "following the money" shows the beneficial relationship as between and among people who are elected to vote according to other standards besides who is filling the campaign coffers.  

They are gaining an unfair advantage because their relationships are not for good government but being incentivized by organizations who should not have all this money that they get from donations, and whose donors are likely unaware that as their money is going to fund political campaigns, when donors are told that money is going to "women's health."      
I personally think that organizations across the board should not be able to donate. All donations should be from individuals. But, given that that is not our system, there's nothing unfair or wrong or suspicious about Planned Parenthood doing what every other organization, left, right, up, down, does. They give money to politicians they think are likely to support their cause. And politicians seem money from like-minded organizations. Unfortunately, some politicians will, in effect, sell their votes, but that is not Planned Parenthood's problem. Name me one organization that has a stake in contemporary policy decisions that doesn't give money. NRA? Pro-life groups? Whatever that creepy Family Research Council... What are you imying by singling out Planned Parenthood for doing something completely standard in our system? And do you cast aspersions on all groups that give money to politicians, even when they agree with you?
Eta: all the money given to the recipients came from donations to the PAC, thus were not out of the non-profit budget.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on November 28, 2015, 04:35:06 PM
*WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT I THINK EVERYONE OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION IS A TERRORIST.



But anybody of Islamic faith should stay in their own country,  right?

Certainly, until a handle on this current situation can be sorted I think it would be a wise move.
So all Christians should be banned from interstate and international travel until they stop shooting people?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on November 28, 2015, 04:36:24 PM
http://takimag.com/article/trouble_with_islam/

This, along with the research cited, confirms a theory I've held for a long time.
Lord. Please don't go by anything reported in that rag.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on November 28, 2015, 04:37:36 PM
In order to preserve liberty, elements who are loathe to embrace liberty must be ostracized from society.
Including Mike's Beard who doesn't consider freedom of speech to be a fundamental right?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on November 28, 2015, 04:38:41 PM
I'd say it's cut and dried. If these people have any link to ISIS that would suggest a differing loyalty against the land whose taxpayers they're most likely sponging off of, then yes, they should be deported, never allowed back in, let the Wahhabis sort 'em out later.
Ah. So Catholics, too.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 04:42:09 PM
*WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT I THINK EVERYONE OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION IS A TERRORIST.



But anybody of Islamic faith should stay in their own country,  right?

Certainly, until a handle on this current situation can be sorted I think it would be a wise move.
So all Christians should be banned from interstate and international travel until they stop shooting people?

This crap again? Are Christian citizens traveling to other countries to shoot people over their differing religious beliefs right now?
And before you bring it up, back when the IRA bombings were at their peak, I would have supported restricted travel from Northern Ireland to other countries.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 04:48:59 PM
In order to preserve liberty, elements who are loathe to embrace liberty must be ostracized from society.
Including Mike's Beard who doesn't consider freedom of speech to be a fundamental right?
If a country grants it's citizens freedom of speech as a fundamental right, then anyone living in that country who wishes to destroy those citizens have forefitted their right to freedom of speech.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on November 28, 2015, 05:02:56 PM
In order to preserve liberty, elements who are loathe to embrace liberty must be ostracized from society.
Including Mike's Beard who doesn't consider freedom of speech to be a fundamental right?

It's amazing how the word  'liberty' (the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views) applies to some but not all.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on November 28, 2015, 05:05:31 PM
*WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT I THINK EVERYONE OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION IS A TERRORIST.



But anybody of Islamic faith should stay in their own country,  right?

Certainly, until a handle on this current situation can be sorted I think it would be a wise move.
So all Christians should be banned from interstate and international travel until they stop shooting people?

This crap again? Are Christian citizens traveling to other countries to shoot people over their differing religious beliefs right now?


Too busy doing it at home.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on November 28, 2015, 05:06:54 PM
In order to preserve liberty, elements who are loathe to embrace liberty must be ostracized from society.
Including Mike's Beard who doesn't consider freedom of speech to be a fundamental right?
If a country grants it's citizens freedom of speech as a fundamental right, then anyone living in that country who wishes to destroy those citizens have forefitted their right to freedom of speech.
Part of this is a cultural difference. In the U.S., we have the proposition in our founding documents that some rights are "inalienable". They are not to be thought of as granted and therefore can not be taken away.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on November 28, 2015, 05:11:08 PM
And before get any sh*t about being a typical liberal who supports abortion and blah blah blah blah...I happen to be pro-life in most cases, and that was only strengthened after my wife and I going through a miscarriage a couple of days ago.

You know, cause this board likes to generalize and all of that.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 05:14:58 PM
In order to preserve liberty, elements who are loathe to embrace liberty must be ostracized from society.
Including Mike's Beard who doesn't consider freedom of speech to be a fundamental right?

It's amazing how the word  'liberty' (the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views) applies to some but not all.
It doesn't or should not stretch to those who support any group who wish to kill innocents.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: SMiLE Brian on November 28, 2015, 05:15:23 PM
Love and Mercy Billy! :(


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 05:17:37 PM
*WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT I THINK EVERYONE OF THE ISLAMIC RELIGION IS A TERRORIST.



But anybody of Islamic faith should stay in their own country,  right?

Certainly, until a handle on this current situation can be sorted I think it would be a wise move.
So all Christians should be banned from interstate and international travel until they stop shooting people?

This crap again? Are Christian citizens traveling to other countries to shoot people over their differing religious beliefs right now?


Too busy doing it at home.
Which is a totally seperate issue.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on November 28, 2015, 05:44:31 PM
Maybe, but by your logic, how can you tell if the Christian that just entered your country/state/city/village/jail cell is a nut job or not? Might as  well not let them travel, right? I mean, Joel Osteen might have told them to strap dynamite to their chest and blow up a mosque.

Sounds nuts, right? It's cause it is. I have a major issue with pigeonholing anybody of ANY race, religion, gender, orientation, astrological sign, shoe size, and such, because of the actions of a segment of said population.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 28, 2015, 05:48:58 PM
Maybe, but by your logic, how can you tell if the Christian that just entered your country/state/city/village/jail cell is a nut job or not? Might as  well not let them travel, right? I mean, Joel Osteen might have told them to strap dynamite to their chest and blow up a mosque.

I've already thrashed out this line of thought with Emily and the Shake Man.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on November 28, 2015, 06:08:40 PM
And before get any sh*t about being a typical liberal who supports abortion and blah blah blah blah...I happen to be pro-life in most cases, and that was only strengthened after my wife and I going through a miscarriage a couple of days ago.

You know, cause this board likes to generalize and all of that.
Oh wow. I'm sorry to hear that. Been through it and it was devastating for a long time. Please note that this wreaks havoc with the hormones and your wife will be struggling with an imbalance for a while.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on November 28, 2015, 09:19:45 PM

[quote author=Emily link=topic=22609.msg549541#msg549541
They are gaining an unfair advantage because their relationships are not for good government but being incentivized by organizations who should not have all this money that they get from donations, and whose donors are likely unaware that as their money is going to fund political campaigns, when donors are told that money is going to "women's health."      
In what way is it "unfair"? Anyone can do it. I can start a PAC if I like. If you think that all politicians who've accepted PAC money and all industries supporting PACs are anathema, well, that's all politicians and all industries. You may be right, they all stink, but why you bring it up in particular reference to Planned Parenthood, I don't know. Look further on that site. You'll find plenty of PAC money going to things you support. Will you write them off as scoundrels?.
And I expect that most people giving money to a Political Action Committee are aware that it is going to political contributions or advertising (exactly what political action committees are for) and not to the industry that the PAC supports. These were not donations to Planned Parenthood, but to a PAC.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on November 29, 2015, 07:29:26 AM

[quote author=Emily link=topic=22609.msg549541#msg549541
They are gaining an unfair advantage because their relationships are not for good government but being incentivized by organizations who should not have all this money that they get from donations, and whose donors are likely unaware that as their money is going to fund political campaigns, when donors are told that money is going to "women's health."      
In what way is it "unfair"? Anyone can do it. I can start a PAC if I like. If you think that all politicians who've accepted PAC money and all industries supporting PACs are anathema, well, that's all politicians and all industries. You may be right, they all stink, but why you bring it up in particular reference to Planned Parenthood, I don't know. Look further on that site. You'll find plenty of PAC money going to things you support. Will you write them off as scoundrels?.
And I expect that most people giving money to a Political Action Committee are aware that it is going to political contributions or advertising (exactly what political action committees are for) and not to the industry that the PAC supports. These were not donations to Planned Parenthood, but to a PAC.
Emily - Planned Parenthood has a couple of charitable type designations. One is a political organization designation and one seems to be the organization itself.  When a politician gets such huge donations for campaigns they should be disclosing how much money they got from those organizations when they advocate legislation or policy. It is transparent.  If you get money, it helps "frame your policy." That is how it works.  "To the victor belongs the spoils." That phrase goes back to the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 which translates to "helping out your friends" after the election.

Yes, you can start a PAC but if you get money in that PAC from an organization then you should be disclosing that.  These tax exemptions are generally for charitable purposes.  If I give a hundred dollars to a charity, or even one dollar, I want it to go to direct services to the charity, to help people, and not for overhead or lobbying politicians whose organizations make millions to frame policy in DC or for favored procurement (as is how the VA operates.)

PP was the title of this thread and that is why I discussed it.  I looked up familiar political figures who were outspoken and it was exactly those who attempted to minimize what was going on this past fall. There is a direct correlation between political contributions and future policy support.  


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on November 29, 2015, 08:05:34 AM
Unfortunately, the law is the law. I think very few people support the campaign finance structure we currently have. But I don't see any evidence that PP has done anything outside the letter or spirit of the current law, or outside of common accepted. procedures. It seemed to me that you were implying that they had. If you weren't, then that's my mistake.
Eta: perhaps not in all cases, but in some cases I think you've got it backward. There are many people, including me, who think PP provides important and useful services. For instance, they provide low-cost gynecological exams, OB/gyn services, early pregnancy health education, and birth control to many, many lower and middle income women.
If I were in congress, I would have "minimized what was going on this past fall" because I thought it was a scuzzy attempt by some scuzzy underhanded people to smear a fine organization for political points, probably feeding into what went on a few days ago. It's hardly a coincidence that this guy selected PP as his target.
Now, if I were in congress, it would be clear that I support PP. It would then make sense for PP to support my reelection. It would then make sense for their PAC to give me money. Would they have bought my vote? No. They already had it.
As there are many people who support PP, shall we assume that some people in congress supports them without being bought? Or might we think that no one in congress supports them, so they have to buy votes?
The NRA outspends PP by far, as do many other PACs. Do we then conclude that the only reason anyone votes against gun control legislation is because they've been bought? Or do we think that some of those congresspeople are actually against the legislation and that's why the NRA supports them?  
When someone first starts to run for higher office, they seek funds from orgs who will benefit from their existing beliefs. If I were to run, I would not go ask the NRA for funds, but I would ask PP for funds. As your positions are more broadly known, funds come from orgs who know they can count on your support. PP isn't going to give money to someone who doesn't support them. And people in congress aren't blank slates. They came with positions. Lobbyists, and funds, unfortunately will move their positions sometimes, but it's a much more complex interchange than you seem to believe.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on November 29, 2015, 08:43:08 AM
Unfortunately, the law is the law. I think very few people support the campaign finance structure we currently have. But I don't see any evidence that PP has done anything outside the letter or spirit of the current law, or outside of common accepted. procedures. It seemed to me that you were implying that they had. If you weren't, then that's my mistake.
Emily - the burden should be on the candidate or the lawmaker to disclose the donations when advocating for a policy.  I made no such implication.  Going back, personally, when I found out that the CEO of a major charitable foundation, was making $300,00 a year, I stopped donating.  When the CEO gets $300k, it means that they get salary first, and then the charity and the people for whom the charity is set up to benefit, goes after the "suit."

That carries over to these research foundations.  One of the smartest foundations was one set up to find cure for a specific genetic disease, where the foundation set up its own hiring of researchers rather than rely on an organizational approach. They hired their own doctors and scientists.  It is a new approach.  They found some pretty high profile people to "donate their time and talent" for many tasks. They act "in concert with the foundation" to raise funds, and have a better handle on emerging progress, addressing the disease and research and development and accountability rather than creating a slush fund that has to be split up like a pie with little accountability.  It is more efficient and lead to more rapid treatment development. 

Many of these non-transparent foundations are top-heavy in organizational costs and bottom heavy on service-delivery.  With money comes influence and PP has created a quasi- monopoly as a non-profit.  I guess I just have a problem with that, because they are almost given the status of a quasi-governmental agency.  They are a health care provider.  And they don't have the market cornered as far as medical skill sets or social service skill sets.  But they get the most money because they have infiltrated and paid off the political system.

The letter of the law might not have been violated but certainly if they have this "super access" to the White House or other governmental agencies, there could be a violation of the "spirit" of the law.  Generally, I think we need to have more accountability with regard "501 tax-exempt designations." And, more disclosure.  It may not be big oil or big pharma, but there is certainly big influence over millions of tax dollars.

Maybe there will be a deeper and more forensic (for the court) analysis of their funding sources and who is tied to all those millions.  Why does a charity need a $3 million budget for a lobbying sector?  That is my question. 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on November 29, 2015, 09:39:34 AM
And before get any sh*t about being a typical liberal who supports abortion and blah blah blah blah...I happen to be pro-life in most cases, and that was only strengthened after my wife and I going through a miscarriage a couple of days ago.

You know, cause this board likes to generalize and all of that.
Oh wow. I'm sorry to hear that. Been through it and it was devastating for a long time. Please note that this wreaks havoc with the hormones and your wife will be struggling with an imbalance for a while.

Oh yeah...been there. This was our 3rd loss, so sadly we've been through this before.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood videos exposed as fake.
Post by: Freddie French-Pounce on November 29, 2015, 09:41:55 AM
What is now exposed is that these videos are faked and a hoax and you failed to update the thread on your now debunked story. It boggles the mind how so many of you use the Fox News propaganda machine as truth and fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/opinions/louis-planned-parenthood/

Not only that, it is illegal for PP to sell fetal tissue, and PP is prohibited by law to use Federal money for abortion services.

I'd like to control your right to buy a gun but it is your Constitutional right. Funny how you Republicans complain about the over reach of big govt and govt regulation but when it comes to your issues, like abortion,  you want to pass laws to control and stop it.

Yes, the woman's right to chose, Constitutional right as handed down by the Supreme Court. In case you didn't  realize, carrying around a big thing in your belly for 9 months is no trivial thing.  It  can endanger a woman's health, mess up her body permanently and affect her life in multiple ways you obviously have never seriously considered. Not to mention, deciding not to bring a child into a situation of poverty in some cases. Seems like not adding to the 50% of takers Mitt Romney and Fox NEWS love to complain about would make you happy.

I love this post so much.

Abortion should always be a choice.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood videos exposed as fake.
Post by: The LEGENDARY OSD on November 29, 2015, 09:57:53 AM
What is now exposed is that these videos are faked and a hoax and you failed to update the thread on your now debunked story. It boggles the mind how so many of you use the Fox News propaganda machine as truth and fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/opinions/louis-planned-parenthood/

Not only that, it is illegal for PP to sell fetal tissue, and PP is prohibited by law to use Federal money for abortion services.

I'd like to control your right to buy a gun but it is your Constitutional right. Funny how you Republicans complain about the over reach of big govt and govt regulation but when it comes to your issues, like abortion,  you want to pass laws to control and stop it.

Yes, the woman's right to chose, Constitutional right as handed down by the Supreme Court. In case you didn't  realize, carrying around a big thing in your belly for 9 months is no trivial thing.  It  can endanger a woman's health, mess up her body permanently and affect her life in multiple ways you obviously have never seriously considered. Not to mention, deciding not to bring a child into a situation of poverty in some cases. Seems like not adding to the 50% of takers Mitt Romney and Fox NEWS love to complain about would make you happy.

You read my mind. Great post, ORR!


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood videos exposed as fake.
Post by: filledeplage on November 29, 2015, 10:55:00 AM
What is now exposed is that these videos are faked and a hoax and you failed to update the thread on your now debunked story. It boggles the mind how so many of you use the Fox News propaganda machine as truth and fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/04/opinions/louis-planned-parenthood/

Not only that, it is illegal for PP to sell fetal tissue, and PP is prohibited by law to use Federal money for abortion services.

I'd like to control your right to buy a gun but it is your Constitutional right. Funny how you Republicans complain about the over reach of big govt and govt regulation but when it comes to your issues, like abortion,  you want to pass laws to control and stop it.

Yes, the woman's right to chose, Constitutional right as handed down by the Supreme Court. In case you didn't  realize, carrying around a big thing in your belly for 9 months is no trivial thing.  It  can endanger a woman's health, mess up her body permanently and affect her life in multiple ways you obviously have never seriously considered. Not to mention, deciding not to bring a child into a situation of poverty in some cases. Seems like not adding to the 50% of takers Mitt Romney and Fox NEWS love to complain about would make you happy.

You read my mind. Great post, ORR!
OSD - Let's not forget this is not about the "woman's right to choose." This is not in issue. 

The issue is what happened to the "foetal tissue" post abortion and whether methods and means were used to maximize profit. And whether, in contravention to the law, their procedures were tailored to maximize tissue output to procure an entire organ with sustainablility.  That CNN movie cameo post is misleading because the "right to choose" was never in question.  This is not about the days of back-alley and coat-hanger abortions and subsequent maternal death.

The issue is whether women who underwent these procedures were mislead about where "their" products of their conception were sold, or bartered, and whether any laws were broken to make that happen. Consent is required to donate a umbilical cord for research. A hospital cannot use your cord blood for research unless the mother gives consent.  I gave consent for medical research.  That goes back several decades.  These women had ultrasounds but were not shown the ultrasounds.  That could be argued that perhaps the procedure done without showing the photo could negate "informed consent." No one put words in those Planned Parenthood doctors and staffers.  This is about corruption in an industry.  Corruption is corruption.

The defense of "heavily edited" videos came from some senators who got no less than $11 grand in one election cycle from a charitable non-profit which is tax exempt. That is hefty dough for a elected official to act as spokesperson for an organization that is not the only one which provides woman's health care as they claim.   They don't have a monopoly on taking care of women's health.  We have community health centers and tons of HMO's that area connected to teaching hospitals to do that. 

Planned Parenthood has $3 million for lobbying and they don't need, nor should they be "calling in their favors" when the ocean gets turbulent.  They could have hired their own PR to do their damage control.  It is a matter of following the money.       


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood videos exposed as fake
Post by: Emily on November 29, 2015, 11:04:18 AM
And before get any sh*t about being a typical liberal who supports abortion and blah blah blah blah...I happen to be pro-life in most cases, and that was only strengthened after my wife and I going through a miscarriage a couple of days ago.

You know, cause this board likes to generalize and all of that.
Oh wow. I'm sorry to hear that. Been through it and it was devastating for a long time. Please note that this wreaks havoc with the hormones and your wife will be struggling with an imbalance for a while.

Oh yeah...been there. This was our 3rd loss, so sadly we've been through this before.
Ugh. I'm so very and honestly sorry. I actually feel it. I had a few, though only one that was past the first trimester. If it helps, I eventually had a lovely healthy happy child.
Eta: I just realized that this might read as though it might help you that I eventually had said child. What I meant is that you still can realistically hope. Though at this stage, maybe you aren't ready to think of the future. In any case, I mean to extend my sympathy. Sorry for bumbling.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 29, 2015, 02:41:49 PM
Whoops, I forgot the Middle East was a peaceful Utopia before the Bush's blundered along.

I'll be glad to engage with you when you address anything I have actually said but you seem intent here on concocting a position for me out of thin air. I have said nothing whatsoever along those lines. If you wish to dispense with the deceitful straw men, we could continue in a reasonable fashion.

Quote
FOR THE LAST TIME!!!! I think we should leave the middle east countries alone. I can't be any clearer on the subject.

You have been very clear in terms of answering the question that you are asking yourself. As far as answering my question, you still haven't. Once again, you appear to suggest that "we should leave the middle east countries alone" under the assumption that we have been trying to help helpless people. My question is whether you are in favour of stopping policies that lead to an increase in terror. For example, recently there was a very good article in The Globe and Mail which suggested that blocking refugees enhances the threat of terror and that ISIS is actively counting on refugees being blocked entrance because it helps immensely with their recruitment. Here is the article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-strategic-value-of-compassion-welcoming-refugees-is-devastating-to-is/article27373931/

So if you are in favour of policies that prevent the likelihood of an increase in the threat of terror, you would probably be in favour of bringing in refugees. Now, you do not take this into account when it comes to answering my question, because the fact is that you are not answering it.

Quote
It's a straw man question

You are using the term "straw man" incorrectly.

Quote
and I've been led down the garden path with your hypothetical questions one too many times now, so I choose not to answer.

I'm mostly just trying to figure out what you mean when you say that we should declare Islam to be  ideology "far beyond that of a religion". When I asked you to explain what that meant you did not answer. Then I asked this:

Do you really think we should declare Islam to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion" as you said or did you actually mean something else?

You didn't answer that either. So in an effort to try and understand what you were saying, and in response to your refusal to explain what you meant, I asked that hypothetical question. The question is, do you think it would make sense to say that we should declare Christianity to be an ideology to be "far beyond that of a religion" on the basis of a few churches that were promoting the use of terrorism?  You refused to answer this as well.

This was an effort, by the way, of giving you the benefit of the doubt after I quoted you directly and you told me that that's not what you really meant. But thus far you have neglected to confirm what it is you really meant.

So am I to assume that I was correct in my initial claim or are you actually going to clarify your point?

Quote
Also you've just inadvertently admitted that we are potentially more at risk from Muslims then we are from Christians.

What do you mean by "we"? If by "we," you mean the world, then the world is far more potentially at risk as a result of Western actions than they are at risk from Muslims. I'm not particularly concerned with the safety of one particular group over another - I'm concerned with everyone's safety and I'm concerned primarily with the kind of dangerous actions that I have control over and have some power to stop.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 29, 2015, 05:07:33 PM
Any form of worship be it Islamic, Christian or the Cult of Cthulhu that uses it's teachings as a basis to try dominate the rest of the world by force, intolerance and fear mongering has an ideology that has moved beyond that of a mere religion and into fascist supremacism territory.
I now patiently await your reply where you claim I haven't answered your question and ask me the same question yet again.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 29, 2015, 05:12:48 PM

I'll be glad to engage with you when you address anything I have actually said but you seem intent here on concocting a position for me out of thin air. I have said nothing whatsoever along those lines.

Also this;  :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol. After all the sh*t that has been insinuated towards me on this and the other thread? Pot say hello to the kettle.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on November 29, 2015, 05:52:36 PM
Any form of worship be it Islamic, Christian or the Cult of Cthulhu that uses it's teachings as a basis to try dominate the rest of the world by force, intolerance and fear mongering has an ideology that has moved beyond that of a mere religion and into fascist supremacism territory.
I now patiently await your reply where you claim I haven't answered your question and ask me the same question yet again.
Wow. Several forms of worship have sprung to my mind that fit that bill. I'd say the most active and successful right now at domination through those methods is not Islam.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 29, 2015, 05:56:04 PM
Any form of worship be it Islamic, Christian or the Cult of Cthulhu that uses it's teachings as a basis to try dominate the rest of the world by force, intolerance and fear mongering has an ideology that has moved beyond that of a mere religion and into fascist supremacism territory.

A form of worship has an ideology? I'm not sure what that means. What's the ideology?

And furthermore, I am asking about whether what happens in several churches allows you to make a declaration about the religion as a whole, which you do not address here. Could you?

Quote
I now patiently await your reply where you claim I haven't answered your question and ask me the same question yet again.

Given that I still have questions means that you have not answered my question.

Quote
Also this;  LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL. After all the sh*t that has been insinuated towards me on this and the other thread? Pot say hello to the kettle.

I quoted you directly. You didn't give any quotation because you couldn't find one that could even come close to reinforcing the position that you were attributing to me. To equate these two things is ludicrous. And furthermore, you have claimed that the quote that I gave from you didn't actually mean what it said so I have been actively trying to figure out what you actually meant. So it should be quite obvious that I'm trying to do whatever it takes to not concoct a position for you.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 29, 2015, 07:11:32 PM
Well as predicted you again asked the same question.Can you please change your name to Many Questions Man? It seems to fit you much better.
Seriously. Questions, questions, more fucking questions. Which I answer. Which you then claim that I don't. Which I then answer again, followed by the same question rephrased. Which I answer but like chopping off the head of the Hydra leads to 3 more fucking questions. And on and on and on it goes.
Here, let me cut through your endless parade of questions and repeat what I pretty much posted two weeks back which sums up exactly where I stand on Islamic terrorism. It's my final say on the matter, so for all those questions that you are bound to feel compelled to ask in response please kindly keep to yourself.

DON'T LET ANYBODY FROM PREDOMINATELY MUSLIM COUNTRIES SETTLE IN THE WEST AT THIS TIME.
DEPORT OR IMPRISON ANYBODY WITH LINKS TO OR SUPPORTS ANY FORM OF RADICALIZED ISLAMIC ACTIVITY.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 29, 2015, 07:20:28 PM
Can you please change your name to Many Questions Man? It seems to fit you much better.

I'm mostly asking one question which you are still refusing to answer. Here it is again:

Do you really think we should declare Islam to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion" as you said or did you actually mean something else?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 29, 2015, 07:37:37 PM
Can you please change your name to Many Questions Man? It seems to fit you much better.

I'm mostly asking one question which you are still refusing to answer. Here it is again:

Do you really think we should declare Islam to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion" as you said or did you actually mean something else?
Already answered that and clarified my initial statement so I repeat.


Well as predicted you again asked the same question.Can you please change your name to Many Questions Man? It seems to fit you much better.
Seriously. Questions, questions, more fucking questions. Which I answer. Which you then claim that I don't. Which I then answer again, followed by the same question rephrased. Which I answer but like chopping off the head of the Hydra leads to 3 more fucking questions. And on and on and on it goes.
Here, let me cut through your endless parade of questions and repeat what I pretty much posted two weeks back which sums up exactly where I stand on Islamic terrorism. It's my final say on the matter, so for all those questions that you are bound to feel compelled to ask in response please kindly keep to yourself.

DON'T LET ANYBODY FROM PREDOMINATELY MUSLIM COUNTRIES SETTLE IN THE WEST AT THIS TIME.
DEPORT OR IMPRISON ANYBODY WITH LINKS OR SUPPORTS ANY FORM OF RADICALIZED ISLAMIC ACTIVITY.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 29, 2015, 07:41:48 PM
And you still haven't answered my question, which transparently had nothing to do with "Islamic terrorism." But fair enough -- if you'd like me to stop asking, I will.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mike's Beard on November 29, 2015, 07:51:51 PM
I have, repeatedly Many Questions Man. And still you ask it. I've ran out of ways to answer you, it's mentally exhausting trying to think of different ways to get my reply through your head.
Like I said before, this isn't a conversation or debate, it's a one sided question fest.
Good day to you.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Chocolate Shake Man on November 29, 2015, 08:20:13 PM
I have, repeatedly Many Questions Man. And still you ask it. I've ran out of ways to answer you, it's mentally exhausting trying to think of different ways to get my reply through your head.
Like I said before, this isn't a conversation or debate, it's a one sided question fest.
Good day to you.

I would be happy to debate you or have a conversation if I understood your position. I suppose that when you note above that you "clarified" your original statement, you are saying that you don't actually believe that we should declare Islam to be an ideology "far beyond that of a religion" and then outlaw it as a terror organization. However, if you were specifically referring to Islamic terrorism, then I'm still puzzled since obviously that's already outlawed, as it should be. If you mean that all fundamentalists should be thrown in jail, I would disagree. I would say that fundamentalism of any kind is dangerous but so is throwing people in jail on the basis of their beliefs. As has already been noted, most terrorism in the United States is carried out by reactionaries who hold anti-government views, which are themselves a kind of fundamentalism. In fact, the similarities are quite striking between those who hold anti-government points of view and those who hold fundamentalist religious points of view. Nevertheless, while slavish anti-government figures can present a threat and it is quite possible that someone in a group of anti-government fundamentalists could indeed be violently destructive, I nevertheless would not support throwing into prison anybody who holds those views, unless they were actively pursuing or encouraging illegal activity.

Phewf. An entire thread with not a single question. That was difficult for Many Questions Man.  :)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Gerry on December 03, 2015, 08:44:00 AM
It wasn't busted, it is a doctored video. This is more truth twisting on the right. The only time you right wingers care about children is when they're in the womb. This is just another situation where mostly men are trying to make decisions that affect mostly women. How big of you that you are willing to "possibly" allow an exception in the case of rape and incest. Republicans use the abortion issue as a fundraiser .GW Bush had control of the senate and congress at one point during his administration and Roe v. Wade could've been overturned but no, it brings in too much money.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on December 03, 2015, 09:12:25 AM
It wasn't busted, it is a doctored video. This is more truth twisting on the right. The only time you right wingers care about children is when they're in the womb. This is just another situation where mostly men are trying to make decisions that affect mostly women. How big of you that you are willing to "possibly" allow an exception in the case of rape and incest. Republicans use the abortion issue as a fundraiser .GW Bush had control of the senate and congress at one point during his administration and Roe v. Wade could've been overturned but no, it brings in too much money.
Disagree big time.  Those words came out of those doctor's mouths.  They clearly uttered those words. 

Several important things came out of this exposé:

First, women have been given ultrasounds that they did not have access to prior to their procedures.  That could compromise whether they ever gave "informed consent." 

Second, this raises the whole issue of false representation as to what happened with the proceeds from the women's bodies.  PP has "walked this back" saying they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.  That is an admission.  Tissue and organ trafficking is a multi-million dollar business. 

Third, Roe v. Wade was never on the table.   

And, no one gets more money in each election cycle from Planned Parenthood than the Dems, who have become their "public relations agency" instead of hiring a PR firm to clean up the mess.  If you check out opensecrets.org there is an accounting of monies given to political campaigns.   

That is an unfair statement to make that people only care about pre-born children.  There are lots of safety nets in place to feed, clothe and educate all children.  We have the WIC program (Women, Infants and Children.)  So nutrition is covered.   


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on December 03, 2015, 09:20:08 AM
It wasn't busted, it is a doctored video. This is more truth twisting on the right. The only time you right wingers care about children is when they're in the womb. This is just another situation where mostly men are trying to make decisions that affect mostly women. How big of you that you are willing to "possibly" allow an exception in the case of rape and incest. Republicans use the abortion issue as a fundraiser .GW Bush had control of the senate and congress at one point during his administration and Roe v. Wade could've been overturned but no, it brings in too much money.
Disagree big time.  Those words came out of those doctor's mouths.  They clearly uttered those words. 

Several important things came out of this exposé:

First, women have been given ultrasounds that they did not have access to prior to their procedures.  That could compromise whether they ever gave "informed consent." 

Second, this raises the whole issue of false representation as to what happened with the proceeds from the women's bodies.  PP has "walked this back" saying they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.  That is an admission.  Tissue and organ trafficking is a multi-million dollar business. 

Third, Roe v. Wade was never on the table.   

And, no one gets more money in each election cycle from Planned Parenthood than the Dems, who have become their "public relations agency" instead of hiring a PR firm to clean up the mess.  If you check out opensecrets.org there is an accounting of monies given to political campaigns.   

That is an unfair statement to make that people only care about pre-born children.  There are lots of safety nets in place to feed, clothe and educate all children.  We have the WIC program (Women, Infants and Children.)  So nutrition is covered.   

- Thinking that women are unable to give informed consent without seeing an ultrasound is incredibly condescending. Almost all women, by the age they can become pregnant, have learned enough language that they no longer need pictures to understand communications.

"Second, this raises the whole issue of false representation as to what happened with the proceeds from the women's bodies.  PP has "walked this back" saying they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.  That is an admission. "
Yes, it's admission that they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.

Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for, other than defamation on the part of the videographers.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on December 03, 2015, 09:29:56 AM
It wasn't busted, it is a doctored video. This is more truth twisting on the right. The only time you right wingers care about children is when they're in the womb. This is just another situation where mostly men are trying to make decisions that affect mostly women. How big of you that you are willing to "possibly" allow an exception in the case of rape and incest. Republicans use the abortion issue as a fundraiser .GW Bush had control of the senate and congress at one point during his administration and Roe v. Wade could've been overturned but no, it brings in too much money.
Disagree big time.  Those words came out of those doctor's mouths.  They clearly uttered those words. 

Several important things came out of this exposé:

First, women have been given ultrasounds that they did not have access to prior to their procedures.  That could compromise whether they ever gave "informed consent." 

Second, this raises the whole issue of false representation as to what happened with the proceeds from the women's bodies.  PP has "walked this back" saying they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.  That is an admission.  Tissue and organ trafficking is a multi-million dollar business. 

Third, Roe v. Wade was never on the table.   

And, no one gets more money in each election cycle from Planned Parenthood than the Dems, who have become their "public relations agency" instead of hiring a PR firm to clean up the mess.  If you check out opensecrets.org there is an accounting of monies given to political campaigns.   

That is an unfair statement to make that people only care about pre-born children.  There are lots of safety nets in place to feed, clothe and educate all children.  We have the WIC program (Women, Infants and Children.)  So nutrition is covered.   

- Thinking that women are unable to give informed consent without seeing an ultrasound is incredibly condescending. Almost all women, by the age they can become pregnant, have learned enough language that they no longer need pictures to understand communications.

"Second, this raises the whole issue of false representation as to what happened with the proceeds from the women's bodies.  PP has "walked this back" saying they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.  That is an admission. "
Yes, it's admission that they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.

Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for, other than defamation on the part of the videographers.
Condescending?  Not really.  The law might not look at it that way.

1 - If you are in a room having an ultrasound, and you are not allowed to view it, then I would argue that you were not fully informed. 

2 - If you were in a room having this procedure and were told your "tissue" was going for medical research, and not that it was being sold, then I would argue that there was fraud and false representation. 

3 - And, I would not look at it as defamatory.  The truth is a defense to defamation. Those docs uttered those words.  We heard them. 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on December 03, 2015, 09:38:10 AM
It wasn't busted, it is a doctored video. This is more truth twisting on the right. The only time you right wingers care about children is when they're in the womb. This is just another situation where mostly men are trying to make decisions that affect mostly women. How big of you that you are willing to "possibly" allow an exception in the case of rape and incest. Republicans use the abortion issue as a fundraiser .GW Bush had control of the senate and congress at one point during his administration and Roe v. Wade could've been overturned but no, it brings in too much money.
Disagree big time.  Those words came out of those doctor's mouths.  They clearly uttered those words. 

Several important things came out of this exposé:

First, women have been given ultrasounds that they did not have access to prior to their procedures.  That could compromise whether they ever gave "informed consent." 

Second, this raises the whole issue of false representation as to what happened with the proceeds from the women's bodies.  PP has "walked this back" saying they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.  That is an admission.  Tissue and organ trafficking is a multi-million dollar business. 

Third, Roe v. Wade was never on the table.   

And, no one gets more money in each election cycle from Planned Parenthood than the Dems, who have become their "public relations agency" instead of hiring a PR firm to clean up the mess.  If you check out opensecrets.org there is an accounting of monies given to political campaigns.   

That is an unfair statement to make that people only care about pre-born children.  There are lots of safety nets in place to feed, clothe and educate all children.  We have the WIC program (Women, Infants and Children.)  So nutrition is covered.   

- Thinking that women are unable to give informed consent without seeing an ultrasound is incredibly condescending. Almost all women, by the age they can become pregnant, have learned enough language that they no longer need pictures to understand communications.

"Second, this raises the whole issue of false representation as to what happened with the proceeds from the women's bodies.  PP has "walked this back" saying they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.  That is an admission. "
Yes, it's admission that they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.

Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for, other than defamation on the part of the videographers.
Condescending?  Not really.  The law might not look at it that way.

1 - If you are in a room having an ultrasound, and you are not allowed to view it, then I would argue that you were not fully informed. 

2 - If you were in a room having this procedure and were told your "tissue" was going for medical research, and not that it was being sold, then I would argue that there was fraud and false representation. 

3 - And, I would not look at it as defamatory.  The truth is a defense to defamation. Those docs uttered those words.  We heard them. 
-Is there evidence they were not allowed to look at ultrasounds? I find this highly unlikely.
-You think the law is the final word on what's right? Good to know you're pro-choice and only playing devil's advocate here.  :love
-no evidence
-splicing video to manipulate the meaning of words can certainly be defamatory.
You haven't done this:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for, other than defamation on the part of the videographers.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on December 03, 2015, 09:55:02 AM
It wasn't busted, it is a doctored video. This is more truth twisting on the right. The only time you right wingers care about children is when they're in the womb. This is just another situation where mostly men are trying to make decisions that affect mostly women. How big of you that you are willing to "possibly" allow an exception in the case of rape and incest. Republicans use the abortion issue as a fundraiser .GW Bush had control of the senate and congress at one point during his administration and Roe v. Wade could've been overturned but no, it brings in too much money.
Disagree big time.  Those words came out of those doctor's mouths.  They clearly uttered those words. 

Several important things came out of this exposé:

First, women have been given ultrasounds that they did not have access to prior to their procedures.  That could compromise whether they ever gave "informed consent." 

Second, this raises the whole issue of false representation as to what happened with the proceeds from the women's bodies.  PP has "walked this back" saying they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.  That is an admission.  Tissue and organ trafficking is a multi-million dollar business. 

Third, Roe v. Wade was never on the table.   

And, no one gets more money in each election cycle from Planned Parenthood than the Dems, who have become their "public relations agency" instead of hiring a PR firm to clean up the mess.  If you check out opensecrets.org there is an accounting of monies given to political campaigns.   

That is an unfair statement to make that people only care about pre-born children.  There are lots of safety nets in place to feed, clothe and educate all children.  We have the WIC program (Women, Infants and Children.)  So nutrition is covered.   

- Thinking that women are unable to give informed consent without seeing an ultrasound is incredibly condescending. Almost all women, by the age they can become pregnant, have learned enough language that they no longer need pictures to understand communications.

"Second, this raises the whole issue of false representation as to what happened with the proceeds from the women's bodies.  PP has "walked this back" saying they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.  That is an admission. "
Yes, it's admission that they would not be involved in the sale of tissue.

Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for, other than defamation on the part of the videographers.
Condescending?  Not really.  The law might not look at it that way.

1 - If you are in a room having an ultrasound, and you are not allowed to view it, then I would argue that you were not fully informed. 

2 - If you were in a room having this procedure and were told your "tissue" was going for medical research, and not that it was being sold, then I would argue that there was fraud and false representation. 

3 - And, I would not look at it as defamatory.  The truth is a defense to defamation. Those docs uttered those words.  We heard them. 
-Is there evidence they were not allowed to look at ultrasounds? I find this highly unlikely.
-You think the law is the final word on what's right? Good to know you're pro-choice and only playing devil's advocate here.  :love
-no evidence
-splicing video to manipulate the meaning of words can certainly be defamatory.
You haven't done this:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for, other than defamation on the part of the videographers.
The issue was the changed "methodology and procedure" to extract the "tissue" to preserve the integrity of organs for sale.   They said, they were "no longer going to sell tissue." There is a difference.  When they said, "no longer" that is a definite admission.  It means they are "stopping the practice in existence." That is one of the things that is problematic. 

No, there were some who came forward, who have discussed not viewing the ultrasounds.  I am looking at the issues of consent, fraud, misrepresentation, and not the pro-choice aspect.  I find it a distractor that "choice" is being raised because it is muddying the waters.  Roe v. Wade is not in issue. 

But, some will take this opportunity to use this as an election or political issue to muddy the waters as to whether there are "choice" rights.  This is wrong. 

PP is worried because it will undermine the entire industry because they became "organ and tissue suppliers."  Think of those in the "distribution stream" who can't "market product." This bartering or sale of organs or tissue is a whole other dimension.    ;)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on December 03, 2015, 10:25:26 AM

And, no one gets more money in each election cycle from Planned Parenthood than the Dems, who have become their "public relations agency" instead of hiring a PR firm to clean up the mess.  If you check out opensecrets.org there is an accounting of monies given to political campaigns.  

That is an unfair statement to make that people only care about pre-born children.  There are lots of safety nets in place to feed, clothe and educate all children.  We have the WIC program (Women, Infants and Children.)  So nutrition is covered.    

1 - If you are in a room having an ultrasound, and you are not allowed to view it, then I would argue that you were not fully informed.  

2 - If you were in a room having this procedure and were told your "tissue" was going for medical research, and not that it was being sold, then I would argue that there was fraud and false representation.  

3 - And, I would not look at it as defamatory.  The truth is a defense to defamation. Those docs uttered those words.  We heard them.  


The issue was the changed "methodology and procedure" to extract the "tissue" to preserve the integrity of organs for sale.   They said, they were "no longer going to sell tissue." There is a difference.  When they said, "no longer" that is a definite admission.  It means they are "stopping the practice in existence." That is one of the things that is problematic.  

No, there were some who came forward, who have discussed not viewing the ultrasounds.  I am looking at the issues of consent, fraud, misrepresentation, and not the pro-choice aspect.  I find it a distractor that "choice" is being raised because it is muddying the waters.  Roe v. Wade is not in issue.  

-Please provide evidence that women who wanted to see ultrasounds were refused.
-I see nothing wrong or suspicious in changing from one legal procedure to another legal procedure. That political opponents are able to rally outrage over the first legal procedure is not a bad motive for changing procedure, but it does not mean that the original procedure was either wrong or illegal.
-Once again, you imply that there's something fishy about a PAC giving money to politicians who support their cause. Once again, I will ask, what's wrong with that? And is it equally wrong when a PAC that supports a cause you support gives money to politicians who support that same cause?
-Regarding WIC, etc. I have no idea what you support, but I think you'll find that the majority of pro-lifers are also against most family-support welfare programs.
-your response regarding defamation did not take into account the intentional splicing of the video to change the meaning. If I say, "I hate pizza. I love Mike Love" and someone splices it to show me saying, "I hate Mike Love," you would hear me and see me saying those words but the video would be defamatory. It would be intentionally lying.
-several investigations by people inclined to find fault with PP were carried out. NONE found anything illegal.
3rd time I ask:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...




Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on December 03, 2015, 10:30:06 AM
The only time you right wingers care about children is when they're in the womb.

D'oh!  You made a boo-boo. 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on December 03, 2015, 10:38:16 AM

And, no one gets more money in each election cycle from Planned Parenthood than the Dems, who have become their "public relations agency" instead of hiring a PR firm to clean up the mess.  If you check out opensecrets.org there is an accounting of monies given to political campaigns.  

That is an unfair statement to make that people only care about pre-born children.  There are lots of safety nets in place to feed, clothe and educate all children.  We have the WIC program (Women, Infants and Children.)  So nutrition is covered.    

1 - If you are in a room having an ultrasound, and you are not allowed to view it, then I would argue that you were not fully informed.  

2 - If you were in a room having this procedure and were told your "tissue" was going for medical research, and not that it was being sold, then I would argue that there was fraud and false representation.  

3 - And, I would not look at it as defamatory.  The truth is a defense to defamation. Those docs uttered those words.  We heard them.  


The issue was the changed "methodology and procedure" to extract the "tissue" to preserve the integrity of organs for sale.   They said, they were "no longer going to sell tissue." There is a difference.  When they said, "no longer" that is a definite admission.  It means they are "stopping the practice in existence." That is one of the things that is problematic.  

No, there were some who came forward, who have discussed not viewing the ultrasounds.  I am looking at the issues of consent, fraud, misrepresentation, and not the pro-choice aspect.  I find it a distractor that "choice" is being raised because it is muddying the waters.  Roe v. Wade is not in issue.  

-Please provide evidence that women who wanted to see ultrasounds were refused.
-I see nothing wrong or suspicious in changing from one legal procedure to another legal procedure. That political opponents are able to rally outrage over the first legal procedure is not a bad motive for changing procedure, but it does not mean that the original procedure was either wrong or illegal.
-Once again, you imply that there's something fishy about a PAC giving money to politicians who support their cause. Once again, I will ask, what's wrong with that? And is it equally wrong when a PAC that supports a cause you support gives money to politicians who support that same cause?
-Regarding WIC, etc. I have no idea what you support, but I think you'll find that the majority of pro-lifers are also against most family-support welfare programs.
-your response regarding defamation did not take into account the intentional splicing of the video to change the meaning. If I say, "I hate pizza. I love Mike Love" and someone splices it to show me saying, "I hate Mike Love," you would hear me and see me saying those words but the video would be defamatory. It would be intentionally lying.
-several investigations by people inclined to find fault with PP were carried out. NONE found anything illegal.
3rd time I ask:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...
Some of the videos are available on youtube.  I watched several hours of C-SPAN testimony with Cecile Richards who is their spokesperson.  They are very informative.

In the medical industry, there are standards that are consistent with medical procedures, say for example having your tonsils out.  So, the doc follows the "Standards and Procedures" in the industry.  The doc doesn't try to take your tonsils out through your arm.  S/he takes them out of an oral cavity.  There was a discussion of altering a procedure to "maximize the quality of the organ."

Same with this procedure.  There are standards for this medical procedure...some of the language is graphic on the videos, and I am paraphrasing..."if we want an organ to come out intact, we do a procedure that is 'less crunchy'"

Mike Love is a public figure.  The standard for defamation is different.  It is complicated.  

The statement was made in a post that conservatives (I guess rightwing and what does that mean anyway?) only care about children who are pre-born.  After born children have programs in place for nutrition that are in place and universally supported and funded.  

Youtube is a very good start if you weren't able to catch the series and the CSPAN hearings.

And on the PAC's - PP has two 501 (charitable org.) setups.  One for its clinics and one for its political and lobbying arm.  They are tax free so we get to inquire were the dough is going.  But 501's are very non-transparent and I think that needs changing.  Just like the DoD.  I want to see their books. If I pay for it, I want to see the books.   


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on December 03, 2015, 11:07:01 AM

And, no one gets more money in each election cycle from Planned Parenthood than the Dems, who have become their "public relations agency" instead of hiring a PR firm to clean up the mess.  If you check out opensecrets.org there is an accounting of monies given to political campaigns.  

That is an unfair statement to make that people only care about pre-born children.  There are lots of safety nets in place to feed, clothe and educate all children.  We have the WIC program (Women, Infants and Children.)  So nutrition is covered.    

1 - If you are in a room having an ultrasound, and you are not allowed to view it, then I would argue that you were not fully informed.  

2 - If you were in a room having this procedure and were told your "tissue" was going for medical research, and not that it was being sold, then I would argue that there was fraud and false representation.  

3 - And, I would not look at it as defamatory.  The truth is a defense to defamation. Those docs uttered those words.  We heard them.  


The issue was the changed "methodology and procedure" to extract the "tissue" to preserve the integrity of organs for sale.   They said, they were "no longer going to sell tissue." There is a difference.  When they said, "no longer" that is a definite admission.  It means they are "stopping the practice in existence." That is one of the things that is problematic.  

No, there were some who came forward, who have discussed not viewing the ultrasounds.  I am looking at the issues of consent, fraud, misrepresentation, and not the pro-choice aspect.  I find it a distractor that "choice" is being raised because it is muddying the waters.  Roe v. Wade is not in issue.  

-Please provide evidence that women who wanted to see ultrasounds were refused.
-I see nothing wrong or suspicious in changing from one legal procedure to another legal procedure. That political opponents are able to rally outrage over the first legal procedure is not a bad motive for changing procedure, but it does not mean that the original procedure was either wrong or illegal.
-Once again, you imply that there's something fishy about a PAC giving money to politicians who support their cause. Once again, I will ask, what's wrong with that? And is it equally wrong when a PAC that supports a cause you support gives money to politicians who support that same cause?
-Regarding WIC, etc. I have no idea what you support, but I think you'll find that the majority of pro-lifers are also against most family-support welfare programs.
-your response regarding defamation did not take into account the intentional splicing of the video to change the meaning. If I say, "I hate pizza. I love Mike Love" and someone splices it to show me saying, "I hate Mike Love," you would hear me and see me saying those words but the video would be defamatory. It would be intentionally lying.
-several investigations by people inclined to find fault with PP were carried out. NONE found anything illegal.
3rd time I ask:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...
Some of the videos are available on youtube.  I watched several hours of C-SPAN testimony with Cecile Richards who is their spokesperson.  They are very informative.

In the medical industry, there are standards that are consistent with medical procedures, say for example having your tonsils out.  So, the doc follows the "Standards and Procedures" in the industry.  The doc doesn't try to take your tonsils out through your arm.  S/he takes them out of an oral cavity.  There was a discussion of altering a procedure to "maximize the quality of the organ."

Same with this procedure.  There are standards for this medical procedure...some of the language is graphic on the videos, and I am paraphrasing..."if we want an organ to come out intact, we do a procedure that is 'less crunchy'"

Mike Love is a public figure.  The standard for defamation is different.  It is complicated.  

The statement was made in a post that conservatives (I guess rightwing and what does that mean anyway?) only care about children who are pre-born.  After born children have programs in place for nutrition that are in place and universally supported and funded.  

Youtube is a very good start if you weren't able to catch the series and the CSPAN hearings.

And on the PAC's - PP has two 501 (charitable org.) setups.  One for its clinics and one for its political and lobbying arm.  They are tax free so we get to inquire were the dough is going.  But 501's are very non-transparent and I think that needs changing.  Just like the DoD.  I want to see their books. If I pay for it, I want to see the books.   
Your first three paragraphs are irrelevant and not responsive.
- the fourth- lol yes I know that. The point was to illustrate the potential of splicing and the irrelevancy of your assertion, in the face of knowing the tape was spliced, that the doctors "uttered those words." One's words can be spliced to completely change the meaning, as in my example. So intentionally splicing a tape to change the meaning to imply wrong-doing is defamation. I did not mean -haha- that I'd have grounds for suit if someone implied I hate Mike Love. Though if they spliced a tape to make it look like I did knowing someone on this board would track me down and assault me, I might have a case.
- the fifth, I stand by what I say. There is, I expect, no program that is universally supported.
-6th irrelevant
-7th I haven't seen you mention this issue with the NRA on the gun control thread. What's the difference? Why do you keep bringing up campaign finance law only with reference to PP?

4th time I ask:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...

2nd or 3rd time I ask:
Please provide evidence that women who wanted to see ultrasounds were refused.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on December 03, 2015, 11:09:09 AM
Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   :lol

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)

This is all a big witch hunt by evil, racist, white men, who hate minorities and gays -- and they hate women especially.  Did I mention they're white?  Well, they are.  They're white.  And they're **gasp** men too!!!!  White males.  Yuky.

Republicans, understand, hate women more than anything, becuz, they want to keep women perpetually pregnant with incestuously conceived children, so they can take over the world.  They don't really care about children, you see... becuz if they did, they would welcome undocumented refugees from war-torn areas, during a war, with a President who properly understands we're not in a war.  Besides, the real concern -- THE ONLY CONCERN -- is Climate Change.  Climate.  Change.

Babies.  Ppppppttt.   :p   The climate is gonna kill everybody!!! AAAAAAAAAAhhhhhhh!!!  :ahh

(...leftist hood off).




Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...

Who cares if it's legal or illegal Emily?  If the whole thing is just as bogus as you pretend I mean, say it is... and it's nothing more than bad PR -- then you're good.  You'll survive.  And babies won't.  They will continue to be harvested for their arms and brains -- and the Democrats will continue to benefit from it -- so, why do you cares!?  The babies surely aren't complaining... cuz they're too stupid to unionize or they're already dead and on their way to the Left-wing processing plant.

Emily.  Listen to me.  It's not tuff.  You're either offended by this stuff....       or...      you're a Leftist.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on December 03, 2015, 11:21:39 AM
Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   :lol

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.





Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...
Who cares if it's legal or illegal Emily?  If the whole thing is just as bogus as you pretend I mean, say it is... and it's nothing more than bad PR -- then you're good.  You'll survive.  And babies will continue to be harvested for their arms and brains -- and the Democrats will continue to benefit from it -- so, why do you cares!?  The babies surely aren't complaining... cuz they're too stupid to unionize or they're already dead and on their way to the Left-wing processing plant.

Emily.  Listen to me.  It's not tuff.  You're either offended by this stuff....       or...      you're a Leftist.
My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on December 03, 2015, 11:32:12 AM

And, no one gets more money in each election cycle from Planned Parenthood than the Dems, who have become their "public relations agency" instead of hiring a PR firm to clean up the mess.  If you check out opensecrets.org there is an accounting of monies given to political campaigns.  

That is an unfair statement to make that people only care about pre-born children.  There are lots of safety nets in place to feed, clothe and educate all children.  We have the WIC program (Women, Infants and Children.)  So nutrition is covered.    

1 - If you are in a room having an ultrasound, and you are not allowed to view it, then I would argue that you were not fully informed.  

2 - If you were in a room having this procedure and were told your "tissue" was going for medical research, and not that it was being sold, then I would argue that there was fraud and false representation.  

3 - And, I would not look at it as defamatory.  The truth is a defense to defamation. Those docs uttered those words.  We heard them.  

The issue was the changed "methodology and procedure" to extract the "tissue" to preserve the integrity of organs for sale.   They said, they were "no longer going to sell tissue." There is a difference.  When they said, "no longer" that is a definite admission.  It means they are "stopping the practice in existence." That is one of the things that is problematic.  

No, there were some who came forward, who have discussed not viewing the ultrasounds.  I am looking at the issues of consent, fraud, misrepresentation, and not the pro-choice aspect.  I find it a distractor that "choice" is being raised because it is muddying the waters.  Roe v. Wade is not in issue.  

-Please provide evidence that women who wanted to see ultrasounds were refused.
-I see nothing wrong or suspicious in changing from one legal procedure to another legal procedure. That political opponents are able to rally outrage over the first legal procedure is not a bad motive for changing procedure, but it does not mean that the original procedure was either wrong or illegal.
-Once again, you imply that there's something fishy about a PAC giving money to politicians who support their cause. Once again, I will ask, what's wrong with that? And is it equally wrong when a PAC that supports a cause you support gives money to politicians who support that same cause?
-Regarding WIC, etc. I have no idea what you support, but I think you'll find that the majority of pro-lifers are also against most family-support welfare programs.
-your response regarding defamation did not take into account the intentional splicing of the video to change the meaning. If I say, "I hate pizza. I love Mike Love" and someone splices it to show me saying, "I hate Mike Love," you would hear me and see me saying those words but the video would be defamatory. It would be intentionally lying.
-several investigations by people inclined to find fault with PP were carried out. NONE found anything illegal.
3rd time I ask:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...
Some of the videos are available on youtube.  I watched several hours of C-SPAN testimony with Cecile Richards who is their spokesperson.  They are very informative.

In the medical industry, there are standards that are consistent with medical procedures, say for example having your tonsils out.  So, the doc follows the "Standards and Procedures" in the industry.  The doc doesn't try to take your tonsils out through your arm.  S/he takes them out of an oral cavity.  There was a discussion of altering a procedure to "maximize the quality of the organ."

Same with this procedure.  There are standards for this medical procedure...some of the language is graphic on the videos, and I am paraphrasing..."if we want an organ to come out intact, we do a procedure that is 'less crunchy'"

Mike Love is a public figure.  The standard for defamation is different.  It is complicated.  

The statement was made in a post that conservatives (I guess rightwing and what does that mean anyway?) only care about children who are pre-born.  After born children have programs in place for nutrition that are in place and universally supported and funded.  

Youtube is a very good start if you weren't able to catch the series and the CSPAN hearings.

And on the PAC's - PP has two 501 (charitable org.) setups.  One for its clinics and one for its political and lobbying arm.  They are tax free so we get to inquire were the dough is going.  But 501's are very non-transparent and I think that needs changing.  Just like the DoD.  I want to see their books. If I pay for it, I want to see the books.   
Your first three paragraphs are irrelevant and not responsive.
- the fourth- lol yes I know that. The point was to illustrate the potential of splicing and the irrelevancy of your assertion, in the face of knowing the tape was spliced, that the doctors "uttered those words." One's words can be spliced to completely change the meaning, as in my example. So intentionally splicing a tape to change the meaning to imply wrong-doing is defamation. I did not mean -haha- that I'd have grounds for suit if someone implied I hate Mike Love. Though if they spliced a tape to make it look like I did knowing someone on this board would track me down and assault me, I might have a case.
- the fifth, I stand by what I say. There is, I expect, no program that is universally supported.
-6th irrelevant
-7th I haven't seen you mention this issue with the NRA on the gun control thread. What's the difference? Why do you keep bringing up campaign finance law only with reference to PP?

4th time I ask:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...

2nd or 3rd time I ask:
Please provide evidence that women who wanted to see ultrasounds were refused.
Emily - in order to arrive at my position, it took a while.

First, I watched the exposé series.

Second, I watched the C-SPAN hearings. It took quite a while.  But, I wondered about this Democratic rhetoric about "sending women back to the Dark Ages."  I noticed that the division was along party lines.  They were not looking at potential illegality (the changing of procedures to get a whole organ - a no-no) I wondered why they were so dramatic about defending this organization which looks more like a monopoly.    

Third, I noticed certain senators were especially outspoken in their defense, even after Hillary Clinton characterized them as "troubling." I wondered why they were not stepping back.

So, fourth, I looked up how much these senators were given in their election cycles.  And that answered the question as to why there were relationships between PP and the elected officials.  I am not being evasive but think you need to see them for yourself in order, and then see if the supporters of PP were incentivized to do so.

And, I watched the interviews of the staffers which are online, so you can do the same. They are pretty much still on line.  What I avoided were the inflammatory ones with protesters and just watched the doctors and the workers.  That is not productive in my view.  My argument should not inform your position - only seeing and researching those facts and videos can do that. I learned a lot.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on December 03, 2015, 11:45:00 AM
Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   :lol

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.

I see.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on December 03, 2015, 11:51:09 AM

Emily - in order to arrive at my position, it took a while.

First, I watched the exposé series.

Second, I watched the C-SPAN hearings. It took quite a while.  But, I wondered about this Democratic rhetoric about "sending women back to the Dark Ages."  I noticed that the division was along party lines.  They were not looking at potential illegality (the changing of procedures to get a whole organ - a no-no) I wondered why they were so dramatic about defending this organization which looks more like a monopoly.    

Third, I noticed certain senators were especially outspoken in their defense, even after Hillary Clinton characterized them as "troubling." I wondered why they were not stepping back.

So, fourth, I looked up how much these senators were given in their election cycles.  And that answered the question as to why there were relationships between PP and the elected officials.  I am not being evasive but think you need to see them for yourself in order, and then see if the supporters of PP were incentivized to do so.

And, I watched the interviews of the staffers which are online, so you can do the same. They are pretty much still on line.  What I avoided were the inflammatory ones with protesters and just watched the doctors and the workers.  That is not productive in my view.  My argument should not inform your position - only seeing and researching those facts and videos can do that. I learned a lot.

Of course the difference was along party lines. This is one of the divisive issues of our times. It is part of what causes people to choose parties. Most Democrats are pro-choice and consider Planned Parenthood to be a valuable community resource in many ways and are really annoyed at the campaign to undermine them by mostly (surprise!) Republicans. There are lots of issues that go along party lines. Once again, I'll use the example of the NRA. Would it be suspicious if their money goes more to one party than another? Would it be suspicious if one party defended them more than another? No.
And there are many people who consider the positions of some people to be, essentially, trying to send women back to the dark ages. Some people actually believe that other people are trying to do that. Is it suspicious that they say it, if they believe it? Do I think there's something suspicious in what you're saying? No. I disagree with it. It doesn't mean that you are corrupt.
You repeatedly take a line that people who disagree with you are corrupt and you don't comment on people who agree with you following the same practices. I'm beginning to think it's disingenuous because you persist even after it's been pointed out, unchallenged and repeatedly, as inconsistent and unsupported.

5th time I ask:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...

3rd or 4th time I ask:
Please provide evidence that women who wanted to see ultrasounds were refused.

2nd time I ask (in this thread though it's been asked, without response, in other threads):  
I haven't seen you mention this issue (campaign finance) with the NRA on the gun control thread. What's the difference? Why do you keep bringing up campaign finance law only with reference to PP?Is it equally wrong when a PAC that supports a cause you support gives money to politicians who support that same cause?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on December 03, 2015, 11:53:13 AM
Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   :lol

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

good word! That's true, but in this case I'm thinking that left and right are both pretty hunkered down in their positions and aren't going to budge or be convinced of anything.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on December 03, 2015, 12:00:40 PM

Emily - in order to arrive at my position, it took a while.

First, I watched the exposé series.

Second, I watched the C-SPAN hearings. It took quite a while.  But, I wondered about this Democratic rhetoric about "sending women back to the Dark Ages."  I noticed that the division was along party lines.  They were not looking at potential illegality (the changing of procedures to get a whole organ - a no-no) I wondered why they were so dramatic about defending this organization which looks more like a monopoly.    

Third, I noticed certain senators were especially outspoken in their defense, even after Hillary Clinton characterized them as "troubling." I wondered why they were not stepping back.

So, fourth, I looked up how much these senators were given in their election cycles.  And that answered the question as to why there were relationships between PP and the elected officials.  I am not being evasive but think you need to see them for yourself in order, and then see if the supporters of PP were incentivized to do so.

And, I watched the interviews of the staffers which are online, so you can do the same. They are pretty much still on line.  What I avoided were the inflammatory ones with protesters and just watched the doctors and the workers.  That is not productive in my view.  My argument should not inform your position - only seeing and researching those facts and videos can do that. I learned a lot.

Of course the difference was along party lines. This is one of the divisive issues of our times. It is part of what causes people to choose parties. Most Democrats are pro-choice and consider Planned Parenthood to be a valuable community resource in many ways and are really annoyed at the campaign to undermine them by mostly (surprise!) Republicans. There are lots of issues that go along party lines. Once again, I'll use the example of the NRA. Would it be suspicious if their money goes more to one party than another? Would it be suspicious if one party defended them more than another? No.
And there are many people who consider the positions of some people to be, essentially, trying to send women back to the dark ages. Some people actually believe that other people are trying to do that. Is it suspicious that they say it, if they believe it? Do I think there's something suspicious in what you're saying? No. I disagree with it. It doesn't mean that you are corrupt.
You repeatedly take a line that people who disagree with you are corrupt and you don't comment on people who agree with you following the same practices. I'm beginning to think it's disingenuous because you persist even after it's been pointed out, unchallenged and repeatedly, as inconsistent and unsupported.

5th time I ask:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...

3rd or 4th time I ask:
Please provide evidence that women who wanted to see ultrasounds were refused.

2nd time I ask (in this thread though it's been asked, without response, in other threads):  
I haven't seen you mention this issue (campaign finance) with the NRA on the gun control thread. What's the difference? Why do you keep bringing up campaign finance law only with reference to PP?Is it equally wrong when a PAC that supports a cause you support gives money to politicians who support that same cause?
Emily - I don't like the aggressive questioning. 

The videos are quite graphic and I won't be posting links on this forum.  You will get your answers within the staff videos.  Some of the staffers are quite upset.  And, I would suggest if you watch them, not to do so in the presence of your daughter.  You are a smart cookie and can follow the trail if you choose. 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on December 03, 2015, 12:22:55 PM

Emily - in order to arrive at my position, it took a while.

First, I watched the exposé series.

Second, I watched the C-SPAN hearings. It took quite a while.  But, I wondered about this Democratic rhetoric about "sending women back to the Dark Ages."  I noticed that the division was along party lines.  They were not looking at potential illegality (the changing of procedures to get a whole organ - a no-no) I wondered why they were so dramatic about defending this organization which looks more like a monopoly.    

Third, I noticed certain senators were especially outspoken in their defense, even after Hillary Clinton characterized them as "troubling." I wondered why they were not stepping back.

So, fourth, I looked up how much these senators were given in their election cycles.  And that answered the question as to why there were relationships between PP and the elected officials.  I am not being evasive but think you need to see them for yourself in order, and then see if the supporters of PP were incentivized to do so.

And, I watched the interviews of the staffers which are online, so you can do the same. They are pretty much still on line.  What I avoided were the inflammatory ones with protesters and just watched the doctors and the workers.  That is not productive in my view.  My argument should not inform your position - only seeing and researching those facts and videos can do that. I learned a lot.

Of course the difference was along party lines. This is one of the divisive issues of our times. It is part of what causes people to choose parties. Most Democrats are pro-choice and consider Planned Parenthood to be a valuable community resource in many ways and are really annoyed at the campaign to undermine them by mostly (surprise!) Republicans. There are lots of issues that go along party lines. Once again, I'll use the example of the NRA. Would it be suspicious if their money goes more to one party than another? Would it be suspicious if one party defended them more than another? No.
And there are many people who consider the positions of some people to be, essentially, trying to send women back to the dark ages. Some people actually believe that other people are trying to do that. Is it suspicious that they say it, if they believe it? Do I think there's something suspicious in what you're saying? No. I disagree with it. It doesn't mean that you are corrupt.
You repeatedly take a line that people who disagree with you are corrupt and you don't comment on people who agree with you following the same practices. I'm beginning to think it's disingenuous because you persist even after it's been pointed out, unchallenged and repeatedly, as inconsistent and unsupported.

5th time I ask:
Name one illegal thing that this video provides evidence for...

3rd or 4th time I ask:
Please provide evidence that women who wanted to see ultrasounds were refused.

2nd time I ask (in this thread though it's been asked, without response, in other threads):  
I haven't seen you mention this issue (campaign finance) with the NRA on the gun control thread. What's the difference? Why do you keep bringing up campaign finance law only with reference to PP?Is it equally wrong when a PAC that supports a cause you support gives money to politicians who support that same cause?
Emily - I don't like the aggressive questioning. 

The videos are quite graphic and I won't be posting links on this forum.  You will get your answers within the staff videos.  Some of the staffers are quite upset.  And, I would suggest if you watch them, not to do so in the presence of your daughter.  You are a smart cookie and can follow the trail if you choose. 
I'm sorry for the aggressive tone, but it gets very frustrating when someone makes repeated assertions but won't answer questions that challenge those assertions. It leads one to assume that they can't support their assertions or defend their inconsistency.
If you've watched the videos and the videos will answer my questions why can't you just answer them?
Of course, the videos could not possibly answer my 3rd question.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on December 03, 2015, 12:49:40 PM
Emily - you can find out for yourself.  I watched many hours. 

After you do your viewing then you can opine as to whether my opinion is supported.  I just re-watched some from "stem express" with employees.  I am more frustrated that you aren't doing the digging.  And the C-SPAN hearings are quite interesting.   

Doing the wrong thing should not fall according to party lines.  The "party line" is dying quickly.  We have "non-party" vetted candidates.  The "party" is ovah.  :lol



Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on December 03, 2015, 01:36:53 PM
Emily - you can find out for yourself.  I watched many hours. 

After you do your viewing then you can opine as to whether my opinion is supported.  I just re-watched some from "stem express" with employees.  I am more frustrated that you aren't doing the digging.  And the C-SPAN hearings are quite interesting.   

Doing the wrong thing should not fall according to party lines.  The "party line" is dying quickly.  We have "non-party" vetted candidates.  The "party" is ovah.  :lol


The thing is that I haven't seen any serious supported assertions of anything that sounds wrong to me and I'm not willing to spend many hours looking for fire when I haven't even seen smoke.
I've read articles and seen that several investigations have failed to find anything.
It's correct that doing the wrong thing, or the right thing, does not fall according to party lines. I just wonder why you consistently bring up the supposed wrong thing on threads about things you don't support, but don't bring up the exact same thing for things you do support. I wonder if you don't recognize the bias in your judgment.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on December 04, 2015, 12:25:37 AM
Fille de Plage, I want to apologize for the above. I was rude and out of line. I was very cantankerous today and I took it out on you. I'm very sorry for it.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Mujan, 8@$+@Rc| of a Blue Wizard on December 04, 2015, 12:56:49 AM
Oh boy. This entire thread makes me facepalm. Im sure in the ten pages I couldnt be bothered to read someone corrected the original poster, but those videos were an admitted hoax. And PP does a LOT more than abortion, so regardless of whether you are pro-choice or not, to slander the entire organization is really misinformed. Similarly, if you think you have a moral duty to fight abortion, you cannot call yourself pro-life if you condone, tolerate, or excuse the actions of that disgusting madman who shot up the place. Killing innocent people is NOT the answer.

Thats all I have to say about this whole thing. And now Ill be staying away, as this whole thread--whole subject--is toxic.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on December 04, 2015, 05:32:41 AM
Oh boy. This entire thread makes me facepalm. Im sure in the ten pages I couldnt be bothered to read someone corrected the original poster, but those videos were an admitted hoax. And PP does a LOT more than abortion, so regardless of whether you are pro-choice or not, to slander the entire organization is really misinformed. Similarly, if you think you have a moral duty to fight abortion, you cannot call yourself pro-life if you condone, tolerate, or excuse the actions of that disgusting madman who shot up the place. Killing innocent people is NOT the answer.

Thats all I have to say about this whole thing. And now Ill be staying away, as this whole thread--whole subject--is toxic.

Mujan - absolutely false.  The C-SPAN hearings drew out the truth from PP.  They have painted a picture of offering mammograms (one in eight women get breast cancer - a primary function of what we call "women's health care") and during the hearings, the head of PP, Cecile Richards admitted,  that they subcontract that work out. In fact they do not have ONE mammogram machine -scanner, in their whole network. That is 700 clinics.  They claimed to do breast cancer screenings.  They could not do that without mammography (mastography.)

If people (pro or against)really want to learn the truth (my own eyes were opened, as I believed they did onsite mammograms and found out differently during the hearings) then find the Youtubes and listen to the investigations.  The Dems wish they were a hoax.  Even Hillary Clinton said they were "troubling" - she is a lawyer and knows the drill.  I was shocked. Mammograms are an annual event.  Every woman, every year.  

If those films were a hoax, (claimed by the Dems who get millions in campaign financing from PP) those states who pulled the funding would not and could not have made that move. And there would not have been a call to have Congressional hearings on the issue.  They are only sorry that they got caught. Just like every other criminal.  

This is not a "choice" issue.  (Roe v. Wade) This is a " human tissue trafficking" corruption (among other issues) problem.  


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on December 20, 2015, 05:35:03 PM
Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   :lol

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.

I see.
So after all the doctored video and the crazy right wing rhetoric whipping up the gullible into a frenzy, the Republican controlled House and Senate pass funding bills, now signed into law, keeping Planned Parenthood funding intact.

Wow, you far right extremists can't understand that your party: A. Realizes Planned Parenthood performs vital health services for women B. Realizeds how gullible you all are and how easy manipulated you seem to be.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on December 20, 2015, 06:12:51 PM
Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   :lol

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.

I see.
So after all the doctored video and the crazy right wing rhetoric whipping up the gullible into a frenzy, the Republican controlled House and Senate pass funding bills, now signed into law, keeping Planned Parenthood funding intact.

Wow, you far right extremists can't understand that your party: A. Realizes Planned Parenthood performs vital health services for women B. Realizeds how gullible you all are and how easy manipulated you seem to be.
Well that's good news. When I was a teenager I lived with my dad, and he was a great dad, but I didn't feel comfortable talking to him about sex-related stuff, and he was kind of clueless so didn't send me to a gynecologist for exams - just the regular GP. On a friend's advice I went to Planned Parenthood. I know lots of other young women who did the same.
They provide necessary health services for a lot of low and middle income women and it would be a shame if those services were cut because they're in the cross-fire of a political battle.
I also saw that the doctors in that scam video have been getting death threats:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-no-evidence-of-crimes-in-planned-parenthood-videos/


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on December 20, 2015, 06:28:12 PM
Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   :lol

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.

I see.
So after all the doctored video and the crazy right wing rhetoric whipping up the gullible into a frenzy, the Republican controlled House and Senate pass funding bills, now signed into law, keeping Planned Parenthood funding intact.

Wow, you far right extremists can't understand that your party: A. Realizes Planned Parenthood performs vital health services for women B. Realizeds how gullible you all are and how easy manipulated you seem to be.
Well that's good news. When I was a teenager I lived with my dad, and he was a great dad, but I didn't feel comfortable talking to him about sex-related stuff, and he was kind of clueless so didn't send me to a gynecologist for exams - just the regular GP. On a friend's advice I went to Planned Parenthood. I know lots of other young women who did the same.
They provide necessary health services for a lot of low and middle income women and it would be a shame if those services were cut because they're in the cross-fire of a political battle.
I also saw that the doctors in that scam video have been getting death threats:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-no-evidence-of-crimes-in-planned-parenthood-videos/

Bravo for speaking up Emily! PP provides vital services and is a drop in the bucket compared to the latest billion dollar military gadget that didn't work. Like the new mine hunting system.

Yes, the PP videos are just the latest in a long line of fabricated conspiracies by the right wing. Benghazi, the IRS, PP take the attention away from Republican President Bush crashing the economy and falsifying data into the Iraq War. Even Donald Trump is honest in pointing these things out.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on December 21, 2015, 07:12:52 AM
Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   :lol

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.

I see.
So after all the doctored video and the crazy right wing rhetoric whipping up the gullible into a frenzy, the Republican controlled House and Senate pass funding bills, now signed into law, keeping Planned Parenthood funding intact.

Wow, you far right extremists can't understand that your party: A. Realizes Planned Parenthood performs vital health services for women B. Realizeds how gullible you all are and how easy manipulated you seem to be.

ORR - the funding may have been part of the overall budgetary bill that was impossible to separate, so as to risk other expenditures such as national defense spending and avoid a government shutdown.  But the "cat is out of the bag" with the policy changes that have been put in place by PP, such as the trafficking of human tissue. 

The debate is far from over.  This is not a party issue.  Plenty of Demmies are quite upset with the funding.  One of senators (who got $25g in PP donations) voted against the Ominibus Spending bill. The vote was 65 to 33.  That is hardly a mandate.  The vote was largely along party lines, but some Dems did vote against it. And many Republicans voted for it.  Senator Harry Reid said (Twitter) that the omnibus goals were to "roll back sequester, parity in funding for Pentagon and middle class, and keep of poison pill riders."

Barbara Boxer (D) and Marco Rubio (D) did not vote.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/18/find-out-how-your-senators-voted-on-the-government-spending-bill/   

Hope it copies.  ;)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on December 21, 2015, 08:47:22 AM
Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   :lol

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.

I see.
So after all the doctored video and the crazy right wing rhetoric whipping up the gullible into a frenzy, the Republican controlled House and Senate pass funding bills, now signed into law, keeping Planned Parenthood funding intact.

Wow, you far right extremists can't understand that your party: A. Realizes Planned Parenthood performs vital health services for women B. Realizeds how gullible you all are and how easy manipulated you seem to be.
Well that's good news. When I was a teenager I lived with my dad, and he was a great dad, but I didn't feel comfortable talking to him about sex-related stuff, and he was kind of clueless so didn't send me to a gynecologist for exams - just the regular GP. On a friend's advice I went to Planned Parenthood. I know lots of other young women who did the same.
They provide necessary health services for a lot of low and middle income women and it would be a shame if those services were cut because they're in the cross-fire of a political battle.
I also saw that the doctors in that scam video have been getting death threats:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-no-evidence-of-crimes-in-planned-parenthood-videos/

Bravo for speaking up Emily! PP provides vital services and is a drop in the bucket compared to the latest billion dollar military gadget that didn't work. Like the new mine hunting system.

Yes, the PP videos are just the latest in a long line of fabricated conspiracies by the right wing. Benghazi, the IRS, PP take the attention away from Republican President Bush crashing the economy and falsifying data into the Iraq War. Even Donald Trump is honest in pointing these things out.

Liberals/Progressives must be caught in the act, because they are a dishonest peoples.  That's a pillar of their religion.  They're never going to be open and tell you what they're up to.  And if you do happen to find that a liberal is telling you what they're actually doing... it's typically a radically infected malignant branch, that feels they have TOTAL control (therefore it doesn't matter, cuz you can't escape) OR they've just plain lost their grip on reality.

I say that because...


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on December 21, 2015, 11:55:19 AM
Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   :lol

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.

I see.
So after all the doctored video and the crazy right wing rhetoric whipping up the gullible into a frenzy, the Republican controlled House and Senate pass funding bills, now signed into law, keeping Planned Parenthood funding intact.

Wow, you far right extremists can't understand that your party: A. Realizes Planned Parenthood performs vital health services for women B. Realizeds how gullible you all are and how easy manipulated you seem to be.

ORR - the funding may have been part of the overall budgetary bill that was impossible to separate, so as to risk other expenditures such as national defense spending and avoid a government shutdown.  But the "cat is out of the bag" with the policy changes that have been put in place by PP, such as the trafficking of human tissue.  

The debate is far from over.  This is not a party issue.  Plenty of Demmies are quite upset with the funding.  One of senators (who got $25g in PP donations) voted against the Ominibus Spending bill. The vote was 65 to 33.  That is hardly a mandate.  The vote was largely along party lines, but some Dems did vote against it. And many Republicans voted for it.  Senator Harry Reid said (Twitter) that the omnibus goals were to "roll back sequester, parity in funding for Pentagon and middle class, and keep of poison pill riders."

Barbara Boxer (D) and Marco Rubio (D) did not vote.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/18/find-out-how-your-senators-voted-on-the-government-spending-bill/  

Hope it copies.  ;)

That conclusion of yours, unfortunetly, lacks the merit of fact! There was no debate on the PP funding in the bill. The debate was over things like renewable energy tax credits and the export of US oil. It is a delusion to think Barbara Boxer vote skip had anything to do with PP funding. PP funding was a no brainer/done deal.

I remind you PP is legally prohibited from using Federal Funding for abortion  services. So what you are arguing against are health services for low and middle class women. Not a hypocrisy road the Republicans want to walk down amist a Presidential campaign. Not shutting the government down again thus not reminding voters they ride the crazy train was the goal. As half the electorate is female, goal achieved.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on December 21, 2015, 12:29:24 PM
Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   :lol

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.

I see.
So after all the doctored video and the crazy right wing rhetoric whipping up the gullible into a frenzy, the Republican controlled House and Senate pass funding bills, now signed into law, keeping Planned Parenthood funding intact.

Wow, you far right extremists can't understand that your party: A. Realizes Planned Parenthood performs vital health services for women B. Realizeds how gullible you all are and how easy manipulated you seem to be.
Well that's good news. When I was a teenager I lived with my dad, and he was a great dad, but I didn't feel comfortable talking to him about sex-related stuff, and he was kind of clueless so didn't send me to a gynecologist for exams - just the regular GP. On a friend's advice I went to Planned Parenthood. I know lots of other young women who did the same.
They provide necessary health services for a lot of low and middle income women and it would be a shame if those services were cut because they're in the cross-fire of a political battle.
I also saw that the doctors in that scam video have been getting death threats:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-no-evidence-of-crimes-in-planned-parenthood-videos/

Bravo for speaking up Emily! PP provides vital services and is a drop in the bucket compared to the latest billion dollar military gadget that didn't work. Like the new mine hunting system.

Yes, the PP videos are just the latest in a long line of fabricated conspiracies by the right wing. Benghazi, the IRS, PP take the attention away from Republican President Bush crashing the economy and falsifying data into the Iraq War. Even Donald Trump is honest in pointing these things out.

Liberals/Progressives must be caught in the act, because they are a dishonest peoples.  That's a pillar of their religion.  They're never going to be open and tell you what they're up to.  And if you do happen to find that a liberal is telling you what they're actually doing... it's typically a radically infected malignant branch, that feels they have TOTAL control (therefore it doesn't matter, cuz you can't escape) OR they've just plain lost their grip on reality.

I say that because...

Here is what many hypocritical Republicans have been up to:
http://jesusnorepublican.org/+Reasonable/gopimmorality.html

Course, these are just some examples of Republicans who preach the godly way but in real life are just the sinful cheating husbands we see in everyday life. What this list doesn't tell us is how many didn't get caught and how many got abortions for staffers they knocked up. See, the Republican Party panders to the religious right simply for votes. In real life, they are, behind closed doors, banging their staffers, taking gratuity and snorting coke! The difference is Democrats aren't trying to fool you for your vote.

Funny, when I was in the Navy and we'd pull into Subic, the first guys off the boat and into the whore houses were the ship's minister and a bunch of religious married guys.

So what are your credentials Bag? Ever serve in the militaary, in a war zone? Ever a cop or firefighter? Ever coach Special Olympics? Ever volunteer in a soup kitchen? Where do yo get your moral high ground? What is your life experience other than watching Fox News?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on December 21, 2015, 04:53:41 PM
So what are your credentials Bag? Ever serve in the militaary, in a war zone? Ever a cop or firefighter? Ever coach Special Olympics? Ever volunteer in a soup kitchen? Where do yo get your moral high ground? What is your life experience other than watching Fox News?

My moral high ground would only exist where your's lacks, I suppose. And vice versa.  My credentials you want?  May I ask what I am so honorably applying for?  My Life experience?  Oh wait... I see where this is going. You almost had me going there for a second!  Ha ha!

What else?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on December 21, 2015, 08:45:08 PM
So what are your credentials Bag? Ever serve in the militaary, in a war zone? Ever a cop or firefighter? Ever coach Special Olympics? Ever volunteer in a soup kitchen? Where do yo get your moral high ground? What is your life experience other than watching Fox News?

My moral high ground would only exist where your's lacks, I suppose. And vice versa.  My credentials you want?  May I ask what I am so honorably applying for?  My Life experience?  Oh wait... I see where this is going. You almost had me going there for a second!  Ha ha!

What else?
Your life experience gives validity to your opinion. Based on your posts,  it seems to indicate a life of very little wordly experience!  Certainly, your brand of crazy indicates you never,  for example, studied the New Testament in detail, if you did you certainly didn't take the messages to heart.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on December 21, 2015, 10:08:15 PM
My moral high ground would only exist where your's lacks, I suppose. And vice versa.  My credentials you want?  May I ask what I am so honorably applying for?  My Life experience?  Oh wait... I see where this is going. You almost had me going there for a second!  Ha ha!

What else?
Your life experience gives validity to your opinion. Based on your posts,  it seems to indicate a life of very little wordly experience!  Certainly, your brand of crazy indicates you never,  for example, studied the New Testament in detail, if you did you certainly didn't take the messages to heart.
My "brand of crazy?" The New Testament?  What on Earth are you talking about?  Listen, as much as you want to make this about me, and as much as you want to lead me away from the scene of the crime -- I'm not going for a ride. Regardless of how nice the interior is, I'm not gettin' in.  :lol

The fact remains, you're happy when baby murdering factories remain open.  Maybe calling them women's health clinics is enough to pull the wool over your eyes and help you live with yourself -- but my life experiences quickly snap me out of that twisted "worldly experience."  And my credentials are thankfully strong enough to keep me away from your definition of a "clinic."  Just sayin.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on December 21, 2015, 11:04:43 PM
My moral high ground would only exist where your's lacks, I suppose. And vice versa.  My credentials you want?  May I ask what I am so honorably applying for?  My Life experience?  Oh wait... I see where this is going. You almost had me going there for a second!  Ha ha!

What else?
Your life experience gives validity to your opinion. Based on your posts,  it seems to indicate a life of very little wordly experience!  Certainly, your brand of crazy indicates you never,  for example, studied the New Testament in detail, if you did you certainly didn't take the messages to heart.
My "brand of crazy?" The New Testament?  What on Earth are you talking about?  Listen, as much as you want to make this about me, and as much as you want to lead me away from the scene of the crime -- I'm not going for a ride. Regardless of how nice the interior is, I'm not gettin' in.  :lol

The fact remains, you're happy when baby murdering factories remain open.  Maybe calling them women's health clinics is enough to pull the wool over your eyes and help you live with yourself -- but my life experiences quickly snap me out of that twisted "worldly experience."  And my credentials are thankfully strong enough to keep me away from your definition of a "clinic."  Just sayin.

My life experiences include getting health services - exams and Pap smears - at Planned Parenthood clinics. It was pretty clinical. No wool was involved.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on December 22, 2015, 05:35:44 AM
Nope... "selective editing."  Nothing to see here.   :lol

You're never going to convince a Leftist that this is nothing more than a right wing witch hunt.  It's like this... (let me just put my Leftist hood on... it's been awhile... so this might be a little rough...)
That goes both ways easily enough.

Everything goes both ways if you're a Moral Equivalenc-ist.

My responses regarding legality are specific to FdP's assertions and are more to do with what I consider to be an essentially dishonest (though I don't think intentionally so) form of rhetoric. They are not to do generally with the ethics of abortion. Or even the practices of PP.

I see.
So after all the doctored video and the crazy right wing rhetoric whipping up the gullible into a frenzy, the Republican controlled House and Senate pass funding bills, now signed into law, keeping Planned Parenthood funding intact.

Wow, you far right extremists can't understand that your party: A. Realizes Planned Parenthood performs vital health services for women B. Realizeds how gullible you all are and how easy manipulated you seem to be.

ORR - the funding may have been part of the overall budgetary bill that was impossible to separate, so as to risk other expenditures such as national defense spending and avoid a government shutdown.  But the "cat is out of the bag" with the policy changes that have been put in place by PP, such as the trafficking of human tissue.  

The debate is far from over.  This is not a party issue.  Plenty of Demmies are quite upset with the funding.  One of senators (who got $25g in PP donations) voted against the Ominibus Spending bill. The vote was 65 to 33.  That is hardly a mandate.  The vote was largely along party lines, but some Dems did vote against it. And many Republicans voted for it.  Senator Harry Reid said (Twitter) that the omnibus goals were to "roll back sequester, parity in funding for Pentagon and middle class, and keep of poison pill riders."

Barbara Boxer (D) and Marco Rubio (D) did not vote.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/18/find-out-how-your-senators-voted-on-the-government-spending-bill/  

Hope it copies.  ;)

That conclusion of yours, unfortunetly, lacks the merit of fact! There was no debate on the PP funding in the bill. The debate was over things like renewable energy tax credits and the export of US oil. It is a delusion to think Barbara Boxer vote skip had anything to do with PP funding. PP funding was a no brainer/done deal.

I remind you PP is legally prohibited from using Federal Funding for abortion  services. So what you are arguing against are health services for low and middle class women. Not a hypocrisy road the Republicans want to walk down amist a Presidential campaign. Not shutting the government down again thus not reminding voters they ride the crazy train was the goal. As half the electorate is female, goal achieved.
ORR - Had you read to the bottom of the article, you would have seen this: "Senators did not have the benefit of the regular 30 hours of debate customary after the body votes to invoke cloture, a procedural motion to advance debate. To rush the legislation through, Poitico reported, McConnell went to the floor and asked consent to collapse that time."

The opposing viewpoint was not heard, nor any for that matter.  Barbara Boxer did not vote. Nor did Rubio.  The votes are all accounted for in the linked article.  

And, fyi, community health centers and HMO's have comparable or better service as they actually do mammograms, on site.  It does not depend on economic class.  They tell you that they take care of low income women, but the Medicaid cards are generally accepted or most providers have funding in place to take care of this who cannot pay, such as sliding scale fee for service.  

The PP debate is far from over.  They trafficked human tissue and admitted it indirectly by announcing they were ceasing that practice.  This has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. Some factions would like to spin it that way.  This is the commercialization of human tissue and manipulation of the procedure to maximize profits.  And those video clips had the speech coming out of the mouths of those individuals.  

And there is such a position as a moderate position in the gray area who can cull through positions and they take the middle of the road, considering things such as fiscal conservatism and liberal social positions.  It is unfair to peg someone into a list of pro or con.  There are many positions in the middle because most of us are not extremists one way or the other.  .  

It will be interesting to see if any are prosecuted, in the next administration. This one got too much money from their political action committee branch.  They are already tainted.  


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on December 22, 2015, 07:03:00 AM
My life experiences include getting health services - exams and Pap smears - at Planned Parenthood clinics. It was pretty clinical. No wool was involved.

Oh.  I guess there's nothing to see here then.  My bad.  Say... what's behind this door?


That's exactly the wool I'm talking about Emily.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on December 22, 2015, 09:05:23 AM
My life experiences include getting health services - exams and Pap smears - at Planned Parenthood clinics. It was pretty clinical. No wool was involved.

Oh.  I guess there's nothing to see here then.  My bad.  Say... what's behind this door?


That's exactly the wool I'm talking about Emily.
Still no wool. What's behind that door doesn't bother me the way it does you.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on December 22, 2015, 09:07:53 AM
Planned Parenthood works in many areas where there are no other options for low-income women; most HMOs only treat members. Many low-income women are not eligible for Medicaid.
Changing a policy is not tantamount to saying that the former policy was either illegal or morally wrong.
If someone has video of me saying "I hate hamburger. I love Mike Love" and they edit it to have me say "I hate Mike Love" that is not evidence that I hate Mike Love. Spin it as you like.
If an administration is tainted by receiving money from a PAC, then all administrations are tainted.
The people who would vote against PP funding and speak on the floor against PP have likely received funding from organizations that are against PP so any opposition to PP is corrupt and tainted. It is only bought.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on December 22, 2015, 10:00:14 AM
Planned Parenthood works in many areas where there are no other options for low-income women; most HMOs only treat members. Many low-income women are not eligible for Medicaid.
Changing a policy is not tantamount to saying that the former policy was either illegal or morally wrong.
If someone has video of me saying "I hate hamburger. I love Mike Love" and they edit it to have me say "I hate Mike Love" that is not evidence that I hate Mike Love. Spin it as you like.
If an administration is tainted by receiving money from a PAC, then all administrations are tainted.
The people who would vote against PP funding and speak on the floor against PP have likely received funding from organizations that are against PP so any opposition to PP is corrupt and tainted. It is only bought.
Emily - Medicaid is a payor of some HMO services, is often a choice for a primary care health facility, and some have historically set up facilities in high impact high poverty areas as a give-back for establishing centers elsewhere else.  I am familiar with community based health centers and HMO's, having used both, as well as private practice physicians.  I've been an HMO member for several decades and believe strongly in their preventative health maintenance and patient education model. HMO's do a volume of middle-income population as was mentioned in an above post.  Policy changes are inherently politically driven.   

Yes, that is correct.  If the money is tainted the taint attenuates or has the ripple effect.  I am not spinning anything. The volume of tape suggests strongly that those statements were actually made.

No there was no comment on the Omnibus Funding in the traditional sense. 

The taped statements were made. The voices do not appear to have been altered or processed. There was enough surrounding context to infer that there was wrongdoing which was supported by some of the former employees backing that up with information as to the actual practices.  They were witnesses who supported the tapes as to the wrongdoing. 

You may have received treatment in a PP facility which was comparable to what you could receive at an HMO or a community-based health center, which are generally set up as non-profits, but that treatment was most certainly not unique and could be duplicated with the same quality elsewhere. 

And, you say that "you hate hamburger" - the only question is whether you made that statement.  And not whether you meant what you said.  ;)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on December 22, 2015, 10:44:05 AM
Still no wool. What's behind that door doesn't bother me the way it does you.

Exactly. No Wool Required. Thank you.

It takes awhile... but you can get it out of them.  Liberals must be caught in the act.  They're not bothered by KILLING millions of innocent people as long as they gots theirs.  The "hey, pay for my BC" variety.

But you know... just don't DARE insult a muslim.  Cuz that gets'em pissy!  :lol


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on December 22, 2015, 12:17:07 PM
Still no wool. What's behind that door doesn't bother me the way it does you.

Exactly. No Wool Required. Thank you.

It takes awhile... but you can get it out of them.  Liberals must be caught in the act.  They're not bothered by KILLING millions of innocent people as long as they gots theirs.  The "hey, pay for my BC" variety.

But you know... just don't DARE insult a muslim.  Cuz that gets'em pissy!  :lol
Assuming you include me when you generalize about liberals, I don't know what act you believe you've caught me in. Typing?
The rest are topics that have nuances. As general statements, they are untrue.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on December 22, 2015, 12:21:58 PM
Planned Parenthood works in many areas where there are no other options for low-income women; most HMOs only treat members. Many low-income women are not eligible for Medicaid.

Emily - Medicaid is a payor of some HMO services, is often a choice for a primary care health facility, and some have historically set up facilities in high impact high poverty areas as a give-back for establishing centers elsewhere else.  I am familiar with community based health centers and HMO's, having used both, as well as private practice physicians.  I've been an HMO member for several decades and believe strongly in their preventative health maintenance and patient education model. HMO's do a volume of middle-income population as was mentioned in an above post. 
I'm glad you are pleased with your HMO. I have nothing against HMOs. None of this negates my previous statements.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on December 22, 2015, 01:57:05 PM
Still no wool. What's behind that door doesn't bother me the way it does you.

Exactly. No Wool Required. Thank you.

It takes awhile... but you can get it out of them.  Liberals must be caught in the act.  They're not bothered by KILLING millions of innocent people as long as they gots theirs.  The "hey, pay for my BC" variety.

But you know... just don't DARE insult a muslim.  Cuz that gets'em pissy!  :lol

Wow...really?! Here's a little something for you...ANY time ANY race gets disrespected just because of their race, I have an issue.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on December 22, 2015, 02:11:08 PM
Still no wool. What's behind that door doesn't bother me the way it does you.

Exactly. No Wool Required. Thank you.

It takes awhile... but you can get it out of them.  Liberals must be caught in the act.  They're not bothered by KILLING millions of innocent people as long as they gots theirs.  The "hey, pay for my BC" variety.

But you know... just don't DARE insult a muslim.  Cuz that gets'em pissy!  :lol

Wow...really?! Here's a little something for you...ANY time ANY race gets disrespected just because of their race, I have an issue.

Sure.  But what about if someone is killed?  Anytime.  Anyone.  Issue?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on December 22, 2015, 02:19:00 PM
Of course.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on December 22, 2015, 02:34:50 PM
Still no wool. What's behind that door doesn't bother me the way it does you.

Exactly. No Wool Required. Thank you.

It takes awhile... but you can get it out of them.  Liberals must be caught in the act.  They're not bothered by KILLING millions of innocent people as long as they gots theirs.  The "hey, pay for my BC" variety.

But you know... just don't DARE insult a muslim.  Cuz that gets'em pissy!  :lol

Wow...really?! Here's a little something for you...ANY time ANY race gets disrespected just because of their race, I have an issue.

Sure.  But what about if someone is killed?  Anytime.  Anyone.  Issue?
Bean Bag, Are you a pacifist? Do you think it's always wrong to go to war in any case? Do you support capital punishment in any cases? Do you think self-defense should not be an acceptable plea in a murder case? Do you disavow previous posts you've made that support bombing?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Bean Bag on December 22, 2015, 07:08:10 PM
Bean Bag, Are you a pacifist? Do you think it's always wrong to go to war in any case? Do you support capital punishment in any cases? Do you think self-defense should not be an acceptable plea in a murder case? Do you disavow previous posts you've made that support bombing?

Moral equivalency Emily?   :-D  Ok, let's do this..  An unborn, helpless baby equals... who?  The natzees?  islamofasionistas?

Tell you what though.  I'll become a pacifist mertus once those turkeys are dead and babies are allowed to be born.  Deal?


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on December 22, 2015, 07:17:43 PM
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,122.0.html

Rule 9.

Feel like I need to throw that in as a reminder.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on December 22, 2015, 07:42:07 PM
Bean Bag, Are you a pacifist? Do you think it's always wrong to go to war in any case? Do you support capital punishment in any cases? Do you think self-defense should not be an acceptable plea in a murder case? Do you disavow previous posts you've made that support bombing?

Moral equivalency Emily?   :-D  Ok, let's do this..  An unborn, helpless baby equals... who?  The natzees?  islamofasionistas?

Tell you what though.  I'll become a pacifist mertus once those turkeys are dead and babies are allowed to be born.  Deal?

I didn't say they were equivalent. But you'd asked that any time, anywhere question about killing. So I take it from your answer that some killing does not trouble you much.
I actually do have trouble seeing the moral difference between killing an 18 year old German kid who ended up in the Nazi army and killing any other random innocent person. The casual indifference people have to killing people of other nationalities just because it's labeled 'war' troubles me.
Eta: during the early years of the Iraq war, a lot of news sites kept a running tally of how many Americans had died and never mentioned how many Iraqis had died. I'll bet a lot more innocent Iraqis died than Americans. But whose death people care about is often political, it seems to me.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on December 22, 2015, 08:20:36 PM
Bean Bag, Are you a pacifist? Do you think it's always wrong to go to war in any case? Do you support capital punishment in any cases? Do you think self-defense should not be an acceptable plea in a murder case? Do you disavow previous posts you've made that support bombing?

Moral equivalency Emily?   :-D  Ok, let's do this..  An unborn, helpless baby equals... who?  The natzees?  islamofasionistas?

Tell you what though.  I'll become a pacifist mertus once those turkeys are dead and babies are allowed to be born.  Deal?
Bean Bag, Are you a pacifist? Do you think it's always wrong to go to war in any case? Do you support capital punishment in any cases? Do you think self-defense should not be an acceptable plea in a murder case? Do you disavow previous posts you've made that support bombing?

Moral equivalency Emily?   :-D  Ok, let's do this..  An unborn, helpless baby equals... who?  The natzees?  islamofasionistas?

Tell you what though.  I'll become a pacifist mertus once those turkeys are dead and babies are allowed to be born.  Deal?

Here is the right wing way. Whip up the crazies with phony anti-aboration/ PP videos and when one of their followers carries out a mass shooting, silence. They all had  Mothers. No calls for legislation from the right.

So then ISIS whips up two of their followers in San Bernadino into a similar killing frenzie, the Republicans go crazy!

The Republican way is inciting fear and paranoia!

And then this from anti-abortion canidate Ben Carson at the last debate:

CNN moderator Hugh Hewitt talked about Carson’s career as a pediatric neurosurgeon and his inspiring personal story, and questioned whether Carson could exhibit the toughness necessary to be Commander-in-Chief and order deadly airstrikes.

“You have to be able to look at the big picture and understand that it’s actually merciful if you go ahead and finish the job rather than death by a thousand pricks,” Carson said.

“So you are OK with the death of thousands of innocent children and civilians?” Hewitt pressed. Amid loud boos from the audience Carson said, “You got it.”


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood Strikes Back
Post by: Emily on January 15, 2016, 02:02:45 PM
Planned Parenthood is suing the videographers:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/01/14/planned_parenthood_is_going_on_the_offensive_with_massive_lawsuit.html
And here's the complaint:
http://ppfa.pr-optout.com/ViewAttachment.aspx?EID=mr9WXYw4u2IxYnni1dBRVsyFeJIuuWQv%2btbEt05Givo%3d


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Douchepool on January 15, 2016, 02:06:24 PM
They'll win, too. Under current law if the videos are proven to have been edited in a courtroom then it's cut and dried.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood Strikes Back
Post by: filledeplage on January 16, 2016, 05:07:41 AM
Planned Parenthood is suing the videographers:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/01/14/planned_parenthood_is_going_on_the_offensive_with_massive_lawsuit.html
And here's the complaint:
http://ppfa.pr-optout.com/ViewAttachment.aspx?EID=mr9WXYw4u2IxYnni1dBRVsyFeJIuuWQv%2btbEt05Givo%3d
Thank you for posting the link and the complaint.  And, I am thinking that the "undercover" role that the defendants engaged in was not so different from the role of the police, the CIA, FBI or news media for their investigations.  They generally devise an alter ego, dummy corporations, Facebook pages, etc., to advance their investigations.  

In the early part of the complaint (I haven't read the whole thing, yet) the defendants are characterized as Operation Rescue alumni and not citizens who are exposing the trafficking of human tissue (and organs) which is a global problem.  

The factor in this for me, is not the Roe v. Wade issue which I think they are trying to conflate (a new word) with the tissue trafficking, which they have since admitted to, and have subsequently "said" that they have ceased in their practice.  Roe v. Wade is not the issue.  

So, the question is...only whether the tactics of the undercover operation are any different from police, feds, state investigations, or done by the media.  

We can discuss.   ;)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on January 26, 2016, 08:46:15 PM
To the right wingers who have been drinking the Kool aid, I told ya so.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/25/politics/planned-parenthood-activists-indicted/


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood Strikes Back
Post by: Emily on January 26, 2016, 09:02:16 PM
Planned Parenthood is suing the videographers:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/01/14/planned_parenthood_is_going_on_the_offensive_with_massive_lawsuit.html
And here's the complaint:
http://ppfa.pr-optout.com/ViewAttachment.aspx?EID=mr9WXYw4u2IxYnni1dBRVsyFeJIuuWQv%2btbEt05Givo%3d
Thank you for posting the link and the complaint.  And, I am thinking that the "undercover" role that the defendants engaged in was not so different from the role of the police, the CIA, FBI or news media for their investigations.  They generally devise an alter ego, dummy corporations, Facebook pages, etc., to advance their investigations.  

In the early part of the complaint (I haven't read the whole thing, yet) the defendants are characterized as Operation Rescue alumni and not citizens who are exposing the trafficking of human tissue (and organs) which is a global problem.  

The factor in this for me, is not the Roe v. Wade issue which I think they are trying to conflate (a new word) with the tissue trafficking, which they have since admitted to, and have subsequently "said" that they have ceased in their practice.  Roe v. Wade is not the issue.  

So, the question is...only whether the tactics of the undercover operation are any different from police, feds, state investigations, or done by the media.  

We can discuss.   ;)
Sorry FdP, I never saw this response until now.
Even if they were acting as law enforcement, there'd still be the issue of entrapment; though admittedly LE gets away with a whole lot of stuff that they shouldn't. I'd hope though that even with the above-the-law treatment that LE is sometimes accorded, they wouldn't be able to get away with presenting their findings to the media or posting them on the internet before presenting them to the DA. Then if it was found that they'd edited the videos that they presented, certainly the videos would not be admissible as evidence and hopefully the crooked cops would be at minimum suspended.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on January 26, 2016, 09:08:09 PM
To the right wingers who have been drinking the Kool aid, I told ya so.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/25/politics/planned-parenthood-activists-indicted/
Thanks ORR. Funny that the 'liberal media' still gave the majority of the quotes over to a bunch of ranting anti-choicers.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on January 26, 2016, 09:49:55 PM
To the right wingers who have been drinking the Kool aid, I told ya so.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/25/politics/planned-parenthood-activists-indicted/
Thanks ORR. Funny that the 'liberal media' still gave the majority of the quotes over to a bunch of ranting anti-choicers.

Yes, they had run of Republican Presidential candidates continuing to spread the lies. I saw a funny one. Repblicans want to insure that no low income women can get abortions so they can then poison the babies with lead once they are born.

Anyway, the very conservative Texas grand jury not only cleared PP of all allegations in the hoax videos but charged the hoaxers with actual trafficing in baby parts.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood Strikes Back
Post by: filledeplage on January 27, 2016, 05:57:39 AM
Planned Parenthood is suing the videographers:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/01/14/planned_parenthood_is_going_on_the_offensive_with_massive_lawsuit.html
And here's the complaint:
http://ppfa.pr-optout.com/ViewAttachment.aspx?EID=mr9WXYw4u2IxYnni1dBRVsyFeJIuuWQv%2btbEt05Givo%3d
Thank you for posting the link and the complaint.  And, I am thinking that the "undercover" role that the defendants engaged in was not so different from the role of the police, the CIA, FBI or news media for their investigations.  They generally devise an alter ego, dummy corporations, Facebook pages, etc., to advance their investigations.  

In the early part of the complaint (I haven't read the whole thing, yet) the defendants are characterized as Operation Rescue alumni and not citizens who are exposing the trafficking of human tissue (and organs) which is a global problem.  

The factor in this for me, is not the Roe v. Wade issue which I think they are trying to conflate (a new word) with the tissue trafficking, which they have since admitted to, and have subsequently "said" that they have ceased in their practice.  Roe v. Wade is not the issue.  

So, the question is...only whether the tactics of the undercover operation are any different from police, feds, state investigations, or done by the media.  

We can discuss.   ;)
Sorry FdP, I never saw this response until now.
Even if they were acting as law enforcement, there'd still be the issue of entrapment; though admittedly LE gets away with a whole lot of stuff that they shouldn't. I'd hope though that even with the above-the-law treatment that LE is sometimes accorded, they wouldn't be able to get away with presenting their findings to the media or posting them on the internet before presenting them to the DA. Then if it was found that they'd edited the videos that they presented, certainly the videos would not be admissible as evidence and hopefully the crooked cops would be at minimum suspended.
Emily - Entrapment is on the law enforcement side.   ;)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on January 27, 2016, 06:18:57 AM
Yeah. That's what I was saying.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on January 27, 2016, 06:38:45 AM
Yeah. That's what I was saying.
Amateur video has become a tool of exposure and enforcement.  And an indictment does not provide a forum for the defense. 

Let's remember that it takes two to enter into a contract.  Where is the other party who had the goods? 

My prediction is that this will serve to help the Republicans and 3rd party people. Just sayin'  ;)




Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on January 27, 2016, 07:21:57 AM
Yeah. That's what I was saying.
Amateur video has become a tool of exposure and enforcement.  And an indictment does not provide a forum for the defense. 

Let's remember that it takes two to enter into a contract.  Where is the other party who had the goods? 

My prediction is that this will serve to help the Republicans and 3rd party people. Just sayin'  ;)



Yes but manipulate video is not credible.
I don't understand your second paragraph and to elections, I don't think it will make any difference. The lines have been drawn for decades. Nobody's shifting their vote for this. That's why anti-choices are pursuing legal disruptions. They know they won't win by vote.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on January 27, 2016, 07:41:22 AM
Yeah. That's what I was saying.
Amateur video has become a tool of exposure and enforcement.  And an indictment does not provide a forum for the defense. 

Let's remember that it takes two to enter into a contract.  Where is the other party who had the goods? 

My prediction is that this will serve to help the Republicans and 3rd party people. Just sayin'  ;)
Yes but manipulate video is not credible.
I don't understand your second paragraph and to elections, I don't think it will make any difference. The lines have been drawn for decades. Nobody's shifting their vote for this. That's why anti-choices are pursuing legal disruptions. They know they won't win by vote.
Emily - we don't know the full uncut video.  I don't anyway.  There are people who are separating out the issues, here. And separating the "choice" from the contract issues.  It would be hard to argue that those voices did not match those persons.  Edited for time?  Or was the camera running while the filmers went to the gas station or grocery store or had private conversations after leaving the facility?   We don't know that.   

The charges look like "purchase of tissue" or something like that. I have not read the charging documents. 

In a contract scenario there is generally something "of value" (tissue/organs, etc.) that an entity or person has control over. (PP)  And there is a prospective buyer. (Whistleblowers)

Tonight there is a debate.  We'll see if this issue is raised.   

So, it will affect the election because it is related to campaign contributions of candidates. 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on January 27, 2016, 09:05:16 AM
Yeah. That's what I was saying.
Amateur video has become a tool of exposure and enforcement.  And an indictment does not provide a forum for the defense. 

Let's remember that it takes two to enter into a contract.  Where is the other party who had the goods? 

My prediction is that this will serve to help the Republicans and 3rd party people. Just sayin'  ;)
Yes but manipulate video is not credible.
I don't understand your second paragraph and to elections, I don't think it will make any difference. The lines have been drawn for decades. Nobody's shifting their vote for this. That's why anti-choices are pursuing legal disruptions. They know they won't win by vote.
Emily - we don't know the full uncut video.  I don't anyway.  There are people who are separating out the issues, here. And separating the "choice" from the contract issues.  It would be hard to argue that those voices did not match those persons.  Edited for time?  Or was the camera running while the filmers went to the gas station or grocery store or had private conversations after leaving the facility?   We don't know that.   

The charges look like "purchase of tissue" or something like that. I have not read the charging documents. 

In a contract scenario there is generally something "of value" (tissue/organs, etc.) that an entity or person has control over. (PP)  And there is a prospective buyer. (Whistleblowers)

Tonight there is a debate.  We'll see if this issue is raised.   

So, it will affect the election because it is related to campaign contributions of candidates. 
It appears that key quotes were edited out of the videos, among other things: http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/31/a-comprehensive-guide-to-the-deceptively-edited/205264
You apply your standards for vetting sources very inconsistently.
I know what a contract is. I just don't understand what point you are trying to make regarding contracts. Regarding contributions - I think this sort of thing fires up both sides and probably causes more single-issue candidate success (which is good for some extremists but not good for the country) on both sides of the question. People like me are more likely to be giving money to PP's PAC and I suppose people like you are more likely to give money to anti-PP PACs. It balances on the sides but overall makes our whole government stupider.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on January 27, 2016, 09:45:44 AM
Yeah. That's what I was saying.
Amateur video has become a tool of exposure and enforcement.  And an indictment does not provide a forum for the defense. 

Let's remember that it takes two to enter into a contract.  Where is the other party who had the goods? 

My prediction is that this will serve to help the Republicans and 3rd party people. Just sayin'  ;)
Yes but manipulate video is not credible.
I don't understand your second paragraph and to elections, I don't think it will make any difference. The lines have been drawn for decades. Nobody's shifting their vote for this. That's why anti-choices are pursuing legal disruptions. They know they won't win by vote.
Emily - we don't know the full uncut video.  I don't anyway.  There are people who are separating out the issues, here. And separating the "choice" from the contract issues.  It would be hard to argue that those voices did not match those persons.  Edited for time?  Or was the camera running while the filmers went to the gas station or grocery store or had private conversations after leaving the facility?   We don't know that.   

The charges look like "purchase of tissue" or something like that. I have not read the charging documents. 

In a contract scenario there is generally something "of value" (tissue/organs, etc.) that an entity or person has control over. (PP)  And there is a prospective buyer. (Whistleblowers)

Tonight there is a debate.  We'll see if this issue is raised.   

So, it will affect the election because it is related to campaign contributions of candidates. 
It appears that key quotes were edited out of the videos, among other things: http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/31/a-comprehensive-guide-to-the-deceptively-edited/205264
You apply your standards for vetting sources very inconsistently.
I know what a contract is. I just don't understand what point you are trying to make regarding contracts. Regarding contributions - I think this sort of thing fires up both sides and probably causes more single-issue candidate success (which is good for some extremists but not good for the country) on both sides of the question. People like me are more likely to be giving money to PP's PAC and I suppose people like you are more likely to give money to anti-PP PACs. It balances on the sides but overall makes our whole government stupider.
Emily - you are making a judgment on my editing speculation.  They are not standards.  When film or video is taken there is always stuff if it is a continuous loop of tape or digital that gets edited out.  Even news footage.

Let's not rush to judgment as to liberal or conservative because criminal activity is just that. There were standards in place for PP and appears that they violated them as the evidence in testimony is a changed policy which was announced on the CSPAN congressional hearing testimony.  They would not announce a change if they did not do something wrong. 

They are alleging a contract for sale as part of the basis of the indictment.  Purchase of body parts/tissue. Was there an exchange?  Did we see a package of tissue?  I have not.  Is that what is left out here?  The delivery of the goods?

Contributions of over $10,000 were routinely given to certain candidates by PP who have two set up accounts to avoid co-mingling of their funds.  It is not $100 to a candidate per election cycle.  Let's not call people extremists because we don't like a moderate position.  There are factions of Dems now.  Clinton is calling Sanders (who runs as a Democrat) a Socialist so there are huge splits of philosophy in the party ranks.

So, where does the parsing of labels stop? 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on January 27, 2016, 10:25:57 AM

It appears that key quotes were edited out of the videos, among other things: http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/31/a-comprehensive-guide-to-the-deceptively-edited/205264
You apply your standards for vetting sources very inconsistently.
I know what a contract is. I just don't understand what point you are trying to make regarding contracts. Regarding contributions - I think this sort of thing fires up both sides and probably causes more single-issue candidate success (which is good for some extremists but not good for the country) on both sides of the question. People like me are more likely to be giving money to PP's PAC and I suppose people like you are more likely to give money to anti-PP PACs. It balances on the sides but overall makes our whole government stupider.
Emily - you are making a judgment on my editing speculation.  They are not standards.  When film or video is taken there is always stuff if it is a continuous loop of tape or digital that gets edited out.  Even news footage.

Let's not rush to judgment as to liberal or conservative because criminal activity is just that. There were standards in place for PP and appears that they violated them as the evidence in testimony is a changed policy which was announced on the CSPAN congressional hearing testimony.  They would not announce a change if they did not do something wrong. 

They are alleging a contract for sale as part of the basis of the indictment.  Purchase of body parts/tissue. Was there an exchange?  Did we see a package of tissue?  I have not.  Is that what is left out here?  The delivery of the goods?

Contributions of over $10,000 were routinely given to certain candidates by PP who have two set up accounts to avoid co-mingling of their funds.  It is not $100 to a candidate per election cycle.  Let's not call people extremists because we don't like a moderate position.  There are factions of Dems now.  Clinton is calling Sanders (who runs as a Democrat) a Socialist so there are huge splits of philosophy in the party ranks.

So, where does the parsing of labels stop? 

Hi FdP, I hope you're having a lovely day and that there's snow on the ground enough to make the world beautiful without causing you difficulties!
Besides that, given the fact that the videos were extensively edited and at least in a few places the meaning of what was being said was altered, I'm surprised you still find these videos to be creditable sources. Also, you know that the people making the videos have a strong bias/agenda - which you've stated before causes you to view a source with hefty skepticism.
Regarding politics, I think that anti-choice people are likely to interpret the effort by the videographers, and the result, as you are interpreting it and pro-choice people are likely to interpret it as I am, regardless of whose interpretation is wrong or right. So again, I don't think it has an effect on voting and I think it will generate more donations on both sides on the single issue. PP donations have reportedly spiked in response to this and I'm sure some anti-PP donations have increased as will. It's mostly sturm und drang to get people all excited but in the end is a distraction more than anything.
>>"They would not announce a change if they did not do something wrong." This is not rigorous thinking. I expect they'll change lots of policies as a result of these videos. Primarily their policies regarding security, I'd hope. But obviously PP has a lot of people trying to paint what they do as wrong so changing a policy to make that harder would make sense. Most large organizations have policies that regard their image as well as their legal procedures.

I understand now what you are saying regarding the contract - you are referring to the indictment. I haven't read it, but reports of it make no reference to a contract having been made. The reports are that the indictment is for a "misdemeanor related to trying to buy human organs" (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/27/us/politics/indictment-deals-blow-to-gop-over-planned-parenthood-battle.html). Obviously that terminology is not from the indictment, so we'll see. But if there was a contract, I doubt there would be an indictment for the purchaser but not the seller, so I'll be very surprised if there was one. I suppose if the Texas grand jury had found that PP had likely done something illegal, they would've indicted them.
I don't understand your point regarding labels.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on January 27, 2016, 10:54:20 AM

It appears that key quotes were edited out of the videos, among other things: http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/31/a-comprehensive-guide-to-the-deceptively-edited/205264
You apply your standards for vetting sources very inconsistently.
I know what a contract is. I just don't understand what point you are trying to make regarding contracts. Regarding contributions - I think this sort of thing fires up both sides and probably causes more single-issue candidate success (which is good for some extremists but not good for the country) on both sides of the question. People like me are more likely to be giving money to PP's PAC and I suppose people like you are more likely to give money to anti-PP PACs. It balances on the sides but overall makes our whole government stupider.
Emily - you are making a judgment on my editing speculation.  They are not standards.  When film or video is taken there is always stuff if it is a continuous loop of tape or digital that gets edited out.  Even news footage.

Let's not rush to judgment as to liberal or conservative because criminal activity is just that. There were standards in place for PP and appears that they violated them as the evidence in testimony is a changed policy which was announced on the CSPAN congressional hearing testimony.  They would not announce a change if they did not do something wrong.  

They are alleging a contract for sale as part of the basis of the indictment.  Purchase of body parts/tissue. Was there an exchange?  Did we see a package of tissue?  I have not.  Is that what is left out here?  The delivery of the goods?

Contributions of over $10,000 were routinely given to certain candidates by PP who have two set up accounts to avoid co-mingling of their funds.  It is not $100 to a candidate per election cycle.  Let's not call people extremists because we don't like a moderate position.  There are factions of Dems now.  Clinton is calling Sanders (who runs as a Democrat) a Socialist so there are huge splits of philosophy in the party ranks.

So, where does the parsing of labels stop?  

Hi FdP, I hope you're having a lovely day and that there's snow on the ground enough to make the world beautiful without causing you difficulties!
Besides that, given the fact that the videos were extensively edited and at least in a few places the meaning of what was being said was altered, I'm surprised you still find these videos to be creditable sources. Also, you know that the people making the videos have a strong bias/agenda - which you've stated before causes you to view a source with hefty skepticism.
Regarding politics, I think that anti-choice people are likely to interpret the effort by the videographers, and the result, as you are interpreting it and pro-choice people are likely to interpret it as I am, regardless of whose interpretation is wrong or right. So again, I don't think it has an effect on voting and I think it will generate more donations on both sides on the single issue. PP donations have reportedly spiked in response to this and I'm sure some anti-PP donations have increased as will. It's mostly sturm und drang to get people all excited but in the end is a distraction more than anything.
>>"They would not announce a change if they did not do something wrong." This is not rigorous thinking. I expect they'll change lots of policies as a result of these videos. Primarily their policies regarding security, I'd hope. But obviously PP has a lot of people trying to paint what they do as wrong so changing a policy to make that harder would make sense. Most large organizations have policies that regard their image as well as their legal procedures.

I understand now what you are saying regarding the contract - you are referring to the indictment. I haven't read it, but reports of it make no reference to a contract having been made. The reports are that the indictment is for a "misdemeanor related to trying to buy human organs" (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/27/us/politics/indictment-deals-blow-to-gop-over-planned-parenthood-battle.html). Obviously that terminology is not from the indictment, so we'll see. But if there was a contract, I doubt there would be an indictment for the purchaser but not the seller, so I'll be very surprised if there was one. I suppose if the Texas grand jury had found that PP had likely done something illegal, they would've indicted them.
I don't understand your point regarding labels.
Thanks for those wishes.  - There was some children's poem which described mud as "luscious."  And, ah, yes, there is beauty in mud. :lol

The Congressional hearings were predicated on those videos, so there is merit and cred for me.  If actions (or reactions) in policy were taken, it is sort of an admission of wrong-doing. It was not a trial but a hearing with testimony taken.  So there is merit and it was a result of those videos so someone in authority who had access was able to formulate questions to pose to PP. They back-pedaled.  

Grand jury does not provide the defendant a voice.  We will see how this enfolds.  The debates will be interesting.  And we will see  a debate without attention on Trump getting to know those candidates better.  

Painting those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers is over-broad. That is the painted perception.  There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics.  
  

This is not about choice.  That is settled under Roe v. Wade.  This has taken the process to another level, where procedures were not to be amended to procure an outcome of monetary benefit.  And, a no-no.


 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on January 27, 2016, 11:23:45 AM

Thanks for those wishes.  - There was some children's poem which described mud as "luscious."  And, ah, yes, there is beauty in mud. :lol

The Congressional hearings were predicated on those videos, so there is merit and cred for me.  If actions (or reactions) in policy were taken, it is sort of an admission of wrong-doing. It was not a trial but a hearing with testimony taken.  So there is merit and it was a result of those videos so someone in authority who had access was able to formulate questions to pose to PP. They back-pedaled.  

Grand jury does not provide the defendant a voice.  We will see how this enfolds.  The debates will be interesting.  And we will see  a debate without attention on Trump getting to know those candidates better.  

Painting those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers is over-broad. That is the painted perception.  There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics.  
  

This is not about choice.  That is settled under Roe v. Wade.  This has taken the process to another level, where procedures were not to be amended to procure an outcome of monetary benefit.  And, a no-no.


 
Already moved on to mud eh? A drawback of snow - but you've found the silver lining in the beauty of mud.
So everything that a congressional hearing enters into testimony and everything that prompts a congressional hearing is credible to you?
I did not paint those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers. I said that this will cause more funding to single issue candidates which is good for extremists on both sides but not for anyone else (or the country.)
>>"There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics." -- I don't think this is true. But I think over the last 50 years a lot of conservative Catholics have moved to the Republican party. I don't think it has to do with Benghazi or with funding. If you have unbiased polls that show that people are moving parties over these issues, I'll be surprised: I don't think anyone cares or thinks there was an issue with Benghazi except people who were predisposed to. Republican and Democratic politicians alike have symbiotic relationships with their funders. All politicians do. It's the nature of the system. So anyone who interprets it as a Democratic problem was predisposed to.
This thing with PP does have to do with the choice to have an abortion because that's the agenda of the people who made the video and the only people who buy it are those who were predisposed to have a problem with PP. They have not been shown to do anything wrong so only people who want to believe they've done something wrong will believe they have. And the people who want to believe that are people who are anti-choice.





Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on January 27, 2016, 11:38:01 AM

Thanks for those wishes.  - There was some children's poem which described mud as "luscious."  And, ah, yes, there is beauty in mud. :lol

The Congressional hearings were predicated on those videos, so there is merit and cred for me.  If actions (or reactions) in policy were taken, it is sort of an admission of wrong-doing. It was not a trial but a hearing with testimony taken.  So there is merit and it was a result of those videos so someone in authority who had access was able to formulate questions to pose to PP. They back-pedaled.  

Grand jury does not provide the defendant a voice.  We will see how this enfolds.  The debates will be interesting.  And we will see  a debate without attention on Trump getting to know those candidates better.  

Painting those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers is over-broad. That is the painted perception.  There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics.  
  

This is not about choice.  That is settled under Roe v. Wade.  This has taken the process to another level, where procedures were not to be amended to procure an outcome of monetary benefit.  And, a no-no.
Already moved on to mud eh? A drawback of snow - but you've found the silver lining in the beauty of mud.
So everything that a congressional hearing enters into testimony and everything that prompts a congressional hearing is credible to you?
I did not paint those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers. I said that this will cause more funding to single issue candidates which is good for extremists on both sides but not for anyone else (or the country.)
>>"There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics." -- I don't think this is true. But I think over the last 50 years a lot of conservative Catholics have moved to the Republican party. I don't think it has to do with Benghazi or with funding. If you have unbiased polls that show that people are moving parties over these issues, I'll be surprised: I don't think anyone cares or thinks there was an issue with Benghazi except people who were predisposed to. Republican and Democratic politicians alike have symbiotic relationships with their funders. All politicians do. It's the nature of the system. So anyone who interprets it as a Democratic problem was predisposed to.
This thing with PP does have to do with the choice to have an abortion because that's the agenda of the people who made the video and the only people who buy it are those who were predisposed to have a problem with PP. They have not been shown to do anything wrong so only people who want to believe they've done something wrong will believe they have. And the people who want to believe that are people who are anti-choice.
There is always a silver lining. 

Conservative Catholics? The church is in disarray as a result of the pedophile scandal - highlighted in Spotlight.  Sunlight on a scandal is a beautiful thing.  There are Catholics who are very conservative and connect with the old Latin Tridentine Mass.  They are few and far between, geographically.  It is hard to assign a political party to them.  Most sermons involve social awareness and tolerance, hardly a Republican agenda item.  I'd question that they have left the Democratic Party as the Republican mantra is inconsistent with the social agenda of the Church in general.

The tissue bartering may help the pro-lifers, indirectly, but because of the unintended consequences of science and technology, and very sophisticated ultrasounds, rather than a moral premise promoted by political party leaders.  It is a lightning-rod issue.  But, the over-riding issue is the trafficking.

And, vets I know, are furious about Benghazi, and if one group I hear going Republican, even if it is just a temporary party switch for the general election, it would be them.  This year is the perfect storm for change and transparency.  And, luscious mud (I think it was e.e. cummings.)  :lol

 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on January 27, 2016, 12:19:07 PM

Thanks for those wishes.  - There was some children's poem which described mud as "luscious."  And, ah, yes, there is beauty in mud. :lol

The Congressional hearings were predicated on those videos, so there is merit and cred for me.  If actions (or reactions) in policy were taken, it is sort of an admission of wrong-doing. It was not a trial but a hearing with testimony taken.  So there is merit and it was a result of those videos so someone in authority who had access was able to formulate questions to pose to PP. They back-pedaled.  

Grand jury does not provide the defendant a voice.  We will see how this enfolds.  The debates will be interesting.  And we will see  a debate without attention on Trump getting to know those candidates better.  

Painting those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers is over-broad. That is the painted perception.  There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics.  
  

This is not about choice.  That is settled under Roe v. Wade.  This has taken the process to another level, where procedures were not to be amended to procure an outcome of monetary benefit.  And, a no-no.
Already moved on to mud eh? A drawback of snow - but you've found the silver lining in the beauty of mud.
So everything that a congressional hearing enters into testimony and everything that prompts a congressional hearing is credible to you?
I did not paint those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers. I said that this will cause more funding to single issue candidates which is good for extremists on both sides but not for anyone else (or the country.)
>>"There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics." -- I don't think this is true. But I think over the last 50 years a lot of conservative Catholics have moved to the Republican party. I don't think it has to do with Benghazi or with funding. If you have unbiased polls that show that people are moving parties over these issues, I'll be surprised: I don't think anyone cares or thinks there was an issue with Benghazi except people who were predisposed to. Republican and Democratic politicians alike have symbiotic relationships with their funders. All politicians do. It's the nature of the system. So anyone who interprets it as a Democratic problem was predisposed to.
This thing with PP does have to do with the choice to have an abortion because that's the agenda of the people who made the video and the only people who buy it are those who were predisposed to have a problem with PP. They have not been shown to do anything wrong so only people who want to believe they've done something wrong will believe they have. And the people who want to believe that are people who are anti-choice.
There is always a silver lining. 

Conservative Catholics? The church is in disarray as a result of the pedophile scandal - highlighted in Spotlight.  Sunlight on a scandal is a beautiful thing.  There are Catholics who are very conservative and connect with the old Latin Tridentine Mass.  They are few and far between, geographically.  It is hard to assign a political party to them.  Most sermons involve social awareness and tolerance, hardly a Republican agenda item.  I'd question that they have left the Democratic Party as the Republican mantra is inconsistent with the social agenda of the Church in general.

The tissue bartering may help the pro-lifers, indirectly, but because of the unintended consequences of science and technology, and very sophisticated ultrasounds, rather than a moral premise promoted by political party leaders.  It is a lightning-rod issue.  But, the over-riding issue is the trafficking.

And, vets I know, are furious about Benghazi, and if one group I hear going Republican, even if it is just a temporary party switch for the general election, it would be them.  This year is the perfect storm for change and transparency.  And, luscious mud (I think it was e.e. cummings.)  :lol

 

Yeah, non-Hispanic conservative Catholics used be a Democratic party stronghold but many have moved to the Republican party over issues like gay rights and abortion. And I don't mean Conservative Catholics; I mean conservative Catholics. The 'conservative' isn't meant to describe their religious attitude but their political attitude. And yes, I think across the board being conservative and Catholic are oxymoronic, but those two issues are sticklers for a lot of Catholics.

Regarding vets, they were predisposed to make a fuss about Benghazi. I was in the army under Clinton - near the beginning of his presidency - and the unpatriotic resistance to accepting a Democratic president was shocking to me. That's nothing new.

Again, regarding the effect of the PP kerfuffle - no-one except those predisposed to find problems with PP (anti-choicers)- believes that there was trafficking (as there's no evidence). So no one's mind is being changed.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on January 27, 2016, 12:34:16 PM

Thanks for those wishes.  - There was some children's poem which described mud as "luscious."  And, ah, yes, there is beauty in mud. :lol

The Congressional hearings were predicated on those videos, so there is merit and cred for me.  If actions (or reactions) in policy were taken, it is sort of an admission of wrong-doing. It was not a trial but a hearing with testimony taken.  So there is merit and it was a result of those videos so someone in authority who had access was able to formulate questions to pose to PP. They back-pedaled.  

Grand jury does not provide the defendant a voice.  We will see how this enfolds.  The debates will be interesting.  And we will see  a debate without attention on Trump getting to know those candidates better.  

Painting those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers is over-broad. That is the painted perception.  There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics.  
  

This is not about choice.  That is settled under Roe v. Wade.  This has taken the process to another level, where procedures were not to be amended to procure an outcome of monetary benefit.  And, a no-no.
Already moved on to mud eh? A drawback of snow - but you've found the silver lining in the beauty of mud.
So everything that a congressional hearing enters into testimony and everything that prompts a congressional hearing is credible to you?
I did not paint those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers. I said that this will cause more funding to single issue candidates which is good for extremists on both sides but not for anyone else (or the country.)
>>"There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics." -- I don't think this is true. But I think over the last 50 years a lot of conservative Catholics have moved to the Republican party. I don't think it has to do with Benghazi or with funding. If you have unbiased polls that show that people are moving parties over these issues, I'll be surprised: I don't think anyone cares or thinks there was an issue with Benghazi except people who were predisposed to. Republican and Democratic politicians alike have symbiotic relationships with their funders. All politicians do. It's the nature of the system. So anyone who interprets it as a Democratic problem was predisposed to.
This thing with PP does have to do with the choice to have an abortion because that's the agenda of the people who made the video and the only people who buy it are those who were predisposed to have a problem with PP. They have not been shown to do anything wrong so only people who want to believe they've done something wrong will believe they have. And the people who want to believe that are people who are anti-choice.
There is always a silver lining. 

Conservative Catholics? The church is in disarray as a result of the pedophile scandal - highlighted in Spotlight.  Sunlight on a scandal is a beautiful thing.  There are Catholics who are very conservative and connect with the old Latin Tridentine Mass.  They are few and far between, geographically.  It is hard to assign a political party to them.  Most sermons involve social awareness and tolerance, hardly a Republican agenda item.  I'd question that they have left the Democratic Party as the Republican mantra is inconsistent with the social agenda of the Church in general.

The tissue bartering may help the pro-lifers, indirectly, but because of the unintended consequences of science and technology, and very sophisticated ultrasounds, rather than a moral premise promoted by political party leaders.  It is a lightning-rod issue.  But, the over-riding issue is the trafficking.

And, vets I know, are furious about Benghazi, and if one group I hear going Republican, even if it is just a temporary party switch for the general election, it would be them.  This year is the perfect storm for change and transparency.  And, luscious mud (I think it was e.e. cummings.)  :lol

 

Yeah, non-Hispanic conservative Catholics used be a Democratic party stronghold but many have moved to the Republican party over issues like gay rights and abortion. And I don't mean Conservative Catholics; I mean conservative Catholics. The 'conservative' isn't meant to describe their religious attitude but their political attitude. And yes, I think across the board being conservative and Catholic are oxymoronic, but those two issues are sticklers for a lot of Catholics.

Regarding vets, they were predisposed to make a fuss about Benghazi. I was in the army under Clinton - near the beginning of his presidency - and the unpatriotic resistance to accepting a Democratic president was shocking to me. That's nothing new.

Again, regarding the effect of the PP kerfuffle - no-one except those predisposed to find problems with PP (anti-choicers)- believes that there was trafficking (as there's no evidence). So no one's mind is being changed.
Emily - Catholics were a Democratic stronghold. Think JFK. 

And the younger vets I know and regularly see, are indeed furious about Benghazi and will absolutely cross party lines to vote Republican this time, even if they are card-carrying Dems. The country is sick of the rhetoric, spin control, and the truth which must be subpoenaed from our officials. 

Bill Clinton really thought he could broker a Middle East in the 90's. I thought he was delusional. 

You were still a pioneer being a woman in the Army then. 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on January 27, 2016, 03:28:56 PM

Thanks for those wishes.  - There was some children's poem which described mud as "luscious."  And, ah, yes, there is beauty in mud. :lol

The Congressional hearings were predicated on those videos, so there is merit and cred for me.  If actions (or reactions) in policy were taken, it is sort of an admission of wrong-doing. It was not a trial but a hearing with testimony taken.  So there is merit and it was a result of those videos so someone in authority who had access was able to formulate questions to pose to PP. They back-pedaled.  

Grand jury does not provide the defendant a voice.  We will see how this enfolds.  The debates will be interesting.  And we will see  a debate without attention on Trump getting to know those candidates better.  

Painting those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers is over-broad. That is the painted perception.  There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics.  
  

This is not about choice.  That is settled under Roe v. Wade.  This has taken the process to another level, where procedures were not to be amended to procure an outcome of monetary benefit.  And, a no-no.
Already moved on to mud eh? A drawback of snow - but you've found the silver lining in the beauty of mud.
So everything that a congressional hearing enters into testimony and everything that prompts a congressional hearing is credible to you?
I did not paint those who oppose PP as ignorant right-wingers. I said that this will cause more funding to single issue candidates which is good for extremists on both sides but not for anyone else (or the country.)
>>"There is a segment in the middle who are rejecting their Dem roots with this too-close relationship between elected officials and organizations such as PP.  And the email/Benghazi debacle.  It is a phenomenon that I have never seen in politics." -- I don't think this is true. But I think over the last 50 years a lot of conservative Catholics have moved to the Republican party. I don't think it has to do with Benghazi or with funding. If you have unbiased polls that show that people are moving parties over these issues, I'll be surprised: I don't think anyone cares or thinks there was an issue with Benghazi except people who were predisposed to. Republican and Democratic politicians alike have symbiotic relationships with their funders. All politicians do. It's the nature of the system. So anyone who interprets it as a Democratic problem was predisposed to.
This thing with PP does have to do with the choice to have an abortion because that's the agenda of the people who made the video and the only people who buy it are those who were predisposed to have a problem with PP. They have not been shown to do anything wrong so only people who want to believe they've done something wrong will believe they have. And the people who want to believe that are people who are anti-choice.
There is always a silver lining. 

Conservative Catholics? The church is in disarray as a result of the pedophile scandal - highlighted in Spotlight.  Sunlight on a scandal is a beautiful thing.  There are Catholics who are very conservative and connect with the old Latin Tridentine Mass.  They are few and far between, geographically.  It is hard to assign a political party to them.  Most sermons involve social awareness and tolerance, hardly a Republican agenda item.  I'd question that they have left the Democratic Party as the Republican mantra is inconsistent with the social agenda of the Church in general.

The tissue bartering may help the pro-lifers, indirectly, but because of the unintended consequences of science and technology, and very sophisticated ultrasounds, rather than a moral premise promoted by political party leaders.  It is a lightning-rod issue.  But, the over-riding issue is the trafficking.

And, vets I know, are furious about Benghazi, and if one group I hear going Republican, even if it is just a temporary party switch for the general election, it would be them.  This year is the perfect storm for change and transparency.  And, luscious mud (I think it was e.e. cummings.)  :lol

 

Yeah, non-Hispanic conservative Catholics used be a Democratic party stronghold but many have moved to the Republican party over issues like gay rights and abortion. And I don't mean Conservative Catholics; I mean conservative Catholics. The 'conservative' isn't meant to describe their religious attitude but their political attitude. And yes, I think across the board being conservative and Catholic are oxymoronic, but those two issues are sticklers for a lot of Catholics.

Regarding vets, they were predisposed to make a fuss about Benghazi. I was in the army under Clinton - near the beginning of his presidency - and the unpatriotic resistance to accepting a Democratic president was shocking to me. That's nothing new.

Again, regarding the effect of the PP kerfuffle - no-one except those predisposed to find problems with PP (anti-choicers)- believes that there was trafficking (as there's no evidence). So no one's mind is being changed.
Emily - Catholics were a Democratic stronghold. Think JFK. 

And the younger vets I know and regularly see, are indeed furious about Benghazi and will absolutely cross party lines to vote Republican this time, even if they are card-carrying Dems. The country is sick of the rhetoric, spin control, and the truth which must be subpoenaed from our officials. 

Bill Clinton really thought he could broker a Middle East in the 90's. I thought he was delusional. 

You were still a pioneer being a woman in the Army then. 
Yes, they were a Democratic stronghold. I think very few Democrats think that there's anything there in the Benghazi whoopdedoo so I'm not worried about people crossing the line for that. I certainly haven't seen any polls that indicate an issue. And all but the most delusional or idealistic, on both ends of the spectrum, and in the middle, think there's a substantial difference between the parties in terms of relying on spin, cronyism, rhetoric, what-have-you. Only the truly deeply partisan will tell you one party has an edge over the other in those terms.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: SurfRiderHawaii on January 27, 2016, 06:19:54 PM
Benghazi is just more snake oil from the right. I am a veteran and most of my veteran friends were smart enough to get the real facts for themselves. Clinton did nothing wrong and after more hearings than 9/11 and more than $100 million wasted in investigations/hearings by the Republicans,  the truth is this that this was just another tragic terrorist attack. Americans are tired of hearing these fabrications being spun by the right. Same with PP. They don't trade in baby parts!  A huge miscalculation all around from the Republican establishment. Thus, there is Donald Trump leading the pack of dunderheads who have been harping unendingly about Benghazi and PP.

Meanwhile, the Republicans in Michigan have poisoned thousands of poor people and you can hear a pin drop in the silence from Cruz, Rubio, Fox News. If Obama had been involved, it be non-stop grandstanding for his impeachment! The Republicans, like Cruz, love playing the evangelical card but if Jesus pops back tomorrow he'd be in Flint helping people while waving his hands to make all guns and the NRA disappear!


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on January 28, 2016, 05:22:19 AM
Benghazi is just more snake oil from the right. I am a veteran and most of my veteran friends were smart enough to get the real facts for themselves. Clinton did nothing wrong and after more hearings than 9/11 and more than $100 million wasted in investigations/hearings by the Republicans,  the truth is this that this was just another tragic terrorist attack. Americans are tired of hearing these fabrications being spun by the right. Same with PP. They don't trade in baby parts!  A huge miscalculation all around from the Republican establishment. Thus, there is Donald Trump leading the pack of dunderheads who have been harping unendingly about Benghazi and PP.

Meanwhile, the Republicans in Michigan have poisoned thousands of poor people and you can hear a pin drop in the silence from Cruz, Rubio, Fox News. If Obama had been involved, it be non-stop grandstanding for his impeachment! The Republicans, like Cruz, love playing the evangelical card but if Jesus pops back tomorrow he'd be in Flint helping people while waving his hands to make all guns and the NRA disappear!
ORR - First, thank you very much for your service.  It is interesting that there are other accounts of what happened. Young vets that I know as friends of my kids, and former students have talked about the video being a coverup. It does seem, however, that there are a lot of conflicts in accounts but what I don't understand is that Ambassador Stevens kept asking for more security and didn't get it. And that the accounts of the survivors tell a different story from the first "official" once blaming the attack on an inflammatory video, and the discrepancy in Clinton's email to her family that it was a terrorist attack. The families of those who died in the attack have a story that conflicts with Clinton's version.  

This is not a Republican issue. And, the EPA is run by the Obama Administration which is right now, Democratic. It is an agency under his control. The  Obama Administration has appointed the last three administrators, Jackson, Perciasepe, and McCarthy.  And, I don't care for any evangelical spin because we have a separation of Church and State in place to avoid theocracies and monarchies.
Rick Snyder, the Michigan governor, is a Republican, but the Mayor, Karen Weaver is a Democrat.  Lead in water is serious and having taught kids who were lead-paint poisoned, and who needed a great deal of early intervention, I share your outrage. Millions of dollars went to educate kids who were lead poisoned.  And the chemical companies had to be forced to remove it from paint and other products.    

What is interesting in the PP issue is that "if" the charging documents mention "fetal tissue" - then there was something on the PP end to sell.  

Did you listen to the BB's while in the service?  

Thank you again for your service.   ;)



Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on January 28, 2016, 06:53:19 AM
Benghazi is just more snake oil from the right. I am a veteran and most of my veteran friends were smart enough to get the real facts for themselves. Clinton did nothing wrong and after more hearings than 9/11 and more than $100 million wasted in investigations/hearings by the Republicans,  the truth is this that this was just another tragic terrorist attack. Americans are tired of hearing these fabrications being spun by the right. Same with PP. They don't trade in baby parts!  A huge miscalculation all around from the Republican establishment. Thus, there is Donald Trump leading the pack of dunderheads who have been harping unendingly about Benghazi and PP.

Meanwhile, the Republicans in Michigan have poisoned thousands of poor people and you can hear a pin drop in the silence from Cruz, Rubio, Fox News. If Obama had been involved, it be non-stop grandstanding for his impeachment! The Republicans, like Cruz, love playing the evangelical card but if Jesus pops back tomorrow he'd be in Flint helping people while waving his hands to make all guns and the NRA disappear!
ORR - First, thank you very much for your service.  It is interesting that there are other accounts of what happened. Young vets that I know as friends of my kids, and former students have talked about the video being a coverup. It does seem, however, that there are a lot of conflicts in accounts but what I don't understand is that Ambassador Stevens kept asking for more security and didn't get it. And that the accounts of the survivors tell a different story from the first "official" once blaming the attack on an inflammatory video, and the discrepancy in Clinton's email to her family that it was a terrorist attack. The families of those who died in the attack have a story that conflicts with Clinton's version.  

This is not a Republican issue. And, the EPA is run by the Obama Administration which is right now, Democratic. It is an agency under his control. The  Obama Administration has appointed the last three administrators, Jackson, Perciasepe, and McCarthy.  And, I don't care for any evangelical spin because we have a separation of Church and State in place to avoid theocracies and monarchies.
Rick Snyder, the Michigan governor, is a Republican, but the Mayor, Karen Weaver is a Democrat.  Lead in water is serious and having taught kids who were lead-paint poisoned, and who needed a great deal of early intervention, I share your outrage. Millions of dollars went to educate kids who were lead poisoned.  And the chemical companies had to be forced to remove it from paint and other products.    

What is interesting in the PP issue is that "if" the charging documents mention "fetal tissue" - then there was something on the PP end to sell.  

Did you listen to the BB's while in the service?  

Thank you again for your service.   ;)

Regarding the security, first, it wouldn't have helped as it would've been the wrong location; second, it's very much a hindsight thing to point to insufficient security as suspicious. The departments have to make decisions of where to put money and fighting power - these things aren't infinite - and there were plenty of hotspots. Obviously they didn't know this was going to happen. In hindsight, if there were more fighting power at that location things would've played out differently but that doesn't mean someone beforehand could've predicted that that was the spot where more security should go out of all the hotspots. Multiple locations were requesting more security.
Regarding the spin and various accounts, one can't expect the full story to ever really be clear let alone the day after; it is clear that there were film-related protests simultaneous to the attack. It's not indicative of a conspiracy or cover-up that things clarified over time. People require, rather unreasonably in my opinion, their public officials to supply an explanation immediately, before the officials have gathered and analyzed the data; then they unreasonably attack the officials if the immediate explanation turns out to be flawed. Also, as someone who apparently works in the law, you must be aware that first-hand accounts can only show the perspective of that person - not the whole picture - and how we would imagine the accounts of families of victims who have died would be useful testimony regarding what occurred, I have no idea.  
So, the government erred in providing the public, upon demand, with a premature and flawed explanation. That's what it comes down to.
Regarding PP, no one's suggested they didn't have tissue; of course they did. What there's no evidence for is that they sold or ever intended to sell it.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on January 28, 2016, 09:38:04 AM
Benghazi is just more snake oil from the right. I am a veteran and most of my veteran friends were smart enough to get the real facts for themselves. Clinton did nothing wrong and after more hearings than 9/11 and more than $100 million wasted in investigations/hearings by the Republicans,  the truth is this that this was just another tragic terrorist attack. Americans are tired of hearing these fabrications being spun by the right. Same with PP. They don't trade in baby parts!  A huge miscalculation all around from the Republican establishment. Thus, there is Donald Trump leading the pack of dunderheads who have been harping unendingly about Benghazi and PP.

Meanwhile, the Republicans in Michigan have poisoned thousands of poor people and you can hear a pin drop in the silence from Cruz, Rubio, Fox News. If Obama had been involved, it be non-stop grandstanding for his impeachment! The Republicans, like Cruz, love playing the evangelical card but if Jesus pops back tomorrow he'd be in Flint helping people while waving his hands to make all guns and the NRA disappear!
ORR - First, thank you very much for your service.  It is interesting that there are other accounts of what happened. Young vets that I know as friends of my kids, and former students have talked about the video being a coverup. It does seem, however, that there are a lot of conflicts in accounts but what I don't understand is that Ambassador Stevens kept asking for more security and didn't get it. And that the accounts of the survivors tell a different story from the first "official" once blaming the attack on an inflammatory video, and the discrepancy in Clinton's email to her family that it was a terrorist attack. The families of those who died in the attack have a story that conflicts with Clinton's version.  

This is not a Republican issue. And, the EPA is run by the Obama Administration which is right now, Democratic. It is an agency under his control. The  Obama Administration has appointed the last three administrators, Jackson, Perciasepe, and McCarthy.  And, I don't care for any evangelical spin because we have a separation of Church and State in place to avoid theocracies and monarchies.
Rick Snyder, the Michigan governor, is a Republican, but the Mayor, Karen Weaver is a Democrat.  Lead in water is serious and having taught kids who were lead-paint poisoned, and who needed a great deal of early intervention, I share your outrage. Millions of dollars went to educate kids who were lead poisoned.  And the chemical companies had to be forced to remove it from paint and other products.    

What is interesting in the PP issue is that "if" the charging documents mention "fetal tissue" - then there was something on the PP end to sell.  

Did you listen to the BB's while in the service?  

Thank you again for your service.   ;)

Regarding the security, first, it wouldn't have helped as it would've been the wrong location; second, it's very much a hindsight thing to point to insufficient security as suspicious. The departments have to make decisions of where to put money and fighting power - these things aren't infinite - and there were plenty of hotspots. Obviously they didn't know this was going to happen. In hindsight, if there were more fighting power at that location things would've played out differently but that doesn't mean someone beforehand could've predicted that that was the spot where more security should go out of all the hotspots. Multiple locations were requesting more security.
Regarding the spin and various accounts, one can't expect the full story to ever really be clear let alone the day after; it is clear that there were film-related protests simultaneous to the attack. It's not indicative of a conspiracy or cover-up that things clarified over time. People require, rather unreasonably in my opinion, their public officials to supply an explanation immediately, before the officials have gathered and analyzed the data; then they unreasonably attack the officials if the immediate explanation turns out to be flawed. Also, as someone who apparently works in the law, you must be aware that first-hand accounts can only show the perspective of that person - not the whole picture - and how we would imagine the accounts of families of victims who have died would be useful testimony regarding what occurred, I have no idea.  
So, the government erred in providing the public, upon demand, with a premature and flawed explanation. That's what it comes down to.
Regarding PP, no one's suggested they didn't have tissue; of course they did. What there's no evidence for is that they sold or ever intended to sell it.

Emily - An American Ambassador is accorded a heightened level of security beyond whatever might be the routine level.  When an ambassador calls out multiple times for enhanced security - the response is supposed to be "on the way." 

Hillary Clinton has a problem with truthfulness.  And, it is across-the-board, a problem with her campaign.   Credibility.  She doesn't have it. And this issue of a "stand down" order?  These are family survivors who are relying on those who were there.  The story conflicts.  And when emails come out from Clinton's email server which was supposed to be government property on government servers, which were "spoliated" on her order, and arrogantly so, (my opinion) - we have a problem. 

Clinton tells her daughter that it is a "terrorist attack" and she tells the mother of a victim that it was a "viral video."  The mother was recently interviewed on big bad Fox News.  She told the audience that Hillary lied to her next to the body of her son. 

So, she isn't getting a pass and chalking it up to a right wing conspiracy as she is now, is a cop-out.  In 2008, I would gladly have supported her.  Now, not so much.   She has a little problem with the truth.  I'd sooner vote for Bernie Sanders. 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on January 28, 2016, 09:46:44 AM
Benghazi is just more snake oil from the right. I am a veteran and most of my veteran friends were smart enough to get the real facts for themselves. Clinton did nothing wrong and after more hearings than 9/11 and more than $100 million wasted in investigations/hearings by the Republicans,  the truth is this that this was just another tragic terrorist attack. Americans are tired of hearing these fabrications being spun by the right. Same with PP. They don't trade in baby parts!  A huge miscalculation all around from the Republican establishment. Thus, there is Donald Trump leading the pack of dunderheads who have been harping unendingly about Benghazi and PP.

Meanwhile, the Republicans in Michigan have poisoned thousands of poor people and you can hear a pin drop in the silence from Cruz, Rubio, Fox News. If Obama had been involved, it be non-stop grandstanding for his impeachment! The Republicans, like Cruz, love playing the evangelical card but if Jesus pops back tomorrow he'd be in Flint helping people while waving his hands to make all guns and the NRA disappear!
ORR - First, thank you very much for your service.  It is interesting that there are other accounts of what happened. Young vets that I know as friends of my kids, and former students have talked about the video being a coverup. It does seem, however, that there are a lot of conflicts in accounts but what I don't understand is that Ambassador Stevens kept asking for more security and didn't get it. And that the accounts of the survivors tell a different story from the first "official" once blaming the attack on an inflammatory video, and the discrepancy in Clinton's email to her family that it was a terrorist attack. The families of those who died in the attack have a story that conflicts with Clinton's version.  

This is not a Republican issue. And, the EPA is run by the Obama Administration which is right now, Democratic. It is an agency under his control. The  Obama Administration has appointed the last three administrators, Jackson, Perciasepe, and McCarthy.  And, I don't care for any evangelical spin because we have a separation of Church and State in place to avoid theocracies and monarchies.
Rick Snyder, the Michigan governor, is a Republican, but the Mayor, Karen Weaver is a Democrat.  Lead in water is serious and having taught kids who were lead-paint poisoned, and who needed a great deal of early intervention, I share your outrage. Millions of dollars went to educate kids who were lead poisoned.  And the chemical companies had to be forced to remove it from paint and other products.    

What is interesting in the PP issue is that "if" the charging documents mention "fetal tissue" - then there was something on the PP end to sell.  

Did you listen to the BB's while in the service?  

Thank you again for your service.   ;)

Regarding the security, first, it wouldn't have helped as it would've been the wrong location; second, it's very much a hindsight thing to point to insufficient security as suspicious. The departments have to make decisions of where to put money and fighting power - these things aren't infinite - and there were plenty of hotspots. Obviously they didn't know this was going to happen. In hindsight, if there were more fighting power at that location things would've played out differently but that doesn't mean someone beforehand could've predicted that that was the spot where more security should go out of all the hotspots. Multiple locations were requesting more security.
Regarding the spin and various accounts, one can't expect the full story to ever really be clear let alone the day after; it is clear that there were film-related protests simultaneous to the attack. It's not indicative of a conspiracy or cover-up that things clarified over time. People require, rather unreasonably in my opinion, their public officials to supply an explanation immediately, before the officials have gathered and analyzed the data; then they unreasonably attack the officials if the immediate explanation turns out to be flawed. Also, as someone who apparently works in the law, you must be aware that first-hand accounts can only show the perspective of that person - not the whole picture - and how we would imagine the accounts of families of victims who have died would be useful testimony regarding what occurred, I have no idea.  
So, the government erred in providing the public, upon demand, with a premature and flawed explanation. That's what it comes down to.
Regarding PP, no one's suggested they didn't have tissue; of course they did. What there's no evidence for is that they sold or ever intended to sell it.

Emily - An American Ambassador is accorded a heightened level of security beyond whatever might be the routine level.  When an ambassador calls out multiple times for enhanced security - the response is supposed to be "on the way." 

Hillary Clinton has a problem with truthfulness.  And, it is across-the-board, a problem with her campaign.   Credibility.  She doesn't have it. And this issue of a "stand down" order?  These are family survivors who are relying on those who were there.  The story conflicts.  And when emails come out from Clinton's email server which was supposed to be government property on government servers, which were "spoliated" on her order, and arrogantly so, (my opinion) - we have a problem. 

Clinton tells her daughter that it is a "terrorist attack" and she tells the mother of a victim that it was a "viral video."  The mother was recently interviewed on big bad Fox News.  She told the audience that Hillary lied to her next to the body of her son. 

So, she isn't getting a pass and chalking it up to a right wing conspiracy as she is now, is a cop-out.  In 2008, I would gladly have supported her.  Now, not so much.   She has a little problem with the truth.  I'd sooner vote for Bernie Sanders. 
As I said, there were multiple calls for security from many sources, all important. If they said "on the way" to each one, they'd probably have to raise taxes and renew the draft. I mean, have you ever managed a budget and a team of people? Everyone always has an emergency and a desire for more of everything. A big part of a manager's job is saying no. Even to the fancy people who work for you.
I think what you have to say about Hillary Clinton indicates that you are probably not thinking of Benghazi without bias. And the "body of the son" thing is obviously a way to get people to react to that information with emotion, not logic.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on January 28, 2016, 10:10:00 AM
Benghazi is just more snake oil from the right. I am a veteran and most of my veteran friends were smart enough to get the real facts for themselves. Clinton did nothing wrong and after more hearings than 9/11 and more than $100 million wasted in investigations/hearings by the Republicans,  the truth is this that this was just another tragic terrorist attack. Americans are tired of hearing these fabrications being spun by the right. Same with PP. They don't trade in baby parts!  A huge miscalculation all around from the Republican establishment. Thus, there is Donald Trump leading the pack of dunderheads who have been harping unendingly about Benghazi and PP.

Meanwhile, the Republicans in Michigan have poisoned thousands of poor people and you can hear a pin drop in the silence from Cruz, Rubio, Fox News. If Obama had been involved, it be non-stop grandstanding for his impeachment! The Republicans, like Cruz, love playing the evangelical card but if Jesus pops back tomorrow he'd be in Flint helping people while waving his hands to make all guns and the NRA disappear!
ORR - First, thank you very much for your service.  It is interesting that there are other accounts of what happened. Young vets that I know as friends of my kids, and former students have talked about the video being a coverup. It does seem, however, that there are a lot of conflicts in accounts but what I don't understand is that Ambassador Stevens kept asking for more security and didn't get it. And that the accounts of the survivors tell a different story from the first "official" once blaming the attack on an inflammatory video, and the discrepancy in Clinton's email to her family that it was a terrorist attack. The families of those who died in the attack have a story that conflicts with Clinton's version.  

This is not a Republican issue. And, the EPA is run by the Obama Administration which is right now, Democratic. It is an agency under his control. The  Obama Administration has appointed the last three administrators, Jackson, Perciasepe, and McCarthy.  And, I don't care for any evangelical spin because we have a separation of Church and State in place to avoid theocracies and monarchies.
Rick Snyder, the Michigan governor, is a Republican, but the Mayor, Karen Weaver is a Democrat.  Lead in water is serious and having taught kids who were lead-paint poisoned, and who needed a great deal of early intervention, I share your outrage. Millions of dollars went to educate kids who were lead poisoned.  And the chemical companies had to be forced to remove it from paint and other products.    

What is interesting in the PP issue is that "if" the charging documents mention "fetal tissue" - then there was something on the PP end to sell.  

Did you listen to the BB's while in the service?  

Thank you again for your service.   ;)

Regarding the security, first, it wouldn't have helped as it would've been the wrong location; second, it's very much a hindsight thing to point to insufficient security as suspicious. The departments have to make decisions of where to put money and fighting power - these things aren't infinite - and there were plenty of hotspots. Obviously they didn't know this was going to happen. In hindsight, if there were more fighting power at that location things would've played out differently but that doesn't mean someone beforehand could've predicted that that was the spot where more security should go out of all the hotspots. Multiple locations were requesting more security.
Regarding the spin and various accounts, one can't expect the full story to ever really be clear let alone the day after; it is clear that there were film-related protests simultaneous to the attack. It's not indicative of a conspiracy or cover-up that things clarified over time. People require, rather unreasonably in my opinion, their public officials to supply an explanation immediately, before the officials have gathered and analyzed the data; then they unreasonably attack the officials if the immediate explanation turns out to be flawed. Also, as someone who apparently works in the law, you must be aware that first-hand accounts can only show the perspective of that person - not the whole picture - and how we would imagine the accounts of families of victims who have died would be useful testimony regarding what occurred, I have no idea.  
So, the government erred in providing the public, upon demand, with a premature and flawed explanation. That's what it comes down to.
Regarding PP, no one's suggested they didn't have tissue; of course they did. What there's no evidence for is that they sold or ever intended to sell it.

Emily - An American Ambassador is accorded a heightened level of security beyond whatever might be the routine level.  When an ambassador calls out multiple times for enhanced security - the response is supposed to be "on the way." 

Hillary Clinton has a problem with truthfulness.  And, it is across-the-board, a problem with her campaign.   Credibility.  She doesn't have it. And this issue of a "stand down" order?  These are family survivors who are relying on those who were there.  The story conflicts.  And when emails come out from Clinton's email server which was supposed to be government property on government servers, which were "spoliated" on her order, and arrogantly so, (my opinion) - we have a problem. 

Clinton tells her daughter that it is a "terrorist attack" and she tells the mother of a victim that it was a "viral video."  The mother was recently interviewed on big bad Fox News.  She told the audience that Hillary lied to her next to the body of her son. 

So, she isn't getting a pass and chalking it up to a right wing conspiracy as she is now, is a cop-out.  In 2008, I would gladly have supported her.  Now, not so much.   She has a little problem with the truth.  I'd sooner vote for Bernie Sanders. 
As I said, there were multiple calls for security from many sources, all important. If they said "on the way" to each one, they'd probably have to raise taxes and renew the draft. I mean, have you ever managed a budget and a team of people? Everyone always has an emergency and a desire for more of everything. A big part of a manager's job is saying no. Even to the fancy people who work for you.
I think what you have to say about Hillary Clinton indicates that you are probably not thinking of Benghazi without bias. And the "body of the son" thing is obviously a way to get people to react to that information with emotion, not logic.
Emily - An American Ambassador is as close to the top. They get their jobs for political reasons.  They are treated like royalty as are their families when they are posted in those positions. They are housed, have domestic staff, drivers, the works. But they are generally given layers of security, both from State Dept. who oversee and coordinate their work as well as local security. 

This is ineptitude and damage control to minimize what was actually going on. It is consistent with the ISIS is a "JV team" nonsense.  And, any management roles, I have held, are immaterial on this forum. This is not about me.  This is about foreign policy gone wrong and an utter lack of transparency.   

They were not renewing the draft for any ambassador.  More than one family member was told the same b.s. story about a video as were the American people. An ambassador should not have to ask twice for security.  It falsely represented what the actual danger was.   They lied.  Now they are sorry, because they got caught. 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on January 28, 2016, 10:36:55 AM

As I said, there were multiple calls for security from many sources, all important. If they said "on the way" to each one, they'd probably have to raise taxes and renew the draft. I mean, have you ever managed a budget and a team of people? Everyone always has an emergency and a desire for more of everything. A big part of a manager's job is saying no. Even to the fancy people who work for you.
I think what you have to say about Hillary Clinton indicates that you are probably not thinking of Benghazi without bias. And the "body of the son" thing is obviously a way to get people to react to that information with emotion, not logic.
Emily - An American Ambassador is as close to the top. They get their jobs for political reasons.  They are treated like royalty as are their families when they are posted in those positions. They are housed, have domestic staff, drivers, the works. But they are generally given layers of security, both from State Dept. who oversee and coordinate their work as well as local security. 

This is ineptitude and damage control to minimize what was actually going on. It is consistent with the ISIS is a "JV team" nonsense.  And, any management roles, I have held, are immaterial on this forum. This is not about me.  This is about foreign policy gone wrong and an utter lack of transparency.   

They were not renewing the draft for any ambassador.  More than one family member was told the same b.s. story about a video as were the American people. An ambassador should not have to ask twice for security.  It falsely represented what the actual danger was.   They lied.  Now they are sorry, because they got caught. 
Hi FdP, I know that embassies are fancy digs and that they have a lot of security. I'm just saying that the Cabinet Secretaries have limited resources to deal with and they have a lot of people insisting that they have an emergency and need those resources, like any manager (I didn't mean to make that about you - I was just saying that this is the usual experience with a management position). I'm sure many ambassadors have asked many times for more security and never gotten it because resources are limited.
Regarding the video, the protesters were there. I don't believe there was a false representation.
But really the point is that I think it's evident that people predisposed to think it's a scandalous conspiracy think it's a scandalous conspiracy while people predisposed not to don't so there won't be many vote changes over it.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on January 28, 2016, 11:18:56 AM

As I said, there were multiple calls for security from many sources, all important. If they said "on the way" to each one, they'd probably have to raise taxes and renew the draft. I mean, have you ever managed a budget and a team of people? Everyone always has an emergency and a desire for more of everything. A big part of a manager's job is saying no. Even to the fancy people who work for you.
I think what you have to say about Hillary Clinton indicates that you are probably not thinking of Benghazi without bias. And the "body of the son" thing is obviously a way to get people to react to that information with emotion, not logic.
Emily - An American Ambassador is as close to the top. They get their jobs for political reasons.  They are treated like royalty as are their families when they are posted in those positions. They are housed, have domestic staff, drivers, the works. But they are generally given layers of security, both from State Dept. who oversee and coordinate their work as well as local security.  

This is ineptitude and damage control to minimize what was actually going on. It is consistent with the ISIS is a "JV team" nonsense.  And, any management roles, I have held, are immaterial on this forum. This is not about me.  This is about foreign policy gone wrong and an utter lack of transparency.    

They were not renewing the draft for any ambassador.  More than one family member was told the same b.s. story about a video as were the American people. An ambassador should not have to ask twice for security.  It falsely represented what the actual danger was.   They lied.  Now they are sorry, because they got caught.  
Hi FdP, I know that embassies are fancy digs and that they have a lot of security. I'm just saying that the Cabinet Secretaries have limited resources to deal with and they have a lot of people insisting that they have an emergency and need those resources, like any manager (I didn't mean to make that about you - I was just saying that this is the usual experience with a management position). I'm sure many ambassadors have asked many times for more security and never gotten it because resources are limited.
Regarding the video, the protesters were there. I don't believe there was a false representation.
But really the point is that I think it's evident that people predisposed to think it's a scandalous conspiracy think it's a scandalous conspiracy while people predisposed not to don't so there won't be many vote changes over it.
Emily - no one would like to see a woman president more than I would. It is long overdue. Not her.  

That said, the history with The Clinton Foundation, the guest speaking deal, and now this, has put lives in danger.  She did not appoint the ambassadors, they are on the President's list after the election.  

The State Dept. have career employees  who see the political people come and go and instruct the ambassadors and their families on protocol, etc. with actual training and orientation to that specific country.  It is not a tail-gate operation.  When an ambassador calls for help - and now we have seven is killed in the line of duty, a red flag goes up to protect them.  Mark Lippert was slashed in the face in Seoul.  They all serve "at the pleasure" of the President.  Some are in inherent danger because of the posting location.  So when they want security, they generally get it without delay.    

It is not so much a conspiracy as recognizing ineptitude and damage control. It is a pattern of misconduct in my opinion, from the outset that her email server was not the official one as it fostered a policy of non-accountability among her staff.      

No amount of damage control and press release restraint to minimize "political damage at home" because of her political aspiration to be President, is excusable with a loss of life.  This one is on her and she needs to own it.  She would have done better to admit she messed up, said she was profoundly sorry and not participated in a nonsense defense of a viral video.  Last night there was a $2,700 fundraiser for Clinton, where they cut the ticket price to $50. That was in the Daily Mail.  We will see with these primaries.  

Only in the last few years, have I started watching Fox to balance the other liberal media I watch. I am impressed because even if they disagree philosophically they invite everyone to have their say.  A lot of their coverage is linked in yahoo news and they seemed to get the story, and the controversial guests, first.  I was intrigued but had followed Greta van Sustern on CNN and O'Reilly in another market where he started out.  

Last night O'Reilly interviewed Trump to try to convince him to participate in their debate and let go of what took place with Megan Kelly.  He was reasonable, respectful, and didn't convince Trump, but made real headway with a candidate who is writing his own ticket.  Trump did not control O'Reilly, nor did he disrespect him.  O'Reilly opened the door in a masterful way, didn't corner him, and reached him very professionally.  Trump was not changing his plans, of course, but seemed to be "disarmed" by O'Reilly's line of questions and discussion.  He even smiled a couple of times.  Every network has a philosophy and agenda.  That is a given.  But, they have had the Benghazi families on, and their story is a compelling one.  And Fox had the exclusive.  So that is where I went to hear their side.   ;)      


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on January 28, 2016, 11:37:25 AM

As I said, there were multiple calls for security from many sources, all important. If they said "on the way" to each one, they'd probably have to raise taxes and renew the draft. I mean, have you ever managed a budget and a team of people? Everyone always has an emergency and a desire for more of everything. A big part of a manager's job is saying no. Even to the fancy people who work for you.
I think what you have to say about Hillary Clinton indicates that you are probably not thinking of Benghazi without bias. And the "body of the son" thing is obviously a way to get people to react to that information with emotion, not logic.
Emily - An American Ambassador is as close to the top. They get their jobs for political reasons.  They are treated like royalty as are their families when they are posted in those positions. They are housed, have domestic staff, drivers, the works. But they are generally given layers of security, both from State Dept. who oversee and coordinate their work as well as local security. 

This is ineptitude and damage control to minimize what was actually going on. It is consistent with the ISIS is a "JV team" nonsense.  And, any management roles, I have held, are immaterial on this forum. This is not about me.  This is about foreign policy gone wrong and an utter lack of transparency.   

They were not renewing the draft for any ambassador.  More than one family member was told the same b.s. story about a video as were the American people. An ambassador should not have to ask twice for security.  It falsely represented what the actual danger was.   They lied.  Now they are sorry, because they got caught. 
Hi FdP, I know that embassies are fancy digs and that they have a lot of security. I'm just saying that the Cabinet Secretaries have limited resources to deal with and they have a lot of people insisting that they have an emergency and need those resources, like any manager (I didn't mean to make that about you - I was just saying that this is the usual experience with a management position). I'm sure many ambassadors have asked many times for more security and never gotten it because resources are limited.
Regarding the video, the protesters were there. I don't believe there was a false representation.
But really the point is that I think it's evident that people predisposed to think it's a scandalous conspiracy think it's a scandalous conspiracy while people predisposed not to don't so there won't be many vote changes over it.
Emily - no one would like to see a woman president than I would. It is long overdue. Not her. 

That said, the history with The Clinton Foundation, the guest speaking deal, and now this, has put lives in danger.  She did not appoint the ambassadors, they are on the President's list after the election. 

The State Dept. have career employees  who see the political people come and go and instruct the ambassadors and their families on protocol, etc. with actual training and orientation to that specific country.  It is not a tail-gate operation.  When an ambassador calls for help - and now we have seven is killed in the line of duty, a red flag goes up to protect them.  Mark Lippert was slashed in the face in Seoul.  They all serve "at the pleasure" of the President.  Some are in inherent danger because of the posting location.  So when they want security, they generally get it without delay.   

It is not so much a conspiracy as recognizing ineptitude and damage control. It is a pattern of misconduct in my opinion, from the outset that her email server was not the official one as it fostered a policy of non-accountability among her staff.     

No amount of damage control and press release restraint to minimize "political damage at home" because of her political aspiration to be President, is excusable with a loss of life.  This one is on her and she needs to own it.  She would have done better to admit she messed up, said she was profoundly sorry and not participated in a nonsense defense of a viral video.  Last night there was a $2,700 fundraiser for Clinton, where they cut the ticket price to $50. That was in the Daily Mail.  We will see with these primaries. 

Only in the last few years, have I started watching Fox to balance the other liberal media I watch. I am impressed because even if they disagree philosophically they invite everyone to have their say.  A lot of their coverage is linked in yahoo news and they seemed to get the story, and the controversial guests, first.  I was intrigued but had followed Greta van Sustern on CNN and O'Reilly in another market where he started out. 

Last night O'Reilly interviewed Trump to try to convince him to participate in their debate and let go of what took place with Megan Kelly.  He was reasonable, respectful, and didn't convince Trump, but made real headway with a candidate who is writing his own ticket.  Trump did not control O'Reilly, nor did he disrespect him.  O'Reilly opened the door in a masterful way, didn't corner him, and reached him very professionally.  Trump was not changing his plans, of course, but seemed to be "disarmed" by O'Reilly's line of questions and discussion.  He even smiled a couple of times.  Every network has a philosophy and agenda.  That is a given.  But, they have had the Benghazi families on, and their story is a compelling one.  And Fox had the exclusive.  So that is where I went to hear their side.   ;)     
Hi FdP,
I'm aware of the structure of the Foreign Service. Thanks though.
You and I will not agree on Benghazi. I, like many many people, think it's a non-issue. But I'm willing to agree that I was probably predisposed to think so.
You, like many many people, think there's a scandal there. But I expect you were probably predisposed to.
Fox, O'Reilly, Trump, controversial guests, family members - I don't take any of that seriously as news sources or as people who consider, or are even interested in considering, the issues of the day at a serious level.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on January 28, 2016, 11:48:10 AM

As I said, there were multiple calls for security from many sources, all important. If they said "on the way" to each one, they'd probably have to raise taxes and renew the draft. I mean, have you ever managed a budget and a team of people? Everyone always has an emergency and a desire for more of everything. A big part of a manager's job is saying no. Even to the fancy people who work for you.
I think what you have to say about Hillary Clinton indicates that you are probably not thinking of Benghazi without bias. And the "body of the son" thing is obviously a way to get people to react to that information with emotion, not logic.
Emily - An American Ambassador is as close to the top. They get their jobs for political reasons.  They are treated like royalty as are their families when they are posted in those positions. They are housed, have domestic staff, drivers, the works. But they are generally given layers of security, both from State Dept. who oversee and coordinate their work as well as local security. 

This is ineptitude and damage control to minimize what was actually going on. It is consistent with the ISIS is a "JV team" nonsense.  And, any management roles, I have held, are immaterial on this forum. This is not about me.  This is about foreign policy gone wrong and an utter lack of transparency.   

They were not renewing the draft for any ambassador.  More than one family member was told the same b.s. story about a video as were the American people. An ambassador should not have to ask twice for security.  It falsely represented what the actual danger was.   They lied.  Now they are sorry, because they got caught. 
Hi FdP, I know that embassies are fancy digs and that they have a lot of security. I'm just saying that the Cabinet Secretaries have limited resources to deal with and they have a lot of people insisting that they have an emergency and need those resources, like any manager (I didn't mean to make that about you - I was just saying that this is the usual experience with a management position). I'm sure many ambassadors have asked many times for more security and never gotten it because resources are limited.
Regarding the video, the protesters were there. I don't believe there was a false representation.
But really the point is that I think it's evident that people predisposed to think it's a scandalous conspiracy think it's a scandalous conspiracy while people predisposed not to don't so there won't be many vote changes over it.
Emily - no one would like to see a woman president than I would. It is long overdue. Not her. 

That said, the history with The Clinton Foundation, the guest speaking deal, and now this, has put lives in danger.  She did not appoint the ambassadors, they are on the President's list after the election. 

The State Dept. have career employees  who see the political people come and go and instruct the ambassadors and their families on protocol, etc. with actual training and orientation to that specific country.  It is not a tail-gate operation.  When an ambassador calls for help - and now we have seven is killed in the line of duty, a red flag goes up to protect them.  Mark Lippert was slashed in the face in Seoul.  They all serve "at the pleasure" of the President.  Some are in inherent danger because of the posting location.  So when they want security, they generally get it without delay.   

It is not so much a conspiracy as recognizing ineptitude and damage control. It is a pattern of misconduct in my opinion, from the outset that her email server was not the official one as it fostered a policy of non-accountability among her staff.     

No amount of damage control and press release restraint to minimize "political damage at home" because of her political aspiration to be President, is excusable with a loss of life.  This one is on her and she needs to own it.  She would have done better to admit she messed up, said she was profoundly sorry and not participated in a nonsense defense of a viral video.  Last night there was a $2,700 fundraiser for Clinton, where they cut the ticket price to $50. That was in the Daily Mail.  We will see with these primaries. 

Only in the last few years, have I started watching Fox to balance the other liberal media I watch. I am impressed because even if they disagree philosophically they invite everyone to have their say.  A lot of their coverage is linked in yahoo news and they seemed to get the story, and the controversial guests, first.  I was intrigued but had followed Greta van Sustern on CNN and O'Reilly in another market where he started out. 

Last night O'Reilly interviewed Trump to try to convince him to participate in their debate and let go of what took place with Megan Kelly.  He was reasonable, respectful, and didn't convince Trump, but made real headway with a candidate who is writing his own ticket.  Trump did not control O'Reilly, nor did he disrespect him.  O'Reilly opened the door in a masterful way, didn't corner him, and reached him very professionally.  Trump was not changing his plans, of course, but seemed to be "disarmed" by O'Reilly's line of questions and discussion.  He even smiled a couple of times.  Every network has a philosophy and agenda.  That is a given.  But, they have had the Benghazi families on, and their story is a compelling one.  And Fox had the exclusive.  So that is where I went to hear their side.   ;)     
Hi FdP,
I'm aware of the structure of the Foreign Service. Thanks though.
You and I will not agree on Benghazi. I, like many many people, think it's a non-issue. But I'm willing to agree that I was probably predisposed to think so.
You, like many many people, think there's a scandal there. But I expect you were probably predisposed to.
Fox, O'Reilly, Trump, controversial guests, family members - I don't take any of that seriously as news sources or as people who consider, or are even interested in considering, the issues of the day at a serious level.
Emily - that is a very "dismissive"position on both the network and the importance of Benghazi and the email debacle in this election.  It is the whole attitude that there is a certain immunity from scrutiny that the Dems have acquired in the last couple of decades.

It is almost shocking when Fox looks for an interview with certain politicians and disrespectfully shout at the reporter saying "Fox is not news."  And O'Reilly came from ABC and it's affiliates.  Just sayin'.  ;) 


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: drbeachboy on January 28, 2016, 12:06:07 PM
It seems that some/most people are more wrapped up in their political affiliation than the actual issues out there. I always get the feeling the political parties are there just to brainwash us into thinking their way is the only way. I always used to think of parties as a philosophy, but they are now just a way to hide or brush-off bad ideas and behaviors.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on January 28, 2016, 06:23:16 PM
Hi FdP,
I'm aware of the structure of the Foreign Service. Thanks though.
You and I will not agree on Benghazi. I, like many many people, think it's a non-issue. But I'm willing to agree that I was probably predisposed to think so.
You, like many many people, think there's a scandal there. But I expect you were probably predisposed to.
Fox, O'Reilly, Trump, controversial guests, family members - I don't take any of that seriously as news sources or as people who consider, or are even interested in considering, the issues of the day at a serious level.
Emily - that is a very "dismissive"position on both the network and the importance of Benghazi and the email debacle in this election.  It is the whole attitude that there is a certain immunity from scrutiny that the Dems have acquired in the last couple of decades.

It is almost shocking when Fox looks for an interview with certain politicians and disrespectfully shout at the reporter saying "Fox is not news."  And O'Reilly came from ABC and it's affiliates.  Just sayin'.  ;) 
I think it's a matter of perspective. A lot of Democrats feel that Republicans get a pass on malfeasance and a lot of Republicans feel that Democrats do. I think the only people who perceive a difference are those who are very biased.
Regarding ABC, I don't really take any network news seriously.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on January 29, 2016, 07:24:07 AM
Hi FdP,
I'm aware of the structure of the Foreign Service. Thanks though.
You and I will not agree on Benghazi. I, like many many people, think it's a non-issue. But I'm willing to agree that I was probably predisposed to think so.
You, like many many people, think there's a scandal there. But I expect you were probably predisposed to.
Fox, O'Reilly, Trump, controversial guests, family members - I don't take any of that seriously as news sources or as people who consider, or are even interested in considering, the issues of the day at a serious level.
Emily - that is a very "dismissive"position on both the network and the importance of Benghazi and the email debacle in this election.  It is the whole attitude that there is a certain immunity from scrutiny that the Dems have acquired in the last couple of decades.

It is almost shocking when Fox looks for an interview with certain politicians and disrespectfully shout at the reporter saying "Fox is not news."  And O'Reilly came from ABC and it's affiliates.  Just sayin'.  ;) 
I think it's a matter of perspective. A lot of Democrats feel that Republicans get a pass on malfeasance and a lot of Republicans feel that Democrats do. I think the only people who perceive a difference are those who are very biased.
Regarding ABC, I don't really take any network news seriously.
Emily - it is of no consequence as to who is involved in wrong-doing.  Prosecute them all. 

Taking one's information from one network "brand" is being uninformed in my opinion. But, I do tend to wonder about the disrespect towards Fox.  Politicians are only afraid of public embarrassment.  And politics used to be focused on  the "ground game" with a few well-placed radio ads and now TV ads, 

Now, the media is an equal player with the "ground game" of stand-outs at high volume traffic areas, hand-shakes outside of bingo halls, supermarkets, senior citizen events, polling, etc. 

JMHO


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on January 29, 2016, 08:21:27 AM
Hi FdP,
I'm aware of the structure of the Foreign Service. Thanks though.
You and I will not agree on Benghazi. I, like many many people, think it's a non-issue. But I'm willing to agree that I was probably predisposed to think so.
You, like many many people, think there's a scandal there. But I expect you were probably predisposed to.
Fox, O'Reilly, Trump, controversial guests, family members - I don't take any of that seriously as news sources or as people who consider, or are even interested in considering, the issues of the day at a serious level.
Emily - that is a very "dismissive"position on both the network and the importance of Benghazi and the email debacle in this election.  It is the whole attitude that there is a certain immunity from scrutiny that the Dems have acquired in the last couple of decades.

It is almost shocking when Fox looks for an interview with certain politicians and disrespectfully shout at the reporter saying "Fox is not news."  And O'Reilly came from ABC and it's affiliates.  Just sayin'.  ;) 
I think it's a matter of perspective. A lot of Democrats feel that Republicans get a pass on malfeasance and a lot of Republicans feel that Democrats do. I think the only people who perceive a difference are those who are very biased.
Regarding ABC, I don't really take any network news seriously.
Emily - it is of no consequence as to who is involved in wrong-doing.  Prosecute them all. 

Taking one's information from one network "brand" is being uninformed in my opinion. But, I do tend to wonder about the disrespect towards Fox.  Politicians are only afraid of public embarrassment.  And politics used to be focused on  the "ground game" with a few well-placed radio ads and now TV ads, 

Now, the media is an equal player with the "ground game" of stand-outs at high volume traffic areas, hand-shakes outside of bingo halls, supermarkets, senior citizen events, polling, etc. 

JMHO
Part of what I was saying is that Rupublicans think Democrats get away with malfeasance when it isn't there and vice versa.
I don't think getting one's information from any TV network is a very good idea at this point. They are all hyping so much to get viewers away from the Internet that none are serious. They are all just melodrama and no more.
If the politicians who disrespect Fox News publicly believed that their voters had any respect for Fox News, they wouldn't disrespect them publicly. I suspect that many right-wing politicians disrespect Fox News privately, but they know their voters don't, so they keep it private.
Yes, mass media has become more important for campaigns, mainly because it's become a bigger part of the population's focus.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on January 29, 2016, 08:39:10 AM
Hi FdP,
I'm aware of the structure of the Foreign Service. Thanks though.
You and I will not agree on Benghazi. I, like many many people, think it's a non-issue. But I'm willing to agree that I was probably predisposed to think so.
You, like many many people, think there's a scandal there. But I expect you were probably predisposed to.
Fox, O'Reilly, Trump, controversial guests, family members - I don't take any of that seriously as news sources or as people who consider, or are even interested in considering, the issues of the day at a serious level.
Emily - that is a very "dismissive"position on both the network and the importance of Benghazi and the email debacle in this election.  It is the whole attitude that there is a certain immunity from scrutiny that the Dems have acquired in the last couple of decades.

It is almost shocking when Fox looks for an interview with certain politicians and disrespectfully shout at the reporter saying "Fox is not news."  And O'Reilly came from ABC and it's affiliates.  Just sayin'.  ;) 
I think it's a matter of perspective. A lot of Democrats feel that Republicans get a pass on malfeasance and a lot of Republicans feel that Democrats do. I think the only people who perceive a difference are those who are very biased.
Regarding ABC, I don't really take any network news seriously.
Emily - it is of no consequence as to who is involved in wrong-doing.  Prosecute them all. 

Taking one's information from one network "brand" is being uninformed in my opinion. But, I do tend to wonder about the disrespect towards Fox.  Politicians are only afraid of public embarrassment.  And politics used to be focused on  the "ground game" with a few well-placed radio ads and now TV ads, 

Now, the media is an equal player with the "ground game" of stand-outs at high volume traffic areas, hand-shakes outside of bingo halls, supermarkets, senior citizen events, polling, etc. 

JMHO
Part of what I was saying is that Rupublicans think Democrats get away with malfeasance when it isn't there and vice versa.
I don't think getting one's information from any TV network is a very good idea at this point. They are all hyping so much to get viewers away from the Internet that none are serious. They are all just melodrama and no more.
If the politicians who disrespect Fox News publicly believed that their voters had any respect for Fox News, they wouldn't disrespect them publicly. I suspect that many right-wing politicians disrespect Fox News privately, but they know their voters don't, so they keep it private.
Yes, mass media has become more important for campaigns, mainly because it's become a bigger part of the population's focus.
So, Emily, where does one get the news? 

Fox Business is the number one news network.   It is too bad that it is subscription-based because not everyone can access it.

There is a perception of selective enforcement of the laws.  Tags like right-wing and left-wing are big turnoffs to me.  There are shades of moderation in both.   ;)


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: Emily on January 29, 2016, 09:39:24 AM
Hi FdP,
I'm aware of the structure of the Foreign Service. Thanks though.
You and I will not agree on Benghazi. I, like many many people, think it's a non-issue. But I'm willing to agree that I was probably predisposed to think so.
You, like many many people, think there's a scandal there. But I expect you were probably predisposed to.
Fox, O'Reilly, Trump, controversial guests, family members - I don't take any of that seriously as news sources or as people who consider, or are even interested in considering, the issues of the day at a serious level.
Emily - that is a very "dismissive"position on both the network and the importance of Benghazi and the email debacle in this election.  It is the whole attitude that there is a certain immunity from scrutiny that the Dems have acquired in the last couple of decades.

It is almost shocking when Fox looks for an interview with certain politicians and disrespectfully shout at the reporter saying "Fox is not news."  And O'Reilly came from ABC and it's affiliates.  Just sayin'.  ;) 
I think it's a matter of perspective. A lot of Democrats feel that Republicans get a pass on malfeasance and a lot of Republicans feel that Democrats do. I think the only people who perceive a difference are those who are very biased.
Regarding ABC, I don't really take any network news seriously.
Emily - it is of no consequence as to who is involved in wrong-doing.  Prosecute them all. 

Taking one's information from one network "brand" is being uninformed in my opinion. But, I do tend to wonder about the disrespect towards Fox.  Politicians are only afraid of public embarrassment.  And politics used to be focused on  the "ground game" with a few well-placed radio ads and now TV ads, 

Now, the media is an equal player with the "ground game" of stand-outs at high volume traffic areas, hand-shakes outside of bingo halls, supermarkets, senior citizen events, polling, etc. 

JMHO
Part of what I was saying is that Rupublicans think Democrats get away with malfeasance when it isn't there and vice versa.
I don't think getting one's information from any TV network is a very good idea at this point. They are all hyping so much to get viewers away from the Internet that none are serious. They are all just melodrama and no more.
If the politicians who disrespect Fox News publicly believed that their voters had any respect for Fox News, they wouldn't disrespect them publicly. I suspect that many right-wing politicians disrespect Fox News privately, but they know their voters don't, so they keep it private.
Yes, mass media has become more important for campaigns, mainly because it's become a bigger part of the population's focus.
So, Emily, where does one get the news? 

Fox Business is the number one news network.   It is too bad that it is subscription-based because not everyone can access it.

There is a perception of selective enforcement of the laws.  Tags like right-wing and left-wing are big turnoffs to me.  There are shades of moderation in both.   ;)
I see that Fox Business had the most viewers one week due to hosting a debate. That says nothing about its quality. In what other way is it number one?
One can find serious current events news writing and analysis in some print periodicals and on some websites.
When I say 'right wing' or 'left wing' I am not talking about moderates.
Agreed, both 'wings' think that there is selective enforcement of the law by and for the other 'wing'.


Title: Re: Planned Parenthood exposed -- CAUTION
Post by: filledeplage on January 29, 2016, 10:40:51 AM
Hi FdP,
I'm aware of the structure of the Foreign Service. Thanks though.
You and I will not agree on Benghazi. I, like many many people, think it's a non-issue. But I'm willing to agree that I was probably predisposed to think so.
You, like many many people, think there's a scandal there. But I expect you were probably predisposed to.
Fox, O'Reilly, Trump, controversial guests, family members - I don't take any of that seriously as news sources or as people who consider, or are even interested in considering, the issues of the day at a serious level.
Emily - that is a very "dismissive"position on both the network and the importance of Benghazi and the email debacle in this election.  It is the whole attitude that there is a certain immunity from scrutiny that the Dems have acquired in the last couple of decades.

It is almost shocking when Fox looks for an interview with certain politicians and disrespectfully shout at the reporter saying "Fox is not news."  And O'Reilly came from ABC and it's affiliates.  Just sayin'.  ;) 
I think it's a matter of perspective. A lot of Democrats feel that Republicans get a pass on malfeasance and a lot of Republicans feel that Democrats do. I think the only people who perceive a difference are those who are very biased.
Regarding ABC, I don't really take any network news seriously.
Emily - it is of no consequence as to who is involved in wrong-doing.  Prosecute them all. 

Taking one's information from one network "brand" is being uninformed in my opinion. But, I do tend to wonder about the disrespect towards Fox.  Politicians are only afraid of public embarrassment.  And politics used to be focused on  the "ground game" with a few well-placed radio ads and now TV ads, 

Now, the media is an equal player with the "ground game" of stand-outs at high volume traffic areas, hand-shakes outside of bingo halls, supermarkets, senior citizen events, polling, etc. 

JMHO
Part of what I was saying is that Rupublicans think Democrats get away with malfeasance when it isn't there and vice versa.
I don't think getting one's information from any TV network is a very good idea at this point. They are all hyping so much to get viewers away from the Internet that none are serious. They are all just melodrama and no more.
If the politicians who disrespect Fox News publicly believed that their voters had any respect for Fox News, they wouldn't disrespect them publicly. I suspect that many right-wing politicians disrespect Fox News privately, but they know their voters don't, so they keep it private.
Yes, mass media has become more important for campaigns, mainly because it's become a bigger part of the population's focus.
So, Emily, where does one get the news? 

Fox Business is the number one news network.   It is too bad that it is subscription-based because not everyone can access it.

There is a perception of selective enforcement of the laws.  Tags like right-wing and left-wing are big turnoffs to me.  There are shades of moderation in both.   ;)
I see that Fox Business had the most viewers one week due to hosting a debate. That says nothing about its quality. In what other way is it number one?
One can find serious current events news writing and analysis in some print periodicals and on some websites.
When I say 'right wing' or 'left wing' I am not talking about moderates.
Agreed, both 'wings' think that there is selective enforcement of the law by and for the other 'wing'.
IIRC it was the Neilson ratings.