Those who bemoan the level of discourse on SLOG should take a look at the comments for the Spokane Spokesman-Review article: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/se…

Thank you for calling it what it is.

This is shocking. I've never lived so close to terrorism. I have to hope the violence of this will unnerve those who hate planned parenthood. Also http://time.com/3983266/elizabeth-warren…

It has been officially determined as arson: Huffington-Puffington Post

Hmmm I believe it was just this week that someone lashed out with venom when Subhumanblues claimed that this sort of thing didn't happened. Now if I could just remember who that prescient slogger was

Maybe they were fundamentalist Islamic domestic terrorists.

And Homeland Security's top priority is taking out rentboy.com

And all you liberals want to get rid of guns.

You know who already has lots of guns?
It's like the people at that demonstration.
They are dangerous people and you don't sing Kumbaya with them.

Sigh.
1) This is about arson and domestic terrorism. Please join me in condemning such things.
2) Nobody wants to "get rid" of guns.
3) Double-sigh... sgt_doom is making some sense.

@1, thank you.

I want to get rid of guns.

@12: More accurate to say you want to get rid of crime.

@13

No it isn't.

@10

So far it's about arson. Probably a lone lunatic saw or participated in the protesting of this clinic and took it upon himself to comitt a crime.

It might be terrorism. That remains to be seen as the investigation proceeds.

Absolutely, condemnation of violence in lieu of political action is appropriate.

Sgt Doom is a proponent of an economic system proven worthless everywhere it's been tried. He's also a bit unbalanced.

And the deeply unbalanced deviant @12 answered your last point.

@5

Did your mom give you permission to use the computer? You don' t want to be grounded again do you?

@15: Do you think you could stay on topic and curb the hate hard on you have for Dan for once? That you disagree with his opinion on gun control is pertinent, but the accompanying name calling shows the unhealthy obsession of a disordered mind.
And it's that that'll get your comment pulled, not your disagreement. I wish you'd get that.

@16: and

Sorry. Fat fingered that.
@16: Once again you make a comment that is a perfect mirror.
Your lack of self awareness never ceases to entertain.

@17 etc

Whatever. You're certainly entitled your opinions. However ill conceived, inconsistent and ill educated they are.

Wow, so disturbing. I went to school out there and went to this clinic for healthcare as an 18-21 year old. I don't think they even perform abortion procedures at this location-- these terrorists just wanted to make a point by burning down a building, I guess. Hope they find who did it.

Just wow.

@9 Correction on your post. Napoleon III aka Louis Napoleon, invaded Mexico, not Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon III invaded Mexico with the excuse that Mexico stopped paying their loans to oversea bankers. The French put Franz Joseph’s brother, Maxmillian on the “throne” in Mexico, Carlota la loca, aka the daughter of Leopold of Belgium tagged along..

“Cinco de Mayo” was the battle of Puebla in 1862.

The whole French Adventure in Mexico happened, because the US was kind of distracted with slaughtering each other in the US Civil War. After the war, the US told the French to get out, and they did in 1866. Maxmillian was killed a year later via firing squad..

@12, yes yes, I was making a generalization. I got the same sort of response when I stated a while back that nobody is really "for" abortion. I guess the nuanced concept I was getting at is that the majority of Americans, even libtards like myself, and including politicians, advocate for some level of regulation rather than outright abolition.

@15, SB, how come you never direct your comments directly AT the "unbalanced deviant"? I'm actually pretty curious about that.

@21, What is so ironic is that Planned Parenthood causes a reduction in the number of abortions in a community; very very few of them actually perform abortions (the one that was burned did not) and all of them provide birth-control and sexual health education. Their presence should be celebrated and supported by pro-life advocates.

It is terrorism. No qualifiers. The use of violence to precipitate political change by creating fear in those who oppose you.

Fuck all the right-wing hand-wringers who like to hem and haw and try to make it sound like it's not okay to support terrorists while really supporting them. You're pro-life? The hell you are. You support violence and murder and excuse it like all other fanatics. You don't give a damn about real humans. You are stunted on the compassion scale because you can't muster compassion for living, breathing humans that require food, shelter, clothes and the comfort of loved ones.

There are tried and true methods for reducing abortion. Free and easy access to contraception. Comprehensive sex education for all, starting before puberty. Guess what pro-lifers oppose? Those very same solutions. Instead, they opt for violence.

I agree with everything @25 said.

@20: It is not an "opinion" that your comments get pulled because you shoe horn in personal attacks against Dan at almost every opportunity regardless of the topic at hand. Your inability to control this compulsion is well documented.

A mature person would acknowledge that they were wrong about these sort of attacks not happening. That is also not an "opinion".
That you are now reduced to such weak tea as accusing me of being inconsistent and ill educated is frankly not surprising.

@8 What Liberals want, are some basic common sense measures to stem gun violence and mass shootings. Basically a ban of semi automatic assault rifles, a ban on large capacity ammunition clips. Plus much more regulation on the sales and buying of guns, and a better database and laws so those mentally ill, or those who have shown huge behavioral problems, like James Holmes are banned or are arrested purchasing a firearm.

After that is all said and done, start banning them, first rednecks will be barred from getting guns, then men, and finally the Kardashians...

Shit. Fuck. It's like with how our government are treating refugees. We all know it is criminal.. Yet we all just sit.
When the Vietnam war was on, it was the Noise from the people that changed their minds.

Imagine no religion ...it's easy if you try.

@5: If you remember, let me know.

@15: "Probably a lone lunatic saw or participated in the protesting of this clinic and took it upon himself to comitt [sic]a crime."
And when those lunatics are fomented and incited and egged on by a crowd (falsely) claiming that they are exacting justice against murderers, they're not really "lone" anymore. When some fundamentalist cleric says that Americans are idolatrous swine and some impressionable Muslim guy sets off a bomb because he was really feeling the sermon, you guys are (rightly) quick to heap blame on the cleric. But for whatever reason, you figure that the Christian extremists should be allowed to distance themselves from the guys doing their dirty work...

Oh dear John.
National demonstrations For gun control. Let the numbers be seen.

You don't have to worry about this SB.
Your doll can't get pregnant. The beauty of plastic.

Or rubber, or whatever the fuck she's made if.
Madness, so much madness.

@Australian busybody

Hey Lavagirl? You do know the US isn't part of Australia, right? So.... really not your business.

Terrorist threats to America like this one are much more of a threat than foreign ones we spy on people for.

@33

"You guys?"

I realize you're a brainwashed far left fanatic. In fairness, having attended a lefty university and been raised by lefties you would have had to work to be otherwise. And as a far lefty concepts like personal responsibility fill you with rage and terror. I'm sorry for you in that regard.

But Islamic or Christian or atheist, left or right- other people talking doesn't mean those listening are absolved of responsibility for their actions. Listening to someone accurately portraying the mass infanticide of abortion should make one agitate for change in the barbarian laws that allow it to happen. But murder or physical violence aren't advocated by anyone pro life I've ever heard. If a mentally ill person does hear that, their mental illness and their choices are to blame. Not the call to stop murdering babies.

@38

Quantifiably they aren't, lunatic.

@37: Again with the childish responses. You like to claim that you are an adult who approaches complex moral and political issues from a mature and thoughtful position, but I'm very much afraid that today you have let down the team.
I am also forced to point out that in this our digital age the Slog community is one without borders and Lava Girl is as free to hurl insults or comment on world events as anyone else.

@40: citation please.

...did Seattleblues really just get mad at me for lumping him in with the other conservatives who accuse radical clerics of inciting others to violence, and then saying they're right to do so.

@39: "other people talking doesn't mean those listening are absolved of responsibility for their actions"
Don't worry, 'blues, there's plenty of blame to go around! See, that's why incitement to violence is a separate crime from the violence itself.
"But murder or physical violence aren't advocated by anyone pro life I've ever heard."
Who are you listening to? Operation Rescue, one of the leading anti-abortion groups in the nation, is headed up by Cheryl Sullenger (senior policy adviser), who not only has a felony conviction for attempting to bomb a clinic, but actually fed information on Dr. George Tiller's whereabouts to Scott Roeder, who assassinated him.

@ 10 - Why don't we want to get rid of the guns?

I've been reading a lot about guns in America lately and I haven't come across a single compelling reason to support keeping them. All of the arguments in support of gun ownership seem to either boil down to "let me yell things at you that are unsupported by the data" or "we have the Second Amendment so we can't get rid of the guns."

By contrast, there are plenty of reasons for not keeping the guns. Only around 6% of the population uses guns for hunting; their primary "use" is defense of self or of home. But guns, both in the home and while carried, make their owners less safe, not more safe. Gun ownership is decreasingly common: only around 30% of the population owns guns, down from around 50%, and that trend is likely to continue; the demographic most likely to own a gun is white married men over the age of 55. In response to their shrinking market share, gun manufacturers and their lobbying arm, the NRA, are selling fear to try to drive up the number of guns purchased by that remaining 30%. Their marketing strategy is yet another compelling reason to get rid of the guns. And the Second Amendment in and of itself is not a legitimate reason to keep the guns. Instead, if it obstructs reasonable laws, the reasons to get rid of the guns are also reasons to get rid of the Second Amendment.

@12 Dan and @45 MiscKitty: You are both so fucking spot on! Bravo for nailing it.

@43

Haven't you noticed that he's kind of an utter moron?

@45

Not that it has anything to do with the topic-

But Constitutional rights getting in the way of regulation makes them unreasonable.

You're correct though. If you want to 'get rid of guns' (and as far as quixotic ideas go, that one is a prize winner) the only way to do that is to eliminate the 2nd Amendment. And the 4th. And the due process clause. And the 14th gaurantee of equal protection.

Hell, let's just scrap the whole Constitution and start over with the Orwellian tyrannical socialist dictatorship you'd really like.

Or you and Savage could leave America for real Americans.

@48 please define "Real American" for me.

@everyone, don't quit now, folks, we're seriously on the verge of solving the gun control debate on this very thread. This is what I call discourse! Let's make it happen.

Huh. Why has poor Seattleblues spent so much of a Saturday afternoon reading people's comments and writing detailed posts instead of bonding with his children? Is this what a good father in a strong marriage does on a holiday weekend in America?

His Black wife and mixed-race kids discovered this blog and promptly moved to her Mother's house, I reckon.

And he's no longer having to maintain his various properties now that he's evicted those loathsome lesbians from the estate.

Surely a real American man would allow his black wife and mixed-race kids to do no such thing.

@48: In fairness to you, the 2nd Amendment DOESN'T get in the way of reasonable laws. Requiring that all gun sales be contingent on a background check would be reasonable; it's well-established that banning violent felons and the mentally unstable from ownership is kosher, and ~85% of Americans support actually enforcing that. There's nothing in the 2nd or its interpretation that would stop such a measure from being enacted. The failure of this measure to pass, despite its clear Constitutional palatability and widespread support, is due entirely to the lobbying of the NRA.
Also in fairness to you, altering or repealing the 2nd Amendment would be sufficient to allow a ban on all private ownership of firearms. There's no need to do anything about the 4th or 14th or anything else in the Constitution; the 2nd is all that prohibits the federal government from banning and confiscating all privately owned firearms.

@49: He means "rural American" and has said as much, despite the fact that 80% of Americans live in cities or suburbs.

It's these militias operating in the absence of a federal army that disturb me ...

Thanks Lissa, for defending my right to speak. I'm sure no flesh and blood woman would make herself available to SB, always with the headaches.. I'd reckon. Wonder if his blowup is blonde or brunette.

@61: Any time my dear!

@61

I could write about internal Australian politics. I suppose I have the 'right.' Well, if Australian politics mattered in any way and I were remotely interested in researching the candidates and issues at play I could.

But I don't for reasons of basic manners. See, how you folks conduct your own affairs are none of my business. See how that works?

@ Lissa

You better get typing! All these people being rude and childish and personally insulting need your guidance!

Oh wait. That only applies to those whose ideas you don't share. Otherwise personal attacks are things for which you're thankful.

Hypocrite.

@56

I was thinking about the kinds of things government eould meed to do to enforce a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Because you realize removing the hundreds of millions of legal guns out there from the hands of Americans who legally acquired them would require draconian and violent federal action, don't you boy? House to house searches, neighbors giving information on neigbors, holdouts keeping the federal officers attempting to enforce such a ban and confiscation of private property at bay by force- that's an optimistic scenario.

Now, I realize Savage and the other extremist nutters wanting such a thing are destined to be disappointed. A repeal of the 2nd ain't happening. But if it did it wouldn't work. And it would require wholesale trampling of our basic citizen rights apart from that of privately owning guns.

@63: "I don't for reasons of basic manners. See, how you folks conduct your own affairs are none of my business."
Says the guy who wants to tell same-sex couples they're not allowed to get married because he personally doesn't like the idea. I'm still waiting to hear whose straight marriages have been in any way damaged by the queers getting hitched!

Also, you're attacking Lissa for being nice to people she agrees with and mean to people she disagrees with. Meanwhile, you demand that everyone else follow laws even if they don't personally agree with them, while loudly announcing your imaginary right to break or ignore any laws you don't like. (And on that note, you STILL haven't responded to the evidence I've presented that sexual orientation is a real biological effect.) And your argument against Lissa is that SHE is a hypocrite? Let's see, what was it that Jesus of Nazareth said about hypocrisy...
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." (Matthew 7:3-5)
I'm going to tentatively say that rebelling against the law of the land is a bigger issue than saying unkind things to people.

@64: Aaand none of the stuff you describe being required to actually confiscate people's guns would actually violate the 4th or 14th Amendments or anything else in the Constitution besides the 2nd. The 4th Amendment simply bans unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that all warrants issued for searches or seizures be specific and based on probable cause. If guns were made illegal, and a witness reported seeing you with a gun or if your name was on a list of people who had received a firearms license or undergone a background check while purchasing a firearms, that would constitute probable cause to search your property for illegal firearms. The 14th Amendment's due process clause simply means that you can't be punished without your day in court, and the equal protection clause just means that the law has to be applied evenly to all. Nothing in either of those precludes confiscation efforts in the event of a ban on private ownership of firearms; the sole caveat is that gun owners would probably be entitled to monetary compensation for the value of the weapon.

Note that I'm NOT arguing in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment wholesale or banning all gun ownership. (I believe that all gun purchases should require a background check and a 3-day waiting period, that violent felons and the psychologically unstable should not be allowed to own firearms, that shotguns and hunting rifles should require a shall-issue license, that handguns should require a may-issue license, that submachine guns and semi-automatic/fully automatic/selective fire rifles should require a special permit subject to much higher scrutiny, and that military-grade weaponry such as machine guns/SAWs, grenade launchers, anti-armor munitions, and explosives should all be banned from civilian ownership.) Again, I'm NOT arguing in favor of a total gun ban; I'm arguing against your gratuitously stupid statements regarding the Constitution and what is or isn't allowed.

@68: Whining about me being noisy? Don't make dumbshit arguments that don't hold up to the slightest examination if you don't want me to raise some ruckus.

I do think I'm pretty fucking smart. It's taken me a while to learn that, too. I've been surrounded by other smart people for so long, I've sort of assumed that I'm more or less average (the Dunning-Kruger effect in action). And suddenly I'm adrift in an ocean of people, and I realize that I can achieve excellence almost without trying in things that aren't even my forte, even as others struggle. My struggles with anxiety stopped me from seeing that for quite a while, but I appreciate this gift quite a bit more now.

But the real point is, you said something fucking stupid ("banning and confiscating guns would require repealing the 4th and 14th Amendment and would lead to the repeal of the entire Constitution", to paraphrase) and I explained to you why your post was objectively incorrect. And your response is to tell me that I'm wrong without explaining WHY I'm wrong or how anything you wrote holds water. Well, forgive me if I don't take your word for it, O Great Master Of I'm-Right-Because-I-Said-So. Want to put me in my place? Back up your claims with a little actual argument! Meanwhile, I shall remain in my actual place: well above YOU.

@68: "Have a nice day. Hey, why don' t you spend it wandering around Texas telling people your views on guns, boy?"
Because Wichita Falls, like most of Texas, is TOO FUCKING HOT. You can pry my air conditioning from my cold dead hands, yeehaw!
I dunno, why don't you go around Seattle expounding at length on how you think gays are icky and liberals are weird? :3

@68

Fair enough. In most settings you probably are among the most intelligent people in the room.

And if it seemed I was mocking an anxiety disorder I apologize.

But it's true that a hallmark of late adolescence and early adulthood can be argument for arguments sake. But what you don' t have is experience. You haven't lived through a scientific or social fad everyone was so excited about. Until it was abandoned because it was kind of dumb. All the "experts" proved it. You could cite studies and journal articles and physical evidence. Only the real world didn't care about what these folks thought it was. It just went on being what it really was regardless.

So with the (entirely academic) argument about repealing the 2nd Amendment. Never mind that booze and drugs, cars- well nearly anything- is more worthy of public time and attention in terms of loss of life and public health. Let's talk about this idea.

Here's the thing. A pretty large group of folks already own guns. Many are not listed on any public database, having been legally purchased or inherited as simple property without any paperwork. Many who did have a gun registered in their name qould not peacefully surrender it. The logistics involved in locating, confiscating and destroying all private guns in this country would never be possible without mass violence and abrogation of basic rights.

Remember how well Prohibition worked? That was just booze. Imagine the same thing, only with a foundational right being fought for by armed citizens.

Do I have a professor or doctor or attorney to cite a silly pointless study to back this up? No. Nor do I have a cite for the proposition that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Nor do I need one.

Too bad Christians don't channel their energies to build things instead of destroying things:

http://johnpavlovitz.com/2015/09/01/chri…

@72: No offense taken about the anxiety thing; it's something I'm at peace with and I don't recall anyone on SLOG ever taking jabs at me about it. I referenced it only as background to demonstrate that feeling superior doesn't come naturally to me. I must be CONVINCED that I'm smarter than someone else, and boy are you convincing.

You seem very ready to dismiss science in general as pandering to fads and being removed from reality. You reference journal articles and studies, but I suspect that you don't actually read the primary source material; your impression of the scientific establishment is most likely cobbled together from reports in the media. This is why you think that climate change is just a fad, because you remember reading media reports of an impending ice age in the 1970s, when in reality the vast majority of climatologists were predicting warming for essentially the same reasons they do today, and the very few papers predicting cooling were contingent on unrestricted aerosol emissions.
Your desire to dismiss science in favor of your own folksy knowledge speaks to a deep skepticism for evidence-based reasoning. You'd rather go with what you "know" (people choose to be gay! the Earth isn't warming!) than what the evidence actually says. And, well, this is the age of science. Intuition doesn't stand up to empiricism.

Now, would it be more difficult to disarm the populace without carrying out unreasonable searches? Sure. But there's more ways than one to skin a mesh. A sophisticated program of surveillance would turn up most guns pretty quickly; you'd be amazed at what can be done with modern technology without kicking down anyone's door. And if people refuse to surrender illegal weapons to the proper authorities and resist with force? Screw them, they used violence against federal agents executing their lawful duty; they'd be taken in, forcefully if necessary, and imprisoned, and their rights would NOT have been violated. You're so stuck in this idea of jackbooted storm troopers going house-to-house that you forget we live in modern times, in an information era.
Your original claim, remember, is that banning and confiscating privately held guns would require the repeal not only of the 2nd Amendment but also of protections in the 4th and 14th Amendments, a claim which I believe I have conclusively debunked. I am not claiming and never have that such policies should be enacted or that it could be done without considerable mess and effort!

@72: "Do I have a professor or doctor or attorney to cite a silly pointless study to back this up? No. Nor do I have a cite for the proposition that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Nor do I need one."
If each and every morning began with massive human rights violations in the enaction of a gun ban affecting hundreds of millions of people, you'd have a point. Unfortunately for your argument, the sun has risen over the Earth (figuratively speaking) every morning for the past 4.54 billion years and change. The sun appearing over the horizon every 24 hours is self-evident; anyone sighted who spends a week on the surface of this planet will notice it.
Your political conjecture? Nah bro, that's a bit different. Do you realize practically every claim you make is sooner or later supported with "it's self-evident, I know it's true, I don't have to prove it", to paraphrase?

What's to stop you from making ANY ARGUMENT WHATSOEVER and claiming that it's self-evident? It was claimed in previous days that black people being inferior and only there to serve white people was self-evident. It was claimed in previous days that the Earth being flat was self-evident. It is STILL claimed today that the existence of God (in the Christian conception thereof) is self-evident. There are very few absolutes in this world. The dismissal of "oh, I don't need to provide evidence for my claim, it's obviously true" is simply a way to say "oh, I don't have any evidence to support my conjecture, but I want to present my conjecture as if it were fact". It's a tacit admission that you've got no leg to stand on but don't want to concede the point.
And you, you have a troublesome habit of refusing to admit you're wrong even when all the evidence goes against you. Some might call that faith or confidence. I call it closed-minded arrogance.

Oh, Venomlash is upside down. He's letting this interloper get to him.
Experience you say SB? What one needs first is a heart that works. You never seem to present a warm heart about any topic. Cold, cold man.

@75: Well, PP may not actually 'sell' the body parts to science but their executives in those videos sure sounded like there was some heavy 'I want a Lombardini' creative accounting for PP's "less crunchy"(TM) specialized services.

Oh, and before you say those tapes were heavily edited - so was that 47% video of Romney's blunder. Video and audio are demonstrable facts.

@14,15, 16, 20, 37, 39, 40, 48, 63, 64, 68, 72:

LOOK, THERE! EVIL PURE AND SIMPLE!

@77 lol nah Venomlash is just in a playful mood, like a cat smacking a mouse around just because it can.

Subhumanblues is just too stupid to realize it is being toyed with and never stood a chance in the first place.

You and your cats, Mach.
I just skim over SB, don't like to upset my mind with stupidity. Does he justify bombing a building? Does he justify arson?
Is he a woman? If not.. Then why does he even talk of abortion. Not his body. Not his concern.
Guns need to be controlled. End of story. Can't get rid of them, that is not going to happen. Can make it harder for people to get hold of them.

@78: Show me the edits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2gvY2wq…

@63: You're such a child.
"Waaaah! Johnny's being bad toooo!"
You may remember what your mother told you back in the day; that Johnny's sin doesn't wipe out yours.
That other Sloggers are as rude as you are doesn't get you off the hook for your own bad behavior little mister. Particularly because you make such a point of presenting yourself as the only adult in the room here.

But! If you like:

Sloggers! Behave! Our lack of etiquette and decorum distresses Seattleblues and renders him unable to argue in good faith! Cease your invective, cease I say!
There.

@82: Exactly my point upside-down-cake, editing out boring raw footage and "dead air" leaving the pertinent content is the "heavy editing" card the opposing side will always play.

Thanks Lissa for reminding us. Good etiquette is required, even with miserable, hard hearted ignorant idiots.. Who come on here looking for what? Acceptance and love, cause that harsh landscape of a life of his.. Plastic dolls, broken TV sets, people Everywhere having fun except him, also should be treated As If he were a person towards whom one has respect.

Lissa, why does Lissa have two s's?

@86: Well, since you ask!
I was named after " The beautiful college roommate of my Father's First True Love." He had three names he liked for me: Lissa, Iphigenia and Clytemnestra. ( he was studying the Classic at the time)
My mother felt that Lissa would be the least psychologically damaging of the three.
It is pronounced like Melissa, but without the "Muh".

@87: Thanks. I had a feeling it had a rich history.

@78: Oh, there's a huge difference. Here is a transcript of the full video, with the sections included in the edited video printed in boldface. Note that unlike the 47% video, the Planned Parenthood "sting" video is not one isolated segment, but rather many shorter segments cut together. These frequent cuts allow the editor to fundamentally change the meaning of what is being said; with a single uninterrupted segment, the most misleading thing that can be done is take it out of context. Let's look at an example, in which the Planned Parenthood representative is speaking about keeping tissues intact during the procedure:

"Yea, so that’s where we kind of get into an ethical situation, because what I think most providers don’t want to have do, they don’t want- In terms of the steps and the preparation, and getting them to the actual procedure, you know, if you really want an intact specimen, the more dilation, the better. Is the clinic gonna you know, put in another set of laminaria to do something different? I think they’d prefer not to. For example, what I’m dealing with now, if I know what they’re looking for, I’ll just keep it in the back of my mind, and try to at least keep that part intact. But, I generally don’t do extra dilation. I won’t put in an extra set of laminaria, or add an extra day, that’s going to add significant cost of expense to everybody. Basically, if you need to add another set of laminaria, and have the patient come back another day, if you provide procedures enough days in a row that you can do that, then you know, that’s a whole ‘nother consideration. In general, I’d say most people, unless there’s a specific research protocol that’s been I.R.B. approved, try to avoid that." (bolding present in original transcript)

As you can see, the representative is talking about how it's nice to keep in-demand tissues intact, but that takes second place to keeping the procedure as short and simple as possible due to ethical considerations. Now let's look at the edited version:

"Yea, so that’s where we kind of get into an ethical situation. Is the clinic gonna you know, put in another set of laminaria to do something different? If I know what they’re looking for, I’ll just keep it in the back of my mind, and try to at least keep that part intact; that’s going to add significant cost of expense to everybody."

As you can see, in THIS deceptively edited version, the representative appears to acknowledge the ethics of the situation but speak in favor of the unethical practice of unnecessarily modifying the procedure to salvage tissue. This unethical practice, you should recall, was explicitly rejected in the full unedited version!

teal deer: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POTENTIALLY TAKING SOMETHING OUT OF PROPER CONTEXT AND SELECTIVELY EDITING IT IN ORDER TO ALTER WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING SAID.

#45
"Instead, if it obstructs reasonable laws, the reasons to get rid of the guns are also reasons to get rid of the Second Amendment."

Well, what the fuck are you and Danny Boy waiting for?

@89: Sh**, you're right. Here's a PDF on a video expert's findings.

@90: Pardon me!

74: "... there's more ways than one to skin a mesh."

I might be the only one here who got that reference, and I'm totally going to steal it!

@92: Ooh, that's a good read. Thanks! I especially like that the alleged "full footage" videos contained signs of editing too. How'd the video expert suss that out? Well, the footage had timestamp and frame counters in it, and those just happened to skip ahead by up to half an hour in a few suspicious places. What fucking amateurs those criminals are.

@94: Enjoy!

"Touch not the cat bot a glove."

https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/v…

SB, you ignorant Bitch. You PROUDLY ignorant Bitch. I'm a few years older than you are and clearly wiser AND smarter, and I suspect I'm a better representative of what "our age" is supposed to look like.You, on the other hand are acting like a moody 12 year old (sorry for the stereotype, non-moody tweens), lashing out at people who are clearly smarter AND wiser than you (and yes some are younger than we are). Hell, you give people "our age" a bad name.
[My mind wanders to thoughts of my young nieces just now starting their adult lives. And I'm sensing that my beautifully-intuitive, empathic and highly-intelligent nieces were BORN wiser than you are!]
I'm a thoughtful and gentle, actualized, middle-aged woman. I may or may not deserve some consideration for having lived this long, and I admit to some quiet pride in the fact that I've supported myself for my entire adult life AND contributed in a beneficial way to the world and to those around me, but I don't go around PULLING RANK and loudly proclaiming how great my accidental age makes me! God what a horse's ass you are! You really have learned nothing of value in all those years (ha!) as far as I can tell. Nothing about how to treat people, nothing about the benefits of self-control, or politeness or kindness or..."tone." Nothing about how to have nuanced thoughts about complicated situations, or how to evaluate information, or how to be honest with yourself and the world.

And as far as younger people wanting to get into arguments with greater frequency?... I say, "so what" and thank God they have the energy for it. VL is just doing what most here want to do, but frankly don't have the stomach for.
And don't you dare whine about this one instance of name-calling, you ignorant, hypocritical, hillbilly scold!

"there's more ways than one to skin a mesh" oh, delicious.

Thank you, @92. Wowza!, the evidence is even more damaging than I had suspected.

For clarification-

I really, really don't care about being called names by perpetual children pretending to be adults. Call me stupid, childish, ignorant- I don't respect any of you even partially enough to care a out your opinions. Also, as a pointer? Insults with no basis in fact at all aren't angering. They're funny.

The point your terminally softened minds can't seem to grasp is this: holding your friends and your enemies to different standards in conduct and argument is intellectually dishonest. Forget name calling. Someone you agree with engaging in ad hominem bs like the decade long vile and vulgar attacks on Mr. Santorum and his family for his daring to believe what you don't for example? That can't be good and necessary if calling your tin god Savage what he is, the filthy deviant proselytizer of sexual promiscuity, is hate speech. You don't get to believe both and pretend to honest discourse or intelligent argument.

And that fundamental dishonesty (although of course conscious or unconscious lies are required to be believe lefty nonsense at all) calls everything else you write into question.

I don't expect any of you to grasp this. It requires integrity and honesty mutually exclusive to liberal 'thinking.' But there it is, whether your reality challenged minds can grasp it or not.

@99 "I really, really don't care...."

LOL yeah you do. As demonstrated by the way you flail around and howl when your claims about what is and isn't true are effortlessly proven to be false time and time again. If you truly didn't care you'd simply walk away that you don't proves that it bugs the shit out of you when you are shown to be the fool.

@99:

LOOK, THERE! EVIL PURE AND SIMPLE!

@99: "holding your friends and your enemies to different standards in conduct and argument is intellectually dishonest"
You mean, like all the stuff you do? You say that you get to break any law that you disapprove of (source) but demand that people with different opinions follow every law in the book (source). You demand that people you disagree with provide evidence for their claims (saurus) but insist that you are under no such obligation regarding your own claims (saurus). You complain about people you don't like saying mean things (souris) but you reject any censure of your own vitriolic approach (souris).

The identity you've presented us with here on SLOG is hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty personified! And yet as always, you're happy to attack others for their imagined failings in your eyes despite your own patent shortcomings in exactly the same regard. You accuse others of being hypocritical while being hypocritical yourself. Wow, that's meta.

SB. Why do you come on SL?
Obviously all these left leaning people are not to your taste, not to your political persuasion, not to your liking.
So why? I'd never ever waste my time going on right wing fascist sites that your kind salivate in, would give me no pleasure at all to try and converse with those people. So why do you come here?
You enjoy the humanity shown, don't you. You bitch about it, but I'm thinking you like the warm feelings all these good people bring you.

Woah. This degenerated pretty quickly.

As far as guns, this liberal also wants to ban all of them. The hell with regulation, or restriction, or reasonable laws, or any of that weasely crap. Just ban them, all of them. If more liberals would have guts to say that (and you KNOW you want them banned), maybe at least we'd be credited with honesty. Instead we're just blahblahblahing and giving the mouthbreathers reasons to debate. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to have a gun, and they shouldn't have the legal right to have a gun.

sarah91@105. If only wishes could come true.
It would freak your fellow country persons out too much. Of course getting rid of guns is what peace loving people want.
Going for tightening up qualifications to get a gun, Everybody sees the wisdom in that. Just make the conditions really strict.

@105: Well, then what about self-defense from man or beast?

@105: Or putting a horse of its misery from a broken leg, which I saw my father do when I was a tot.

I wonder if we could simply cease producing ammunition?