# Arson at 2 Planned Parenthood clinics



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/05/washington-state-planned-parenthood-fire-caused-by-arson/



> An early morning fire that heavily damaged a Washington state Planned Parenthood clinic was arson, fire investigators determined on Friday.
> Pullman Fire Department investigator Chris Wehrung also said a task involving local agencies was investigating with the help of federal agencies. He didnât release any other details.
> The blaze fires a recent wave of protests at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country. Some 500 protesters gathered outside the clinic on Aug. 22, waving signs and calling for Congress to defund the organization.
> Many protesters referenced a series of videos released by anti-abortion activists in California that appeared to show Planned Parenthood executives saying the organization profits from the sale of aborted fetal tissue. Planned Parenthood denied allegations and contended the videos were heavily edited.


http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-planned-parenthood-reopens-20151005-story.html



> The Planned Parenthood clinic in Thousand Oaks reopened Monday after an arsonist set fire to the building last week.
> The West Hillcrest Drive facility had been closed since Wednesday, when an arsonist threw a stone into a window, then splashed gasoline inside and ignited it. The small fire was doused by the building's sprinkler system.
> âWe are grateful for the outpouring of support from the community and for the resiliency and dedication of our committed staff and health care providers,â Jenna Tosh, chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Luis Obispo counties, said in a statement Monday.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

The people who perpetrated these crimes should be caught, tried and sentenced to the *maximum* sentence allowed.

Just like every other crime. Black, white, brown, green........ Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Pastafarian....... Male, female, transgendered, transsexual, crossdresser......


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Maybe someone thought that would be a good way, to attract the _swing voters _and _Moderates_, to the GOP.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Patchouli said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/05/washington-state-planned-parenthood-fire-caused-by-arson/
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-planned-parenthood-reopens-20151005-story.html


But, but, the pro life contingent are gentle loving people... they don't murder, maim, or damage. Right? Isn't that their focus? Pro life? Well, unless they don't agree with what is being done, that is.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Finally getting Hollywood into this anti abortion stuff.
KELSEY GRAMMER DONS CONTROVERSIAL PRO-GUN, ANTI-ABORTION T-SHIRT


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> But, but, the pro life contingent are gentle loving people... they don't murder, maim, or damage. Right? Isn't that their focus? Pro life? Well, unless they don't agree with what is being done, that is.


Actually I am not very gentle of loving with those who murder babies.

call me funny, it's just the way I am.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> Actually I am not very gentle of loving with those who murder babies.
> 
> call me funny, it's just the way I am.



Good to know. Would you hurt or kill someone that has had or performed abortions?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I don't have to.

They will answer to a higher power.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> I don't have to.
> 
> They will answer to a higher power.


Only if they believe in a higher power.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Only if they believe in a higher power.



You mean only if there is a higher power, what you believe doesn't matter


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/28/black-churches-fire_n_7681754.html

http://archive.adl.org/backgrounders/sacramento_arsons.html#.Vhp3qqIShFU

Fire bugs are everywhere.........


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> But, but, the pro life contingent are gentle loving people...


Muslims make the same claim; and they are correct.
Just because some ( the only ones that get press time ) are terrorists, doesn't mean they all are.
Same w/ pro-lifers.



> they don't murder, maim, or damage. Right? Isn't that their focus? Pro life? Well, unless they don't agree with what is being done, that is.


Muslims don't murder, maim, or damage; Their focus is peaceful. 
Unless they are Radical Terrorist that 'claim' the religion and twist and manipulate their book to do their dirty deeds.

Right?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> Muslims make the same claim; and are correct.
> Just because some ( the only ones that get press time ) are terrorists, doesn't mean they all are.
> Same w/ pro-lifers.
> 
> ...


You're right. It's radical pro lifers that kill, maim, and damage. The DOJ calls them domestic anti abortion terrorists.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> You're right. It's radical pro lifers that kill, maim, and damage. The DOJ calls them domestic anti abortion terrorists.


And I whole heartedly agree.

I am 100% against this type of behavior......this is sickening and NOT what 'true' Pro-Lifers are all about.
I hope those who did this are caught, and punished.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Maybe someone thought that would be a good way, to attract the _swing voters _and _Moderates_, to the GOP.


Jumping to conclusions a bit? We don't even know who did this or why. Could have been a personal reason or just another mentally ill person who chose fire instead of a gun.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Finally getting Hollywood into this anti abortion stuff.
> KELSEY GRAMMER DONS CONTROVERSIAL PRO-GUN, ANTI-ABORTION T-SHIRT


You think that's "pro gun"?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I think it's anti abortion for sure.

People would lose their minds if abortions were preformed w/ guns cause our leaders keep screaming 'guns murder people'.

But.......pro choicer's don't see the baby as a human to be murdered.....so?

Yeah Pro Life and Pro Gun. He buttoned it up in ONE GRAPHIC T......
What?
Wait, it might just be the shirt he grabbed out of his drawer and it's no reflection of himself........


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Here's what I grabbed out of the drawer this morning


----------



## scooter (Mar 31, 2008)

Could be that the fires were set so the pro-lifer's would get the blame.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

poppy said:


> Jumping to conclusions a bit? We don't even know who did this or why. Could have been a personal reason or just another mentally ill person who chose fire instead of a gun.


Of course I'm jumping to conclusions.

Of all of the millions of building to set fire to, two PP clinics, getting torched, virtually back-to-back, surely must just be coincidence.

I could agree with the "mentally ill", part, for sure.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

scooter said:


> Could be that the fires were set so the pro-lifer's would get the blame.


You got your head on straight..


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/28/black-churches-fire_n_7681754.html
> 
> http://archive.adl.org/backgrounders/sacramento_arsons.html#.Vhp3qqIShFU
> 
> Fire bugs are everywhere.........


Most of the Church fires turned out to be acts of God weirdly enough. A couple of lightning strikes and at least one electrical. Only 2 were arson. It was interesting though reading about how many Churches are burnt down in the average year. 

I think it is safe to say someone throwing rocks through the windows first and then finally firebombing is not your typical arsonist looking to just watch the building burn or an act of God.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

scooter said:


> Could be that the fires were set so the pro-lifer's would get the blame.


Oh sure..... I am surprised that wasn't the first suggestion out of the box.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> You got your head on straight..



So why is it the conspiracy angle only applies to your crowd? No Christian would ever do that! Or crazy white person with a gun! Must be the CIA, false flag, someone trying to make us look bad, etc. 

Kudos to Laura for acknowledging that every group has a few bad apples and extremists.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

When the powers that be spend my tax dollars in a way that I do not agree with I simply stop paying taxes. 

So what we see here is your tax dollars at work, not mine. If you like it send in extra money. If not stop paying.

My problem with the matter is solved, I farm.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

edcopp said:


> When the powers that be spend my tax dollars in a way that I do not agree with I simply stop paying taxes.
> 
> So what we see here is your tax dollars at work, not mine. If you like it send in extra money. If not stop paying.
> 
> My problem with the matter is solved, I farm.


And you pay NO TAXES at all, NONE??


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> So why is it the conspiracy angle only applies to your crowd? No Christian would ever do that! Or crazy white person with a gun! Must be the CIA, false flag, someone trying to make us look bad, etc.
> 
> Kudos to Laura for acknowledging that every group has a few bad apples and extremists.


I've never said that things like that only apply to "my" crowd...


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Are white people with guns crazier than other colors of people with a gun?:grin:


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

RichNC said:


> And you pay NO TAXES at all, NONE??


Not if you plan right.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

poppy said:


> Not if you plan right.


Explain please either you or EdCopp pay no taxes what so ever, because I pay property taxes, I pay taxes when I go to the grocery store, feed store, gas station, so you tell me how YOU Poppy pay NO taxes at all.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

If you don't pay taxes, you can't complain how taxes are spent.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

RichNC said:


> Explain please either you or EdCopp pay no taxes what so ever, because I pay property taxes, I pay taxes when I go to the grocery store, feed store, gas station, so you tell me how YOU Poppy pay NO taxes at all.


Do your property taxes fund baby killing? I think not. The taxes that I do not pay are federal income taxes. Join me if you like it is as simple as reading the directions (the IRS code), and planning for non payment of those taxes as the code applies to your activities.

If you do not study the code and make your plans accordingly, that's O.K. with me. Obama and his crew have another plan designed just for you. Your choice not mine.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

edcopp said:


> Do your property taxes fund baby killing? I think not. The taxes that I do not pay are federal income taxes. Join me if you like it is as simple as reading the directions (the IRS code), and planning for non payment of those taxes as the code applies to your activities.
> 
> If you do not study the code and make your plans accordingly, that's O.K. with me. Obama and his crew have another plan designed just for you. Your choice not mine.


So you are a "farmer" yet you pay no income tax, ok, whatever.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

edcopp said:


> *Do your property taxes fund baby killing?* I think not. The taxes that I do not pay are federal income taxes. Join me if you like it is as simple as reading the directions (the IRS code), and planning for non payment of those taxes as the code applies to your activities.
> 
> If you do not study the code and make your plans accordingly, that's O.K. with me. Obama and his crew have another plan designed just for you. Your choice not mine.


Your Federal taxes don't fund that either.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your Federal taxes don't fund that either.


Yup, the Hyde Amendment.


----------



## Targe (Sep 14, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> Finally getting Hollywood into this anti abortion stuff.
> KELSEY GRAMMER DONS CONTROVERSIAL PRO-GUN, ANTI-ABORTION T-SHIRT


Yeah, Hollywood types are not supposed to voice their opinions about political issues unless they toe the line of the leftist mindset. Anything else and they're blacklisted.

Sorta like how the left always has to savagely attack any women or blacks who are conservatives.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your Federal taxes don't fund that either.


Ok then you are right it funds the operation and frees up money to kill babies.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Old Vet said:


> Ok then you are right it funds the operation and frees up money to kill babies.


The money for abortions come from donations.


----------



## Targe (Sep 14, 2014)

Old Vet said:


> Ok then you are right it funds the operation and frees up money to kill babies.


Yep! If PP didn't receive federal funds, would it be able to continue to operate and at the same level of activity as it does now? Of course not. If PP didn't have that federal funding, it couldn't perform at the same level of activity to include performing abortions. 

So saying "_This_ dollar did not go to fund an abortion." is a disingenuous claim.

Someone might as well say _"Well...I'm going to donate dollars to this "right wing pro-life group" because they perform important community outreach by informing pregnant women -many of them unwed, unemployed teenagers- that there are alternatives to abortion such as adoption. However; I do NOT approve of them firebombing abortion clinics! But MY dollars are ONLY going to be used for their legal activities! None of MY dollars are going to support their illegal activities!"_

Obviously, if you give financial support to an organization, you're supporting ALL of its activities, whether directly or indirectly. If that organization is bound and determined to do something -and Planned Parenthood is BOUND AND DETERMINED TO PERFORM ABORTIONS- then you can bet ALL of the money they receive is in some way, shape or fashion supporting ALL of their activities, whether directly or indirectly. To smugly claim otherwise is just a lie and everyone on both sides of the issue know it. The left just does it and smirks about it like someone claiming that even though he was the only person on the elevator, he's not responsible for the fart smell. Everyone knows he did it; he's just gonna lie and deny and challenge you to "prove it in a court of law".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Yep! If PP didn't receive federal funds, would it be able to continue to operate and at the same level of activity as it does now? Of course not. If PP didn't have that federal funding, it couldn't perform at the same level of activity to include performing abortions.
> 
> So saying "This dollar did not go to fund an abortion." is* a disingenuous claim*.


Not at all, since most of the "federal funding" is in the form of Medicaid reimbursements for other services.

Patients generally pay for their own abortions

The federal funding is all accounted for, and is not use for abortions.

That's just a much parroted fabricated argument which none can ever seem to prove with real data

Many act as if receiving federal funds is somehow unique, but nearly all medical practices get it in one form or another.


----------



## Targe (Sep 14, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Patients generally pay for their own abortions
> 
> The federal funding is all accounted for, and is not use for abortions.


Like I said: If PP didn't receive federal funds, would it be able to continue to operate and at the same level of activity as it does now? Of course not. If PP didn't have that federal funding, it couldn't perform at the same level of activity to include performing abortions. 

Without federal funding, PP would not have the visibility or the access. For that matter, it's doubtful PP would even if exist if not for taxpayer dollars. 

So if Uncle Sam pays for your house, claiming that "THIS door was paid for only by people who use it." when the structure as a whole wouldn't even be there is still creative book keeping. 

Claims by proponents of PP like "Planned Parenthood&#8217;s abortion care represents 3 percent of its medical services." is belied by the simple fact that if abortions represent such a small percentage, then simply stop performing them. Then PP would most likely see much less resistance from the Pro-Life movement and probably enjoy increased funding. Of course, the way PP and their highly paid executives hold onto abortions for dear life reveals the lie in that claim.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I think that supporters of PP started the fires to gain sympathy for the organization and cast doubt on their detractors. Typical liberal "poor me" approach.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Targe said:


> Like I said: If PP didn't receive federal funds, would it be able to continue to operate and at the same level of activity as it does now? Of course not. If PP didn't have that federal funding, it couldn't perform at the same level of activity to include performing abortions.
> 
> Without federal funding, PP would not have the visibility or the access. For that matter, it's doubtful PP would even if exist if not for taxpayer dollars.
> 
> ...


Why should PP stop performing a needed, and _completely legal_, medical procedure simply because a small group wants them to? 

Pro lifers can whine, cry, and throw hissy fits but there is absolutely nothing they can do to stop a woman from getting an abortion. Roe v. Wade gave women complete control over their body. 

Stay out of my reproductive rights.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Targe said:


> Like I said:


Simply repeating it all won't make it true.


----------



## Targe (Sep 14, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Simply repeating it all won't make it true.


Exactly what I say whenever you PP-philes repeat your nonsensical claims that don't pass any common sense test.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> I've never said that things like that only apply to "my" crowd...


Not specifically but you have implied it.


----------



## Targe (Sep 14, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why should PP stop performing a needed, and _completely legal_, medical procedure simply because a small group wants them to?
> 
> Pro lifers can whine, cry, and throw hissy fits but there is absolutely nothing they can do to stop a woman from getting an abortion. Roe v. Wade gave women complete control over their body.
> 
> Stay out of my reproductive rights.


Like I said: the canard about your "rights" and your "choice" would be valid if you didn't expect other people to pick up the tab for the consequences of other choices you make: to wit, to have unprotected sex.

As for _"Pro lifers can whine, cry, and throw hissy fits but there is *absolutely nothing they can do *to stop a woman from getting an abortion. Roe v. Wade gave women *complete control *over their body." _, that's not really true, even though people such as you wish otherwise to the point you've made it your smirking battle cry. 

Your claims to the contrary, it is illegal in most states for women to have post-viability abortions on demand for no other reason than _"Um, 'cause like, I just decided I don't WANT to have this baby, 'cause like, it's really inconvenient to my lifestyle and the third guy I claimed was the father was also cleared by the paternity test, y'know?". _That's due to Gonzales v. Carhart.  Actually, in fact, there are provisions that address that issue "even" in Roe v. Wade.

So I'll see your Roe v. Wade and raise you Gonzales v. Carhart. Before you start spouting all kinds of "legalities" you might want to actually read the law(s); as in, read'em n' weep.


----------



## Targe (Sep 14, 2014)

JJ Grandits said:


> I think that supporters of PP started the fires to gain sympathy for the organization and cast doubt on their detractors. Typical liberal "poor me" approach.


I would not be surprised. We know that the left frequently plants "right wing wackos" at events such as Tea Party rallies and the Trump town hall last month in Rochester NH to portray conservatives as "extremists", "racists", and all of the other, vitriolic "ist" labels that the left -including their Dear Leader, Barack Hussein Obama- use to attack their political opponents.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Targe said:


> Like I said: the canard about your "rights" and your "choice" would be valid if you didn't expect other people to pick up the tab for the consequences of other choices you make: to wit, to have unprotected sex.
> 
> As for _"Pro lifers can whine, cry, and throw hissy fits but there is *absolutely nothing they can do *to stop a woman from getting an abortion. Roe v. Wade gave women *complete control *over their body." _, that's not really true, even though people such as you wish otherwise to the point you've made it your smirking battle cry.
> 
> ...


That tired old chestnut? The Hyde Amendment. Do you really think that the pro life contingent doesn't have full time people going over PP's books to be sure where the federal money goes? Not to mention the federal overseers. And it's just your opinion anyway. That and a buck... 

Where did I specify "post viability" aka late term abortion? There are still states that have no gestational age limit, you know that right? I don't believe in late term abortion for anything other than fetal abnormality or mother's health. 

Bottom line, there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion. Nothing. Nada. Zip. It's her right.


----------



## Targe (Sep 14, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you really think that the pro life contingent doesn't have full time people going over PP's books to be sure where the federal money goes?


Um....that's a discussion that can be had but I said nothing about Planned Parenthood's funding/expenditures in the post you quoted and to which you replied. Perhaps you're confused -?




Irish Pixie said:


> Where did I specify "post viability" aka late term abortion?


You didn't "specify post viability" but you didn't exclude it either. You made -and continue to make- and all encompassing claim of_ "....absolutely *nothing they can do *to stop a woman from getting an abortion. Roe v. Wade gave women *complete control *over their body." _
The terms_ "absolutely nothing"_ and _"complete control"_ in your claims make no exceptions or exclusions. As such, it is logically inferred that you include late term, post viability abortions in your "reproductive rights" that you claim cannot be infringed by "Pro Lifers". If you're going to retract your claims to acknowledge legal limitations on abortion, then do so; but do it without waffling.

And this is not a red herring. There are MANY leftists who DO claim that women should be able to have an abortion AT ANY POINT OF THE PREGNANCY and FOR ANY -OR NO- REASON AT ALL. You claim that you're not one of them but your pronouncements do not indicate that.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Targe said:


> You didn't "specify post viability" but you didn't exclude it either. You made -and continue to make- and all encompassing claim of_ "....absolutely *nothing they can do *to stop a woman from getting an abortion. Roe v. Wade gave women *complete control *over their body."
> _
> 
> The terms "Absolutely nothing" and "complete control" do not allow for exceptions. If you're going to retract your claims to acknowledge the legal limitations to abortion, then do so; but do it without waffling.
> ...


Spin, spin, spin. Leftist, leftist leftist. I don't have to specify anything.  Buh bye.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

plowjockey said:


> Maybe someone thought that would be a good way, to attract the _swing voters _and _Moderates_, to the GOP.


Maybe someone was trying to generate sympathy for PP


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> But, but, the pro life contingent are gentle loving people... they don't murder, maim, or damage. Right? Isn't that their focus? Pro life? Well, unless they don't agree with what is being done, that is.


What makes you think it was pro life people who did it?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> So why is it the conspiracy angle only applies to your crowd? No Christian would ever do that! Or crazy white person with a gun! Must be the CIA, false flag, someone trying to make us look bad, etc.
> 
> Kudos to Laura for acknowledging that every group has a few bad apples and extremists.


So you know it was a white Christian?
The only group you missed from your hate list is cops
Maybe it was a white Christian cop?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> What makes you think it was pro life people who did it?


Just my opinion of some pro life people that have no problem killing and destroying. The irony is that they still think they're pro life.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> Not specifically but you have implied it.


Link?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Just my opinion of some pro life people that have no problem killing and destroying. The irony is that they still think they're pro life.


Sweeping generalizations, just the kind you and your friends gripe about
I'd be more likely to say it was some obamatard trying to get some sympathy and cast pro life people in a bad light
Seems like a liberal tactic that's been tried before.
But go ahead and condemn with no facts, you know, just like you (collective you) are always accusing others of.
What's that word that describes most liberals who don't follow their own rules?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Targe said:


> Exactly what I say whenever you PP-philes repeat your nonsensical claims that don't pass any *common sense* test.


What you call "common sense" is just false assumptions based on biased views.
If you don't want an abortion, don't use the services.
Lots of other medical facilities get the same type of funding, and do abortions too.



> There are MANY leftists who DO claim that women should be able to have an abortion AT ANY POINT OF THE PREGNANCY and FOR ANY -OR NO- REASON AT ALL. You claim that you're not one of them but your pronouncements do not indicate that.


No one here I know of has made any such claim.

If you use "common sense" you'd know any statements here are referring to legal abortions

It doesn't really matter what "many leftists" do since that's just your label and your unproven opinion.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Sweeping generalizations, just the kind you and your friends gripe about
> I'd be more likely to say it was some obamatard trying to get some sympathy and cast pro life people in a bad light
> Seems like a liberal tactic that's been tried before.
> But go ahead and condemn with no facts, you know, just like you (collective you) are always accusing others of.
> What's that word that describes most liberals who don't follow their own rules?


I said "some" not all. So no generalizations, sweeping or otherwise. Opinion. My opinion. No condemnation either cuz... it's my opinion! I get one, ya know. Just like everyone else. If I were presenting fact, I would have linked proof.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

> Originally Posted by *Patchouli*
> _So why is it the conspiracy angle only applies to your crowd? No Christian would ever do that! Or crazy white person with a gun! Must be the CIA, false flag, someone trying to make us look bad, etc.
> 
> Kudos to Laura for acknowledging that every group has a few bad apples and extremists._





Cornhusker said:


> So you know it was a white Christian?
> The only group you missed from your hate list is cops
> Maybe it was a white Christian cop?


It wasn't a hate list dearie. I was referring to previous threads where I have discussed conspiracy theory angles with Woolieface. In this thread he said it couldn't be Christians. In the thread about the Oregon shooting we wandered off into a rabbit trail on false flags. He prefers the conspiracy theory angle no matter how far fetched to the obvious. 

Here's a question to ask yourself: why is it if a black person shoots a cop it must be because BLM wound them up but there is no possible way the PP videos wound up a conservative Christian who attacked the Planned Parenthood clinics?


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> Not specifically but you have implied it.


I rarely mean to Imply. Implications annoy me and I hate annoying myself.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

IP is right just because they said that method was not acceptable did not mean they outlawed abortion at any gestational point. They shoot down restrictive abortion policies all the time. 

And just because a person believes in freedom of choice does not mean they agree with everything another person may choose.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> It wasn't a hate list dearie. I was referring to previous threads where I have discussed conspiracy theory angles with Woolieface. In this thread he said it couldn't be Christians. In the thread about the Oregon shooting we wandered off into a rabbit trail on false flags. He prefers the conspiracy theory angle no matter how far fetched to the obvious.
> 
> Here's a question to ask yourself: why is it if a black person shoots a cop it must be because BLM wound them up but there is no possible way the PP videos wound up a conservative Christian who attacked the Planned Parenthood clinics?


Actually I didn't say "it couldn't be Christians". I didn't directly comment on who I believed it to be at all, in fact.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> What I'd like to see is whether you can refute his points made about Gonzales v Carhart which included some points of a merged case Gonzales v Planned Parenthood..


Why would anyone bother to refute something they didn't bring up to begin with?
Strawmen don't need to be refuted


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> I rarely mean to Imply. Implications annoy me and I hate annoying myself.


I annoy myself all the time.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

> ETA: You've stated before that some people "need killing" in reference to the murder of abortion doctors. Why do you feel that you're pro life based on the fact that you see no problem with murder?


 I can certainly understand the reasoning behind killing a murderer before he can complete the act. Or perhaps you are happy with the idea that some babies just need killin'. Mostly minority babies, if one looks at percentages.

But you didn't answer the point about Gonzales v Carhart. It is case law that a point exists where a woman has lost control of her body...why do you insist that no such point exists?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> Actually I didn't say "it couldn't be Christians". I didn't directly comment on who I believed it to be at all, in fact.



Apologies I misunderstood you. 



> Originally Posted by *scooter*
> _Could be that the fires were set so the pro-lifer's would get the blame._





Woolieface said:


> You got your head on straight..


So who do you think was responsible?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Jolly said:


> I can certainly understand the reasoning behind killing a murderer before he can complete the act. Or perhaps you are happy with the idea that some babies just need killin'. Mostly minority babies, if one looks at percentages.
> 
> But you didn't answer the point about Gonzales v Carhart. It is case law that a point exists where a woman has lost control of her body...why do you insist that no such point exists?


That's not what the ruling said. She can still get an abortion at that gestational stage. The method was outlawed as cruel. Not her rights over her body or abortion at that stage. You are extrapolating more than they actually ruled.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm not going anywhere. I'm not the one doing the attacking, insulting, and name calling.


Yes you do too. You're just smoother about it than most. Face it, we all do it, but in such a way as to stay on the good side of the rules.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> I can certainly understand the reasoning behind killing a murderer before he can complete the act. Or perhaps you are happy with the idea that some babies just need killin'. Mostly minority babies, if one looks at percentages.
> 
> But you didn't answer the point about Gonzales v Carhart. It is case law that a point exists where a woman has lost control of her body...why do you insist that no such point exists?


You're the one that flat out stated that "some people need killin'" in conjunction with the murder of Dr. Tillman. How is that pro life?

Gonzales v. Carhart has done nothing. Abortion is still legal and in 9 states and DC there is no gestational cut off date. I don't know why you're hanging your hat on it.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-380


> *Gonzales v. Carhart*
> 
> *
> Question*
> ...


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

JJ Grandits said:


> I think that supporters of PP started the fires to gain sympathy for the organization and cast doubt on their detractors. Typical liberal "poor me" approach.


How do you live with such paranoia? Especially with no facts. It would be like me saying it was done by 7 grey haired nuns. Just as factual. BTW, I have no idea who did it, so I will keep my mouth shut rather than prove myself a fool. 

But whoever did it, hope they are caught.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Patchouli said:


> Apologies I misunderstood you.
> 
> 
> 
> So who do you think was responsible?



I don't have a _Belief_ about who did it (really haven't looked into it much). I do think, however, that it's always sensible to be skeptical when thing like this with highly political overtones happen. Since I do know that events are staged to push around public opinion, I think it's smart to back up from the emotion of the event and consider that it could be simply one more Hollywood production.

I have to also consider that the act was pointless from the perspective of someone who wants to see abortion stopped. It makes no difference that the building was burned. It doesn't defund them, it doesn't change a law, it probably doesn't even cost them a penny, in the end. All it does is create the kind of finger pointing we get right here. I think anyone who really wanted to stop abortion could see that as the obvious result.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Woolieface said:


> I don't have a _Belief_ about who did it (really haven't looked into it much). I do think, however, that it's always sensible to be skeptical when thing like this with highly political overtones happen. Since I do know that events are staged to push around public opinion, I think it's smart to back up from the emotion of the event and consider that it could be simply one more Hollywood production.
> 
> I have to also consider that the act was pointless from the perspective of someone who wants to see abortion stopped. It makes no difference that the building was burned. It doesn't defund them, it doesn't change a law, it probably doesn't even cost them a penny, in the end. All it does is create the kind of finger pointing we get right here. I think anyone who really wanted to stop abortion could see that as the obvious result.


I think when people are really wound up and upset they do stupid things like throw rocks and firebomb clinics. They aren't thinking through the consequences they are just outraged and want to do something, anything to protest it.

Historically so far every person who was caught bombing a clinic or killing an abortion doctor did it because they were pro-life and were overwrought about abortion.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> I think when people are really wound up and upset they do stupid things like throw rocks and firebomb clinics. They aren't thinking through the consequences they are just outraged and want to do something, anything to protest it.
> 
> Historically so far every person who was caught bombing a clinic or killing an abortion doctor did it because they were pro-life and were overwrought about abortion.


Link?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Link?


To a list of people who have bombed clinics and shot abortion doctors?

http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/d...-violence-americas-forgotten-terrorism-1.html



> In addition to the Green Bay firebombing, some other recent examples of anti-abortion violence include:
> 
> 
> Madison, Wisconsin, March 2012: A federal grand jury indicted Ralph Lang, 63, on charges of attempting to intimidate by force people participating in a program receiving federal financial assistance, as well as using or carrying a firearm in relation to the alleged crime. According to police, Lang travelled to Madison to threaten to kill people at a local Planned Parenthood clinic; he was arrested after allegedly firing his gun in a motel room while practicing drawing it.
> ...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> And just because a person believes in freedom of choice does not mean they agree with everything another person may choose.


This is very true, I am apposed to abortion and would advise any other option rather than having one. That said I also beleive it is the mother to be that should make that decision.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> To a list of people who have bombed clinics and shot abortion doctors?
> 
> http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/d...-violence-americas-forgotten-terrorism-1.html


Thanks
Some people actually hurt their cause with actions that harm others.
Arson depends on who sets what on fire I guess.


----------

