For the record, to be clear, etc., all that matters in this case is his motive. So far, your evidence that he is some sort of holy warrior against PP is weak at best. Your evidence that he was motivated by CPM is thin. Fiorina? Non-existent. The televangelist dude*? Non-existent.

*I went to his webpage. There is nothing credible about him actually being a Christian there. He seems more like a fame-seeking firebrand, not much different than Trump.

Were the Center for Medical Progress' (CMP) videos edited?

1. Eating.
2. Driving.
3. Going to the bathroom.

Yeah, totally "discredited."

Just wanted to say on a positive note regarding the police handling of the San Bernardino shooting--well-done. Saw an interview with a Lieutenant who responded to the scene and was about the first officer there and said he had put together an entry team within two minutes and entered the building to engage what he believed at the time was a shooter still in the building. No waiting around to assess the situation while more people could be at risk. And of course local police engaged the terrorists as they attempted to flee several hours later. Credit where credit is due.

Doctor Fate wrote:I live in a world of acronyms. Pardon me if that one didn't jump right out.

Well, had you asked nicely for links, I would have done. And I have done anyway. I answered your direct question, and have added more.

So, your point?

Until you mentioned him, I'd never heard of him....
... I agree with what Feuerstein said, until he made the comments about causing them to run and hide. Now, all that's missing is a link between Mr. Dear and Mr. Feuerstein.

No. Incitement is incitement.

No, incitement is only applicable to THIS case if Mr. Dear was aware of it. Otherwise, it may be "incitement" generally, but it has no bearing on this situation.

Ah, well, there you see, we appear to be at cross-purposes. I was talking about general incitement which has been highlighted by this incident. It may also be direct incitement, but it is at the very least related as it has the same target.

And his rhetoric is incorrect. In what way do Planned Parenthood "hunt down" foetuses? Their clients come to them, they are not dragged in off the street. The rest is also frankly dubious and is inflammatory rhetoric, totally unfounded: "stuck a knife in the uterus", "threw them bleeding into a trash bin"

Nope.

While he may be inaccurate in saying the babies are hunted down, PP does advertise and do all that it can to bring pregnant women to its facilities.

So you admit he is inaccurate. That's all you need to say.

Advertising is not the same as hunting. Game hunters don't get very far by just posting big signs "please come over here to get shot". He is also wilfully being inaccurate about use of knives, and trash bins.

So you agree, except when it turns out he's lying, and inciting violence, but that's not incitement.

Further, if I could show you evidence of them killing babies who survive an abortion, would it change your view? if not, I'll not bother

based on the fact that before 23 weeks a foetus would be very unlikely to survive, and before 20 weeks it is just not going to happen, and that the whole point of an abortion is to kill the foetus, it would not change my view.

Neither would it in any way excuse Feuerstein's inciting language.

Incitement does not "stand on its own." If Dear was not aware of it, it is irrelevant.

Again, no. Incitement is a thing on its own. If someone acts on it, then it is worse. but even if not, there is an attempt to provoke action.

Okay, they didn't call them a terror organization, only an "extremist" group (hence in the "extremist files"). As for a direct link, you really don't see the irony here--that you are too lazy to look after complaining about me?

I was already aware of Corkins. What I don't see, either in the pages I've seen, or the link you provided, is a link to the SPLC.

Now, where were the SPLC saying that someone should "punish" the FRC and have them run for their lives? Was Corkins driven to it by the SPLC, or was he reacting to the FRC's own words?

And again, nice to see you admit you were wrong about the "terror organisation".

The CMP are the organisation who put out the videos about Planned Parenthood. The "Centre for Medical Progress". You linked to the (heavily edited) videos on another thread, so you definitely have heard of them. By creating and then editing the videos, and splicing in unrelated footage (such as pretending a still birth of a miscarried foetus was an abortion), they have created a climate of hatred towards PP, even though a lot of it has not been upheld by those States holding inquiries.

That is not muddled. It is terrorism. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/0 ... 30614.html

that's the same link to the Corkins story, What does it have to do with CMP and PP?

I apologize for not recognizing the acronym. Sorry.

You're free to watch the unedited videos.

No I am not. The "unedited" videos are still edited.

? To what extent? That they're not continuously filming when someone goes to the bathroom?[/quote]Who knows what happened in the 30 minute slices that are missing? Does it take 30 minutes to take a whizz usually?

This describes how the "unedited" footage has several jumps in it, as well as an odd date change. also the the transcripts released by CMP do not match the footage: http://www.vox.com/2015/8/28/9217323/pl ... pes-edited

And a right wing group repeating CMP's assertions about bathroom breaks does not address the other issues, such as 4,000 words (some of them repeated as "evidence" against PP) that are not in the "unedited" tapes.

Is it fine when doctors talk about using less "crunchy" techniques during an abortion so that some parts are not damaged? (note: it is against federal law to alter a procedure for that purpose)

If that has happened, how come not a single State investigation has found any wrongdoing? "Talk" about techniques is not the same as actually doing what has been talked about. Which federal law would it be in breach of, by the way?

The CMP allegation was that PP were profiteering and maximising income, not just that there were cost reimbursements. Your unsourced quote does not "prove" the CMP right.

Now, you're just laughable. It was a quote. You could have searched it by cutting and pasting if you did not believe me. Here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/planned-par ... 1444744800 And, the fact that they're stopping the practice . . . why did they? Please, do explain.

Well, it's behind a paywall, but I will take your word for it. Still, there is a distinction between getting costs reimbursed and profiteering.

Why did they stop getting costs? Probably to stop all the insinuations going forward. And if they can do it, it suggests that they weren't relying on the "income" either.

On Fiorina:

It's more complicated than that:

So the article points out that Fiorina was wrong, but makes out she was actually right in the title? And people think that Brietbart is biased? gosh.

If we accept that there are mentally ill people out there, some of whom can be violent, should we whip up hysteria?

Again, your "evidence" amounts to 4 words and the unrelated testimony of a woman he divorced more than 2 decades ago. I'd like to see you sell that tiny pile of manure to a jury, let alone a judge.

well, there is also the actual target of his murderous attack. I am fine if it turns out to be entirely coincidental, but content to wait for the evidence to come out further.

Doctor Fate wrote:
*I went to his webpage. There is nothing credible about him actually being a Christian there. He seems more like a fame-seeking firebrand, not much different than Trump.

No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. I saw someone claiming to be Scottish and speaking with a Glaswegian accent do it once, but because of the sugar I know he is not a credible Scot.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:I live in a world of acronyms. Pardon me if that one didn't jump right out.

Well, had you asked nicely for links, I would have done. And I have done anyway. I answered your direct question, and have added more.

So, your point?

It didn't jump right out.

Your being obnoxious. My point was clear: your initial post could have (and should have) contained more info. Your subsequent snark is unwarranted.

Ah, well, there you see, we appear to be at cross-purposes. I was talking about general incitement which has been highlighted by this incident. It may also be direct incitement, but it is at the very least related as it has the same target.

No, it's not "related" if the man has never heard of it. And, to this point, there is little reason to believe Dear is anything but a crackpot.

Advertising is not the same as hunting. Game hunters don't get very far by just posting big signs "please come over here to get shot". He is also wilfully being inaccurate about use of knives, and trash bins.

Advertising is modern hunting. That's the point of all the data collection.

So you agree, except when it turns out he's lying, and inciting violence, but that's not incitement.

"Incitement" that leads to nothing is not illegal. Look it up. Until you connect it to Dear, you're blathering.

Incitement does not "stand on its own." If Dear was not aware of it, it is irrelevant.

Again, no. Incitement is a thing on its own. If someone acts on it, then it is worse. but even if not, there is an attempt to provoke action.

You're inferring something not in evidence.

Okay, they didn't call them a terror organization, only an "extremist" group (hence in the "extremist files"). As for a direct link, you really don't see the irony here--that you are too lazy to look after complaining about me?

I was already aware of Corkins. What I don't see, either in the pages I've seen, or the link you provided, is a link to the SPLC.

Now, where were the SPLC saying that someone should "punish" the FRC and have them run for their lives? Was Corkins driven to it by the SPLC, or was he reacting to the FRC's own words?

For someone decrying my unwillingness to google, you sure are being a jerk. Did you use google? (Bold added so you don't have to do any unnecessary work)

Family Research Council (FRC) officials released video of federal investigators questioning convicted domestic terrorist Floyd Lee Corkins II, who explained that he attacked the group’s headquarters because the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) identified them as a “hate group” due to their traditional marriage views.

“Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups,” Corkins tells interrogators in the video, which FRC obtained from the FBI. “I found them online, did a little research, went to the website, stuff like that.”

The Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard reported that Corkins, who pleaded guilty to terrorism charges, said in court that he hoped to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces, and kill the guard.” As Bedard explained, “the shooting occurred after an executive with Chick-Fil-A announced his support for traditional marriage, angering same-sex marriage proponents.”

And again, nice to see you admit you were wrong about the "terror organisation".

A pinch of humility might benefit you too. Give it a shot.

This describes how the "unedited" footage has several jumps in it, as well as an odd date change. also the the transcripts released by CMP do not match the footage: http://www.vox.com/2015/8/28/9217323/pl ... pes-edited

Again, even if Vox's worst fears are realized, the things PP doctors say are worse than cringe-inducing. They are sick. They are evil. They are inconsistent with the law and with sound medical practice.

I'm done with this. I'm not going to argue every nit with you. The burden is on you: until Dear is linked with something more than 4 words during his absolute incoherent babbling, there is no evidence he was "incited." And, if a man with a history of mental illness is the best you've got, good luck.

freeman3 wrote:Just wanted to say on a positive note regarding the police handling of the San Bernardino shooting--well-done. Saw an interview with a Lieutenant who responded to the scene and was about the first officer there and said he had put together an entry team within two minutes and entered the building to engage what he believed at the time was a shooter still in the building. No waiting around to assess the situation while more people could be at risk. And of course local police engaged the terrorists as they attempted to flee several hours later. Credit where credit is due.

Well said.

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Just wanted to say on a positive note regarding the police handling of the San Bernardino shooting--well-done. Saw an interview with a Lieutenant who responded to the scene and was about the first officer there and said he had put together an entry team within two minutes and entered the building to engage what he believed at the time was a shooter still in the building. No waiting around to assess the situation while more people could be at risk. And of course local police engaged the terrorists as they attempted to flee several hours later. Credit where credit is due.

Well said.

[sarcasm]No, there were criminal "victims" who died. Obviously this is police brutality, and all involved should be on administrative leave. Why do the police even need guns?[/sarcasm]

Since Vince hasn't chimed in, I thought I would throw a dose of that here.

Being a law enforcement official is hard. Nice to see some appreciation for those on the front line. They deserve it.

Sorry, DF, you have not "proven" that the SPLC incited Corkins. They list the FRC as a hate group, and he found that, and then did some research. Including looking at the FRC website. So again, was he reacting to the SPLC listing, or to what he found written by the FRC themselves on their own website.

Your own link suggests it could easily be the latter.

And at no point do the a SPLC appear to have suggested the use of violence against the FRC.

And you are wrong about incitement laws. It is not necessary to actually have a violent result. What matters is the intent -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

His words were:

"I say, tonight, we punish Planned Parenthood. I think it’s time that abortion doctors should have to run and hide and be afraid for their life"

That looks to me like it is taking about "imminent" and "lawless". As for being likely, there have been many attacks on people associated with PP and abortion, including deadly ones.

Did he incite Dear? I don't know. But I think he was intending to incite someone.

danivon wrote:Sorry, DF, you have not "proven" that the SPLC incited Corkins. They list the FRC as a hate group, and he found that, and then did some research. Including looking at the FRC website. So again, was he reacting to the SPLC listing, or to what he found written by the FRC themselves on their own website.

Your own link suggests it could easily be the latter.

And at no point do the a SPLC appear to have suggested the use of violence against the FRC.

No, I'm sorry Dan.

I thought you could understand the MURDERER'S OWN WORDS!

I do apologize. Please, increase your medication. There's no other explanation than some complete aversion to honesty.

And you are wrong about incitement laws. It is not necessary to actually have a violent result. What matters is the intent -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

Fine, let me know when anyone gets charged. Otherwise, a liberal AG doesn't agree with you.

And, I don't care what you think because you're not rational.

Again, Danivon, which part of this confuses you????? I've posted and linked this, but the obvious escapes your grasp. Why???

Family Research Council (FRC) officials released video of federal investigators questioning convicted domestic terrorist Floyd Lee Corkins II, who explained that he attacked the group’s headquarters because the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) identified them as a “hate group” due to their traditional marriage views.

“Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups,” Corkins tells interrogators in the video, which FRC obtained from the FBI. “I found them online, did a little research, went to the website, stuff like that.”

The Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard reported that Corkins, who pleaded guilty to terrorism charges, said in court that he hoped to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces, and kill the guard.” As Bedard explained, “the shooting occurred after an executive with Chick-Fil-A announced his support for traditional marriage, angering same-sex marriage proponents.”

Your need to add personal jabs aside, can I point out two things?

Much of what you bolded and underlined was not his own words but the interpretation of a reporter.

And at no point does that prove that the SPLC did anything to intentionally incite anything. Would you use the same logic (the words of a murderer on what inspired them being more important than.what that source actually intended or said / wrote) to tell us that the Beatles are guilty over the Sharon Tate murder because Manson referred to Helter Skelter?

danivon wrote:Your need to add personal jabs aside, can I point out two things?

Much of what you bolded and underlined was not his own words but the interpretation of a reporter.

And at no point does that prove that the SPLC did anything to intentionally incite anything. Would you use the same logic (the words of a murderer on what inspired them being more important than.what that source actually intended or said / wrote) to tell us that the Beatles are guilty over the Sharon Tate murder because Manson referred to Helter Skelter?

That's garbage. If you cared about the truth, you would not say that--you'd prove that what the source I gave said--and quoted him--was inaccurate.

Here's what a prosecutor said: http://www.redstate.com/2013/02/06/sout ... -shooting/

Corkins said he intended to “kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-Fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces, and kill the guard.” The prosecutor said they reviewed the family computer and found that he identified his targets on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s web site.

Here's a video of the shooter saying this is how he identified the "hate group" he would attack. http://www.redstate.com/2013/02/06/sout ... -shooting/

Did the SPLC "incite" him? No, he simply used them as a resource to identify his targets, then went to kill.

On the other hand, YOU HAVE ZERO ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT ANY OF THE SO-CALLED INCITEMENT YOU CITE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE COLORADO SPRINGS MURDERS.

There is a direct link between the SPLC and the shootings, even if it's not causal. Even so, it is 100% better than anything you have presented, which is a lot of supposition and vaporous opinion.

And, if you come back with another trollish answer, that's all you are.

You claim a link between Dear and so-called "incitement." You have adduced no evidence. I have shown Corkins in his own words saying he used SPLC as a resource to identify his targets.

:You are a living double-standard.