Milwaukee Abortion Clinic Caught
Stunning. Not surprising, but stunning.
OK Mr. DA, what are you going to do?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 1030 hrs
I’m going to chop up the video so it makes my intended point, spend lot’s of time editing it and adding goofy sound effects (even tho this is a VERY serious CRIME I’m alleging) and then put it on youtube so white Christians who don’t like paying taxes or teaching anything other than abstinence in school can get all pissed off for an hour before they head off to Wal Mart for the sale on throwback Pepsi.
Seriously. Show me the whole uncut, unedited video. Then maybe there is something to be upset about. This clip is just theater.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 1236 hrs
PJGII
You do realize that PP has been caught being a bad actor enough that a video like this is completely unsurprising, right? I mean, it *might* be edited to make PP look bad, but based on the number of times, and variety of places PP has been caught out doing illegal things, I bet this isn’t faked.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 1347 hrs
Throwback Pepsi???? WHERE!?
Posted by GAMazy on February 24, 2010 at 1356 hrs
Right. My point is I’m not 6 and I have an attention span longer than 90 seconds. Packaged videos like this are simply theater and in and of themselves are totally meaningless. It’s not journalism. Doesn’t matter if it’s PP supposedly looking the other way when confronted with statutory rape or a string of GWB clips making it look like he doesn’t know how to speak the English language. I understand why the right loves the PP video and the left the GWB video, but it doesn’t make either of them worth a shit.
Give us all the benefit of the doubt and show the whole event, in context.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 1358 hrs
Why hello there Ginny! Pick up a case of the throwback Pepsi sometime. It looks great! Amazing how much better package/logo design was back then.
I would also say that this has to be faked, right? I mean this girl went in there with a camera after all. I’m assuming there was no 31 year old on 14 year old sex happening, right?
You all do see the irony in wanting to “teach” kids abstinence only and then also getting outraged when they show up at PP at age 14 asking for an abortion, right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 1405 hrs
I’m an atheist and I don’t like paying taxes. Especially when I’m threatened at the point of a gun to pay and then watch the useless politicians blow it all on silly pet projects that do nothing but fail.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 1417 hrs
Funny one PJGII. Last study I heard about on the issue claims that these programs might work.
Of course, you’re also going for the strawman here. Let’s talk about PP breaking the law.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 1420 hrs
I’m not saying PP didn’t break the law, they very well might have. I’m saying this video doesn’t show that they did or didn’t conclusively.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 1424 hrs
I hear you Jay4LIberty. I think the Milwaukee to Madison light rail plan is just a huge waste of money.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 1431 hrs
Light-rail isn’t the first or last waste of money the morons who win popularity contests buy in to.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 1442 hrs
Where’s the privacy rights advocates on this? The phony shiekhs in Abscam were more believable than these posers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 1516 hrs
JPG II
Did you actually watch the clip? All the sound effects in the world and fancy editing aside, there is more than enough context in this to warrant criminal investigation. The planned parenthood person had to report this incident, it isn’t optional. And the fact that there wasn’t a 31 year old raping a 14 year old in this case is irrelevant. The PP person was presented with evidence of a crime and non reporting it is a felony.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2010 at 0219 hrs
I sure did watch it. Several times. My point is, which I’ve made really pretty clearly, is that this video in and of itself is meaningless. It doesn’t show everything. Maybe the PP woman did call the Police? Do you know? I don’t. Maybe she didn’t. Point is if you showed this clip in court as “evidence” there isn’t a judge in the country who wouldn’t laugh you right out of his courtroom.
The point of this video is to get people like you all worked up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2010 at 0851 hrs
The point of this video is to get people like you all worked up.
Looks like you’re the one worked up, with nearly half of the posts on this topic…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2010 at 0901 hrs
Thanks for that insight Jason.
I wouldn’t say I’m worked up, but it does sadden me that we are at a point in this country where a 3 minute YouTube video made by a dude in his basement is used by either side to support an argument. I mean really? Look at Loose Change…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2010 at 1016 hrs
PGG II,
You could certainly be right. She may have reported the incident (although from her tone, that seems unlikely), in which case this video is a piece of junk. However that would take about two minutes for the police to check. If she didn’t, she should be prosecuted.
I never said(nor did anyone else) that she was guilty, and you are correct, that this could certainly be only half the story. What I said is, this video warrants criminal investigation. And if she didn’t report it, she should be charged. Simple as that. Perhaps the video is the junk you seem to think it is. More probably it is proof of a crime. In either case, it needs to be investigated.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2010 at 1102 hrs
Sure Curt. Altho, assuming that there was no 14 on 31 year old sex (given that she brought a hidden camera, I’d assume that this was just some kind of set-up and no rape happened) would the PP women really be found guilty of not reporting a rape that didn’t actually happen? I realize this is off topic, but if there are any lawyers in the hizzouse I’d be curious.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2010 at 1131 hrs
PJG II
The girl represented herself as 14, that is all it takes, yes there is a crime here. It is just like stings where adults (over21) go to bars with IDs that show them being under-age. If they get served, it is the facts that the owner and bartender had, not the actual ages of those that were served, that matter. The owner/bartender knew or should have known that the ID said underage and served anyway.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2010 at 1145 hrs
“yes there is a crime here” IF the PP woman didn’t contact authorities. Again, none of us know if she did or didn’t by this clip alone. We are all so quick to judge, aren’t we?
I understand what you are saying about selling booze to minors, I just find entrapment in many cases just appalling.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2010 at 1213 hrs
correction accepted. There may be a crime here if it wasn’t reported. That is depending on what the statute defines as a health care worker. If the PP rep is just a receptionist, would she be compelled to inform authorities about what she has learned? And ‘entrapment’ is a slippery word. Is it entrapment just to give someone an opportunity to commit a crime, or does it take a positive action by the law-enforcement agent to trigger entrapment? In other words, is it entrapment to present the health-care worker (if that is what she is in the present case) with the facts of a possible statutory rape case, or would it take the ‘underaged victim’ being the one to suggest not revealing what was disclosed to constitute entrapment?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2010 at 1316 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 87
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:23 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).