I want a Lamborghini

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:15 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjCs_gvImyw

How many dead babies does one cost?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:25 pm

You can edit just about anything to make it seem horrible.

p.s. R&P in 3...2...

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:31 pm

It sounds horrible, but as Hepcat's link mentions, anything could be edited to sound horrible.

They're talking a maximum possibility of 800 per year, at a high cost of $100 - as proposed by the filmer, not the exec. The exec proposed $50 to $75 to cover storage, prep, handling, etc and it sounds a lot like simply paying for overhead and not trying to illegally traffic in human specimens.

Now if she were saying something like "We can harvest 800 a year for you, but they'll cost $2,000 each" then you might have something concerning.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:32 pm

There is no way that Rip could honestly have thought this to be a non-R&P topic.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:38 pm

Maybe he wanted to start a discussion about deceptive editing of video?

Hair trigger on moving this one though, it is very R&P.

Carpet_pissr · Post by **Carpet_pissr** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:38 pm

El Guapo wrote:There is no way that Rip could honestly have thought this to be a non-R&P topic.

Agree.

Come on, man! You know better. Why?

Actually the bait and switch pissed me off more than anything.

And no, you really don't want a Lamborghini. Like the Onion article about Peruvians discovering oil, just driving one makes you an instant asshole.

Plus, have you seen normal maintenance bills on those? Outrageous.

Enough · Post by **Enough** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:43 pm

Yeah very R and P, duh. And duh on the math, this isn't lucrative at $75-100 per fetus and the Lambo was a throwaway line. Finally, show me the complete unedited video or it's straight up horseshit hocus pocus.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:46 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:Maybe he wanted to start a discussion about deceptive editing of video?

Hair trigger on moving this one though, it is very R&P.

Yes please. Or, alternatively, after the nth post like this we can now move it to Meta and just talk about intent and perception.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:48 pm

It's trending meta very heavily.

Cortilian · Post by **Cortilian** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:50 pm

Yeah, it's interesting what the going rate is for murdered babies parts.

Perhaps they'll move up to toddlers or newborns that are unwanted soon?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:53 pm

...and we now have crossed over officially.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:54 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:Maybe he wanted to start a discussion about deceptive editing of video?

Hair trigger on moving this one though, it is very R&P.

This is not a close call.

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:56 pm

Cortilian wrote:Yeah, it's interesting what the going rate is for ... parts.

They were discussing intact specimens, like extracting the whole walnut from the shell. Only trained squirrels can do it almost every time.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:56 pm

Headline from Drudge ends up as a topic posted by Rip? Bring me my fainting couch.

TheMix · Post by **TheMix** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:58 pm

Before it moves, I would like to state that I do not want a Lamborghini. However, I would very much like to be able to afford a Lamborghini (with associated maintenance costs).

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:01 pm

El Guapo wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:Maybe he wanted to start a discussion about deceptive editing of video?

Hair trigger on moving this one though, it is very R&P.
This is not a close call.

Never said it was. First line was a joke. Hair trigger means it's not going to take much.

And away it goes.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:02 pm

Smoove_B wrote:Headline from Drudge ends up as a topic posted by Rip? Bring me my fainting couch.

I refer to mine as a Swooning Sofa.

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:03 pm

TheMix wrote:with associated maintenance costs

There's the rub. The associated maintenance costs might run you as much as buying a new, more modest car every year. I imagine the insurance alone might buy a small home in a suburb.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:04 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote:
El Guapo wrote:
LawBeefaroni wrote:Maybe he wanted to start a discussion about deceptive editing of video?

Hair trigger on moving this one though, it is very R&P.
This is not a close call.
Never said it was. First line was a joke. Hair trigger means it's not going to take much.

And away it goes.

Fair enough, I was just saying that it was R&P from the original post.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:07 pm

El Guapo wrote: Fair enough, I was just saying that it was R&P from the original post.

Roger.

Can't youtube from here (and didn't think it was worth firing up phone) so I was waiting for confirmation.

Was really hoping from the title that Rip had finally admitted to wanting a European car. *damnsnap*

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:15 pm

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:15 pm

Paingod wrote:
TheMix wrote:with associated maintenance costs
There's the rub. The associated maintenance costs might run you as much as buying a new, more modest car every year. I imagine the insurance alone might buy a small home in a suburb.

Insurance? Did you forget who we are talking about?

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:34 pm

Paingod wrote:
TheMix wrote:with associated maintenance costs
There's the rub. The associated maintenance costs might run you as much as buying a new, more modest car every year. I imagine the insurance alone might buy a small home in a suburb.

Yeah, but with a shitty Porche in the garage.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:34 pm

I see it as a post about people openly breaking the law. I am not anti-abortion at all. But of course the super pro-abortionists will want it cordoned off to R&P as though anything with the word abortion in it has to be political.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:35 pm

Yeah, since when did people get all political about something like abortion?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:42 pm

How does one become a "Super Pro-Abortionist"?

And maybe it's just me, but it just seems that Rip is becoming less and less likely to engage in any discussion that doesn't allow him to express anger or simple derision at those who don't share his political beliefs.

What's up, big guy? Things going okay?

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:47 pm

El Guapo wrote:

Yeah, since when did people get all political about something like abortion?

But it isn't really about abortion is it? Is anything in this say anything anti-abortion?

Unless to oppose selling of aborted fetuses and parts is somehow anti-abortion.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:50 pm

Rip wrote:
But it isn't really about abortion is it? Is anything in this say anything anti-abortion?

Oh, I wasn't aware the video had been filmed and then heavily edited by the Nabisco Corporation.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:02 pm

Rip wrote:
El Guapo wrote:

Yeah, since when did people get all political about something like abortion?
But it isn't really about abortion is it? Is anything in this say anything anti-abortion?

Unless to oppose selling of aborted fetuses and parts is somehow anti-abortion.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:34 pm

Rip wrote:I see it as a post about people openly breaking the law.

Which laws were being broken?

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:37 pm

hepcat wrote:
Rip wrote:
But it isn't really about abortion is it? Is anything in this say anything anti-abortion?

Oh, I wasn't aware the video had been filed and then heavily edited by the Nabisco Corporation.

Specifically, the super pro-abortionist faction within Nabisco.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:48 pm

Rip wrote: Unless to oppose selling of aborted fetuses and parts is somehow anti-abortion.

Is it better to just throw them away?

AWS260 · Post by **AWS260** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:15 pm

El Guapo wrote:
hepcat wrote:
Rip wrote:But it isn't really about abortion is it? Is anything in this say anything anti-abortion?
Oh, I wasn't aware the video had been filed and then heavily edited by the Nabisco Corporation.
Specifically, the super pro-abortionist faction within Nabisco.

It's common knowledge that Ritz crackers are 35% fetus parts.

WYBaugh · Post by **WYBaugh** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:19 pm

Alefroth wrote:
Rip wrote:I see it as a post about people openly breaking the law.

Which laws were being broken?

This?

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:22 pm

Alefroth wrote:
Rip wrote: Unless to oppose selling of aborted fetuses and parts is somehow anti-abortion.
Is it better to just throw them away?

Hep's article makes it clear that it's against the law to sell tissue, but I agree that the tissue can be put to better use than in a biohazard bag in the local dump.

My wife and I had 5 eggs fertilized and frozen during IVF. 2 were implanted and 1 took. We then proceeded to have 2 more kids without IVF. We agreed to donate the last 3 frozen eggs to science. I assume they added eridium to them and now have some sort of monstrous mutated siren-esque witches running around.

The bottom line is that medical science needs all the help it can get. Why not utilize former embryos and fetuses for research? Dead tissue is dead tissue. It's nature doesn't change if we burn it instead of injecting it with chemicals or whatever.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:25 pm

WYBaugh wrote:
Alefroth wrote:
Rip wrote:I see it as a post about people openly breaking the law.

Which laws were being broken?
This?

Was it interstate commerce or in violation of a state law? I have no idea, as I don't get my information from youtube...

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:36 pm

Pyperkub wrote:
WYBaugh wrote:
Alefroth wrote:
Rip wrote:I see it as a post about people openly breaking the law.

Which laws were being broken?
This?
Was it interstate commerce or in violation of a state law? I have no idea, as I don't get my information from youtube...

As far as I could tell from the OP link, no sale happened. Merely negotiations.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:12 pm

Alefroth wrote:
Pyperkub wrote:
WYBaugh wrote:
Alefroth wrote:
Rip wrote:I see it as a post about people openly breaking the law.

Which laws were being broken?
This?
Was it interstate commerce or in violation of a state law? I have no idea, as I don't get my information from youtube...
As far as I could tell from the OP link, no sale happened. Merely negotiations.

My understanding from what I've read is that the activists are pushing to buy the tissue, and the Planned Parenthood person is saying that it's illegal to profit from the sale of tissue, but that they are allowed to take money for the tissue to cover costs. There is then apparently some extended discussion of how there is flexibility in setting how much money is due for "costs", and that some private clinics set cost payments such that they do profit.

So, the pro life people are saying that she's wink-wink acknowledging that Planned Parenthood does this, while the super pro-abortionists are saying that she's just explaining the relevant rules (and noting that *other* places purportedly abuse them for profit).

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:19 pm

Factcheck.org is usually a good place to start when Fox news is telling you something.

At one point in the unedited video (which was also released by the group), Nucatola says: “Affiliates are not looking to make money by doing this. They’re looking to serve their patients and just make it not impact their bottom line.”

Nucatola also says, “No one’s going to see this as a money making thing.” And at another point, she says, “Our goal, like I said, is to give patients the option without impacting our bottom line. The messaging is this should not be seen as a new revenue stream, because that’s not what it is.”

The full video shows that after Nucatola mentions the $30 to $100, she describes how those amounts would be reimbursement for expenses related to handling and transportation of the tissues. Nucatola talks about “space issues” and whether shipping would be involved.

We also asked experts in the use of human tissue for research about the potential for profit. Sherilyn J. Sawyer, the director of Harvard University and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s “biorepository,” told us that “there’s no way there’s a profit at that price.” She continued in an email:

Sawyer, July 20: In reality, $30-100 probably constitutes a loss for [Planned Parenthood]. The costs associated with collection, processing, storage, and inventory and records management for specimens are very high. Most hospitals will provide tissue blocks from surgical procedures (ones no longer needed for clinical purposes, and without identity) for research, and cost recover for their time and effort in the range of $100-500 per case/block. In the realm of tissues for research $30-100 is completely reasonable and normal fee.

But Drudge, Fox and Rip won't actually watch the entire video to get to the truth.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Tue Jul 21, 2015 8:22 pm

Ok, thanks.

IMHO, Rip owes me a Lamborghini now.