You apparently WANT it to be right wing nut jobs, but that doesn't make it so. There is no basis for assuming it is other than a drag queen show happened to be included. In an event that affected the entire county.

From the inspector general's report on Crossfire Hurricane: "We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI's and Department 's decision to seek the FISA order. "

Netflix's UI is WORSE than it's competitors. Biggest complaint? Autoplaying snippets. It's especially annoying when I've just stopped cycling through the list for a fraction of a second. Once it decides to load the video, I HAVE to wait for it to finish before I can move on, pausing the whole UI. Don't give me a snippet unless I actually select an item to get details please.

It does doe one thing right that some competitors don't, autoplaying the next episode of series but NOT moving on to another movie after watching a movie. Movies and series are qualitatively different, and services like STARS which will pick a next movie of their choice annoy the @#$@$ out of me.

There's an unfortunate excluded middle in public discussion about abortion. Partially because of debates like the one here, where I've been accused of getting my information from faux news, lying, making up facts, etc. SMBC had a good comic about this sort of thing.

I linked to the gallup poll above. I mean, polls aren't trustworthy, but even if their number is double the true number, about 30% of the pro choice movement does support it. I suppose the error bars could be larger than that, but that is a significant portion. Gallup is not part of Fox.

This is difficult to do, but please consider the possibility that the people you are nominally aligned with actually DO support things you find deplorable. Look at any of the bodily autonomy arguments and the misleading organ donation arguments they fall back on to assert that personhood is irrelevant and that they should be able to terminate at any point.

No, because it doesn't oppose actual birth control methods. They don't want to force women to have children. They just oppose killing some class of innocent humans. Anti-fetuscide might be more technically correct, but fetus is a broad term, and there are stages where most nominally pro-life people would allow it, such as the 8-12 week stage.

No. Setting the base limit at 8-12 weeks is a unambiguously a pro-life position. The current case before the court is about a 15 week limit, and the pro-choice movement is universally opposed to it. ANY limit at all is a violation of bodily autonomy according the pro-choice movement.

The sad fact is that the terms pro-choice and pro-life are so poorly defined that you can have a nominally self identified pro-choice person who favors tighter restrictions than a nominally pro-life person. You clearly identify as pro-choice, but I believe you are suffering from outgroup homogeneity bias. And possibly a failure to look at the positions actually supported by significant portions of other people using the label. We should have more than two labels, or abandon convenient handy labels in the first place, but we can't even seem to give up simplified right-left definitions of politics, so I'm not going to hold my breath.

As a side note, "telling a woman what to do with her own body" is a misleading description. No one is saying the have to have a child. At most, they are saying if you start the process of having a child, you can't change your mind and kill it. And it completely ignores the fact that TWO bodies are involved, and that one might qualify as a person depending on timing.

It is not lying. I have met someone who explicitly thought they SHOULD have that right. Kermit Gosnell is probably not unique, since he had staff members who participated and didn't report him. And that IS what the poll question means, since they explicitly also had 'generally legal with some restrictions' as an option on the same poll. Kathy Tran proposed a law that would have allowed exactly that, and Governor Nordstom backed. It COULD have been careless wording, but they didn't react by amending it to tight it. Moreover, the pro-choice movement OPPOSED the born alive infant protection act. They also oppose the 'safe legal and rare' stance that used to be standard for pro-choice.

Look up Kermit Gosnell. Are you REALLY certain he's unique? And that IS the stance of the pro-choice movement. I have in fact spoken to a person who argued that they DO have that right. It's not in my imagination.

No, it doesn't. Please find ANY right wingers who support marxism.

Did I say ALL abortions must be outlawed? The post I responded to acted as if there were no reason to call abortion murder in the womb. Although I do NOT trust polling generally, and have issues with how they are worded, and how spur of the moment interpretations can confuse respondents, a recent Gallup poll showed 35% thought it should be legal under any circumanstances, and that 55% of the populace considers itself pro-choice. That means about 63% of pro-choicers literally support day before birth abortions without requiring any danger to the mother. It IS reasonable to call the pro-choice movement pro-infanticide, even if the more intelligent members don't agree with that.

Conversely, 13% of the public oppose it in ALL circumstances, and 39% are pro-life, so about 33% of the pro-life movement is on the extreme.

I'm fairly certain that if they detailed specific restrictions, it would shift the polling. Better polls with more details came down to about 10% of the general public opposing all restrictions, which would still be a significant portion but a lot less than a majority of the pro-choice movement.

I consider myself pro-life. I would quite happily support fairly unrestricted abortions up to the 8-12 week mark, with tightening bans with reasonable exceptions after that. Most abortions fall in the early range, but the so called pro-choice movement is NOT content with most abortions being legal, and can't even stand laws like the one before the supreme court which are more lenient than most countries.

So, certain specific kinds of birth control which cause pre-implantation abortions. I hadn't considered them (and disagree with banning them) and the original didn't say "use of [certain forms of] birth controls". I was assuming he meant ALL birth control, but perhaps that wasn't the intent. It's always an issue when you respond to a generic statement that has reasonable subdivisions.

Do you really want to associate the democrat party as a whole with people like Pete Singer? If ONE group is subject to being judged by solitary extremists, so is everyone else. It's a terrible idea. Now, the people voting for those insane individuals AFTER they've revealed their idiocy is cause for some judgement, although you have to consider who the alternatives are at the time. I can sympathize with people who voted against the opposition out of what seems like necessity. It's why I almost always vote third party in presidential elections.

They didn't need to craft a new law. It's already illegal to issue threats to influence a court case, which is what posting the schools their children attend is.

You realize the person who shot Giffords was NOT a Palin supporter, and that there is no support of the claim that she's responsible? His "ideology" was incoherent at best.

Pete Singer.