It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Two activists who filmed undercover videos of Planned Parenthood charged with 15 felonies

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

...And once I hear this, I know You weren't giving two flying f***s about the baby at that time. I'm sorry your wife is going thru anguish over this. It's a very sad thing indeed! But to tell me that I don't give a s**t about Women and Pregnancy is off the charts Idiocy. I guess the moral of your story was "Don't have abortions, Feelings are crushed, and a life was lost"

Best of luck on this very sad story Jimmyx! ...and i whole heartedly mean that




posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Foreshadow
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Wow that's a clever response

Better than whoever posted this garbage:

I'm just gonna say it... F**k Planned Parenthood and those C***S associated with it! Peace I'm Out!

Oh wait that was you.


Yup that was me - I'll say it again if you'd like?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Foreshadow

Are you planning on debating or just here to troll?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

ooooooo Doggie! Indicted in Cali! These guys will be thrown under the bus multiple times in Cali......the pro-abortion lobby is as strong as the LGBTQ (whatever) lobby! They'll be crucified and shredded!

What I don't get is why the delay in this case. Didn't this go down betwenn 2013 and 2015? What's taken them so long?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Do you know what it means to take words out of context? Do you care?


There's a big difference between editing out the fluff and taking words out of context. Do have a specific example you'd like to point out?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS


What I don't get is why the delay in this case. Didn't this go down betwenn 2013 and 2015? What's taken them so long?

The first video dropped in the spring of 2015 as the election season was just kicking off. It was one of the first major debate points and led to states like Texas trying to strip funding away from PP. Of course you'll see in my source article that those actions by Texas and other states were unconstitutional and overturned.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's what you get for trying to expose corruption these days.

Just ask Snowden.

Exactly what corruption did they expose with edited and false videos?

Anyone who follows the story knows they did not reveal any thing corrupt, wrong, or illegal.


You get it. Pretending like those videos still mean something today just shows a lack of willingness to look at the evidence without bias.


The BIAS is strong with anti-abortionists.

They believe what they want. Lies.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Do you know what it means to take words out of context? Do you care?


There's a big difference between editing out the fluff and taking words out of context. Do have a specific example you'd like to point out?

Just link a video. The whole thing is edited out of context. There's a reason that the videos didn't result in charges against PP. It's because they are proven lies.

ETA: Feel free to read this (even though I know you won't) Planned Parenthood Videos Were Altered, Analysis Finds
edit on 29-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's what you get for trying to expose corruption these days.

Just ask Snowden.

Exactly what corruption did they expose with edited and false videos?

Anyone who follows the story knows they did not reveal any thing corrupt, wrong, or illegal.


You get it. Pretending like those videos still mean something today just shows a lack of willingness to look at the evidence without bias.


The BIAS is strong with anti-abortionists.

They believe what they want. Lies.


I know right? That explains why I'm currently in the middle of a debate where I'm pointing out how the things said in the videos are taken out of context a year and a half after the videos were released.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
What I'd like to know is why the staff isn't doing anything about this duplicate thread.

Had it been mine, it would've been closed long ago.

Instead, the CTRL-Left is given free reign to spam the boards.



Did you alert a mod? If not they probably don't know about it.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's what you get for trying to expose corruption these days.

Just ask Snowden.

Exactly what corruption did they expose with edited and false videos?

Anyone who follows the story knows they did not reveal any thing corrupt, wrong, or illegal.


You get it. Pretending like those videos still mean something today just shows a lack of willingness to look at the evidence without bias.


The BIAS is strong with anti-abortionists.

They believe what they want. Lies.


I know right? That explains why I'm currently in the middle of a debate where I'm pointing out how the things said in the videos are taken out of context a year and a half after the videos were released.


I know.

The anti-abortionists still believe the edited fraud videos. Even though they've been proven fake by manipulation.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What evidence? Is there edited video next to unedited video for context?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: rockintitz

I just posted this to another person, but here you go again.
www.nytimes.com...
This is a fun line:

But, it said, “the manipulation of the videos does mean they have no evidentiary value in a legal context and cannot be relied upon for any official inquiries” unless C.M.P. provides investigators with its original material, and that material is independently authenticated as unaltered.

edit on 29-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee




The BIAS is strong with anti-abortionists. 



I think your choice of wording is pretty biased tbh. Anti-abortionist?

Does that mean the other side is pro abortion? Anti-life?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What's there to debate? Does Planned Parenthood kill babies for a living? I think we all know the answer to that



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Foreshadow

So that's a no then? Ok. Thanks for letting me know to ignore you going forward.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

sounds good hotshot - I'll do the same



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But what was taken out of context and what was the original wording? I'm not seeing that.

Is there a side by side comparison or is the unedited footage unavailable?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But what was taken out of context and what was the original wording? I'm not seeing that.

Is there a side by side comparison or is the unedited footage unavailable?

I won't grace this thread with that tripe. You can go look for it yourself. It's been on the internet for a year and a half now. If you are just getting interested in this issue, that's on you. Everything you are asking me to do is just rehashing old arguments that have already been settled as I showed you with that NYT article.
edit on 29-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You just linked an article that is almost two years old?????

Jeez man it was a simple question. And yes I'm just now interested in this, given that there are charges being filed now.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join