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: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: rockintitz

Then do some research:
ATS search: Planned Parenthood video




posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I was the person who was discussing this topic with you earlier this week in another thread and my position remains sanctimonious... none of these felony charges change the facts from those videos: Planned Parenthood was, albeit legally, exchanging aborted fetuses for money and PP staff was bragging about getting the biggest bang for the buck.

This thread makes as much sense as the Russian hacker fiasco in which Americans were supposed to turn a blind eye to Hillary and DNC misdeeds because: #RussiaWillWin



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


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


Where is the evidence?




I won't grace this thread with that tripe. You can go look for it yourself. 


Killer thread bud, I was actually trying to look at this with an open mind but your condescension isn't doing much to sway me.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I vaguely recall all that but what I meant was.......why did it take Cali so long to do this? I honestly don't understand that. And if I remember the article correctly these guys operated in 3 Cali cities. There should have been ample evidence from their operations.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.


So in other words... no you don't?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


none of these felony charges change the facts from those videos: Planned Parenthood was, albeit legally, exchanging aborted fetuses for money and PP staff was bragging about getting the biggest bang for the buck.

So what's the problem then? Should it be illegal to be unemotional or tell dark jokes about dead fetuses?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: rockintitz

Look. I posted you a link where you can get ALL of this information without me having to do the leg work. It's all on ATS already. Just click on the link and you will see a plethora of threads that discuss all of this stuff complete with arguments for and against them.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I vaguely recall all that but what I meant was.......why did it take Cali so long to do this? I honestly don't understand that. And if I remember the article correctly these guys operated in 3 Cali cities. There should have been ample evidence from their operations.

Investigations take time to wrap up. The investigators probably wanted to make sure they had as strong of case as possible and with 15 charges against them, that is REALLY strong.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
An ant that is halfway through it's life is more significant than something that is not yet sentient.


If you don't know you're alive, you can't appreciate the gift.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6


none of these felony charges change the facts from those videos: Planned Parenthood was, albeit legally, exchanging aborted fetuses for money and PP staff was bragging about getting the biggest bang for the buck.

So what's the problem then? Should it be illegal to be unemotional or tell dark jokes about dead fetuses?


No. Should it be illegal to show accurate video of those people working for a taxpayer and charity funded nonprofit making those jokes and being unemotional to the public to assist the public in making their decisions on continuing to allow tax money to fund and/or making personal donations to said nonprofit?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think that sometimes, some folks can't comprehend that opinions and beliefs are not sufficient evidence in a court of law.

... or in rational discussion, but I digress.

Good thread Krazy.
You have far more patience than I do.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: rockintitz
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?


I expected a response like yours. I looked at what I wrote.

The anti-abortionists love to state "Pro-Abortion" - - - when they've been told over and over its "Pro-Choice".

So I left it as is.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So PP hired a "commercial research and strategic intelligence firm" that "provides research for businesses and investors, as well as for political inquiries, such as opposition research" (this right here should raise a red flag, kinda like when pharmaceutical company's pay for research into how safe their new drug is) and even if you are going to ignore the impropriety of hiring your own vindicator, why not hire a company dedicated to video analysis instead of a 'political' research firm.

Also, in the article you linked the research firm (Fusion GPS) said nothing about the videos being "out of context" all they stated is that “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”.

So no exoneration of PP just not any 'usable' evidence to move forward with prosecutions.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

No one is advocating that the videos are illegal. Daleiden committed fraud.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

So no exoneration of PP just not any 'usable' evidence to move forward with prosecutions.

Yes. PP has been exonerated. The fact that Daleiden and the other lady are being charged speaks to this as well. Just because YOU don't want to believe it doesn't make it true.

No one who matters considers those videos to be factual or worth a damn anymore. The only ones who still ring their bell are pro-lifers who haven't let go yet.



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

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

No one is advocating that the videos are illegal. Daleiden committed fraud.


Only in so much as the way he managed to obtain the footage. The footage itself is not fraudulent. Again, we are discussing the merits of the concept succinctly laid out in this meme:



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not only the fact that they threatened the privacy of doctors and nurses just doing their damned jobs, but potentially threatened that of patients as well, says all that needs saying about these pillocks who care nothing for human beings.

I hope they get 20 years in a cell with big Bubba and his mates.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Foreshadow
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


i know the answer but apparently you dont.
they do not kill babies

youre an idiot if you believe that



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Memes aside. Here are the facts. Daleiden committed fraud while obtaining undercover video of 100% legal activities that he later edited to make look illegal and more importantly (since this has always been a HUGE appeal to emotion fallacy) immoral.

So again. What is the problem here?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: LockNLoad

and even if you are going to ignore the impropriety of hiring your own vindicator, why not hire a company dedicated to video analysis instead of a 'political' research firm.


That is a damn good question.



... and one that I'm sure will be avoided like the plague.


edit on 29-3-2017 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join