Planned parenthood paid protestors who threw condoms at carly fiorina

The original story was NOT from the NYT it was from breitbart.com. Did you not read the OP. They clearly linked to brietbart.com "story." You are not accurate in your statement.

 

breitbart didn't report planned parenthood paid anyone... the new york times did...

so you lobbing these stereotypical words at breitbart is the wrong stance to take... you should be throwing these words over the fence on your side at the new york times... because THEY are the ones who PRINTED ON PAPER, and published online (later editing that word)... breitbart didn't do that... the new york times did...

so the new york times reporter, who wrote that story, clearly contacted someone, who must have hinted they were paid... otherwise why would the NEW YORK TIMES REPORTED write that word in their? is the problem truly with breitbart, or is the problem truly with the new york times who USED THE WORD... why is the times writing stories that are false? since you want to slam that other website as being biased and influenced, why would the times, write something, then change it, WITHOUT POSTING A NOTICE THEY CHANGED IT OR EXPLAIN WHY...

don't you think thats the same stereotypical wrong biased reporting, you claim breitbart does... except its the new york times doing it... and the other one is simply reporting about it... howwwwwwww ironic...

 

and if YOU read the article on brietbart... you would have seen they CITED THE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE as the source for the quotation...

so its breitbart reporting on a story the new york times covered...

are you completely missing that point? or are you completely dismissing it since that would mean the new york times is the crummy coverup?

 

You are assuming facts not in evidence. You have no idea what the NYT reported did or did not do. You are just making that up. As far as the OP is concerned they used the breitbart.com story as justification for their OP, including the thread title. Is the NYT article titled "Planned Parenthood Paid Protestors that Threw Condoms at Carly Fiorina?" No it wasn't...but the breitbart.com article was. The OP is clearly based on the breitbart.com article and NOT the NYT article. To claim otherwise is to be dishonest.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't matter what that the breitbart.com article cited anything. The OP was not based off the NYT article but the breitbart.com article. To say otherwise is not to be truthful.

 

The video was of a miscarried fetus.
The video had nothing to do with abortion.
The video had nothing to do with PP.

The report button is the little triangle with an exclamation point in it. It's in the line under the signature. Knock yourself out.

 

wrong again
if it was a miscarriage they would be required by law to give the born alive baby medical attention it clearly was either a failed abortion or a purposely born alive abortion

 

It was a miscarriage.
It was not an abortion.
It had nothing to do with PP.

 

Allow me to attempt the impossible: pregnancy is when the goo sack is alive inside the woman, whereas abortion is when she kills it. Seems like two separate things to me.

 

Not according to the woman that had the miscarriage.

https://www.yahoo.com/health/undercover-anti-abortion-video-showed-images-of-127289829487.html

it also the seems that the CMP used the video without permission. So not only did they lie in the video by making everyone believe it was the fetus O'donnel was talking about but the actual video was used without permission. These guys are just sick.

- - - Updated - - -

Typical right wing, sophomoric retort. And the right continues to wonder why they are not taken seriously half the time....

 

I agree that it takes some pretty complex mental gymnastics to justify killing the thing for no good reason. Not sophomoric at all, that position. Personally, I like to keep things as simple as they really are.

 

they are referring to the still picture at 10:36 not the video at 5:58 they aren't the same baby
the video clip at 5:58 is provided by Center for Bioethical Reform which is a 17 1/2 week born alive abortion

GRAPHIC CONTENT–’Carly Fiorina Was Right': Group Releases Full Abortion Video Mentioned in GOP Debate
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-full-abortion-video-mentioned-in-gop-debate/

 

um the factual evidence breitbart used, was quoting the new york times article, before they cleverly edited it without notice to anyone else... thats a HUGE factual point... and you were attempting ti discredit the poster for using an article that mis-quoted an article the new york times published... not knowing the new york times censored itself for reasons unknown to us... however it still remains 100% factual the new york times wrote what the brietbart article quoted for their title...

there is no running away or pointing fingers on this one... it happened, a new york times journalist wrote it, another journalist at brietbart quoted it, and now we're discussing about the times editing their articles after the fact...

what part of this is factually incorrect... bvecause thats the story and thats the whole reason you threw it in the thread creators face, saying "they didn't write that"... BUT THEY DID... THEY DID... thats the whole point... you're trying to save face, because you for screwed by the new york times too... don't be mad at the original thread posted... don't be mad at brietbart with your stereotypes of it... don't be mad at me... be mad at the people who did this to you, the editorial staff over at the new york times who altered a published, and printed article...

we can debate the reasons why the new york times edited their story... but the fact remains, THEY REPORTED IT...

P.S. notice how this website will inform you if I edited this message... why does the new york times not do the same thing? ever wonder why?

 

Then you failed.

 

No they are not. Did you read the news article? They, the news article, are referring to the video.

 

Again, for those with reading comp problems, I don't know what the NYT originally posted or printed. I don't much care what they originally posted or printed. I only have breitbart.com to suggest that. If in fact it can be found in the print edition of the NYT but not the online version then there is probably a correction either forthcoming or already printed. But that assumes that is what is in the print version. I only have your word for that and sorry but that is not conclusive to me.

So this leads us to the only logical conclusion...that we only have breitbart.com's word that this is what the original story stated. Which means the whole story is lock,stock and barrel, and the basis of this thread are based on the breitbart.com story...not the NYT story. Once again breitbart.com has been proven numerous times to print false stories that are supportive of their political ideology. There is 0 respect for breitbart.com and deservidely so.

 

...because a stranger or other individual does not get to decide the contents of another person's womb.

Have you been following all pregnant women in your area in order to monitor their prenatal care habits so in the case of their not practicing it to the letter, you can have them charged with child abuse/neglect? Do you? Huh? Maybe it's something you should consider doing if you are of the mind that their womb is your business.

 

I already told you to go buy a print version, I have, its there... and MULTIPLE websites have now cited the new york times changing the story... because they all wrote stories linking and citing the article as the source for the quote... I already gave you all those links... but its like you just want to reject everything that disagrees with you, because you refuse to accept you were wrong... I'm sorry you have to live that way, it must be awful to constantly deny and reject reality and try to find an excuse to rationalize and justify your positions just to defend something you said that was 100% wrong... it must be tireless...

you keep saying we only have brietbarts to believe and we can't trust them because you disagree with them... and you reject the factual evidence of roughly oh I dunno, a couple hundred thousand print copies floating around america... I'm not sure if their international versions had the story in it or not, they usually don't contain many of the articles you find in the american print version... I know because I have fun comparing them while I travel... and see'ing what people think is news...

please stop rejecting the fact it happened, please stop rejecting the fact its the new york times who pulled one over your eyes... brietbart has added lines stating the article was changed after they reported on it... other websites have also reported that, not just the ones who copied the brietbart story, and you can go grab a couple hundred thousand copies of proof... yet you even dismiss that, claiming "a retraction surely will come out so it doesn't matter if they reported it or not"...

just say... ha, the new york times screwed me when I called that guy a hypocrite... my bad...

P.S. you said they would print a correction... in their online versions they didn't even mention they edited the story after the 28th when it was posted... they've hidden the fact they edited it... you think they are going to add a correction in the print version? wouldn't they have started with a correction in the online version that they edited it...

 

Again I only have your word and breitbart.com's word for the print version. Neither one of which is satisfactory. Even if the print version stated it though it does not mean that PP paid them to go protest. It could possibly mean that some of the protesters were paid PP employees. So either way unless there is something out there that definitively proves that the protesters were there because they were paid by PP then this whole thread is based on a lie. To my knowledge and linked in this thread the only one making that claim is breitbart.com.

 

I see you're clearly missing the point... that you used data to call someone a hypocrite, when that data turns out, makes you the hypocrite...

sorry I guess you can respond to this message, so that you get the last word, so that you feel fulfilled and it won't keep you up at night knowing someone else got the last word... anyhow... continue and respond again... have a nice evening...

 

Odd you forgot to mention the living human being in the womb. Very odd. Human being = Contents. Is it difficult to say "human being"?

 

Is it difficult to address the question that I put to you? It seems that it is, which is why you chose to deflect. Here's another one for ya, although I'm certain it will be ignored as well...When will the anti-choice crowd boycott fertility clinics???

 

Yep, I'm gonna ignore just as long as you ignore the human being in the womb.

 

Just so you don't worry I slept like a baby last night with no worries as to what you posted. Just to clarify the record I never called anyone a hypocrite based off this story. What I did say is the story is flat out lie. I stand by that until proven wrong. I have looked at every possible story that makes the claim that PP payed protesters. All of them link directly back to the breitbart.com story. So while there maybe multiple places where this is being "reported," and I use that term extremely loosely, they ALL reference back to the breitbart.com story. The NYT story that is referenced DOES NOT claim that the Planned Parenthood paid protestors. Further the NYT states that the web version of the paper which clearly states "affiliated" in the story and not "paid" states the the web version is the same version of the story contained in print version if you are subscriber to their web app. I am and the story states "affiliated."

So now that leaves us with the following.

Breitbart.com makes a claim that PP payed protesters. They base that claim on an article that currently does not state that fact but they make the claim that the article was changed. All other stories relating to PP paying protesters links back to the same breitbart.com story. No other news agency is making any claim that PP paid protesters. Only breitbart.com is. So if you are claiming that PP payed protesters the only piece that makes that claim is the breitbart.com story. Breitbart.com is notoriously unreliable ergo the story is unreliable until confirmed.

 

Where did I err? Please go back to the original post you quoted from me and highlight the error.

Let me help.

 

If you insist...

First, your reference to a pregnant woman carrying a "goo sack" makes you sound like 14YO boy and shows 0 respect for women.

Second, saying an abortion is separate from pregnancy is like trying to separate smoke and fire. You cannot, at least logically.

Third, you say that it takes mental gymnastics to justify killing. That implies that abortion is killing the fetus. Medically and legally it is not killing, no mental gymnastics. A woman has a right to an abortion, whether you like it or not, no mental gymnastics.

You say you like to keep things simple but yet you complicate it. The simple fact is that women have the right to an abortion. You may not agree with that fact. You may not like that fact. That does not change that it is indeed a fact. To keep it simple all you need to know is that women have the right to an abortion. That is the simple fact.

So for all those reasons you fail.