AARP members get more! Take a look at your member benefits.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
141
Views

Re: Darlings of Conservatives Charged With 15 Felonies

141 Views
Message 31 of 67

@sp362 wrote:

rk9152 wrote"But, how did those "darlings of the Consevatives" change anything said in other parts?"

 

If you truly don't see the difference between listening to an entire conversation verses an edited piece of propaganda, there is no point in contnuing this discussion.


If you do not see the difference between the part of a discussion that settles people in ("How's the wife and kids". "How's the job going") and the meat about needing to make money to buy that new car or specifics of how you change your procedure so as to harvest organs to make money, you're right - this can go nowhere.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
141
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
139
Views

Re: Darlings of Conservatives Charged With 15 Felonies

139 Views
Message 32 of 67

rk9152 wrote"But, how did those "darlings of the Consevatives" change anything said in other parts?"

 

If you truly don't see the difference between listening to an entire conversation verses an edited piece of propaganda, there is no point in contnuing this discussion.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
139
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
138
Views

Re: Darlings of Conservatives Charged With 15 Felonies

138 Views
Message 33 of 67

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Snoopy48 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Snoopy48 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

If they were saying what you actually think they were saying, it would have been a crime and they would be facing charges.  After listening to the entire tape and not taking a few sentences out of context from the conversation before and after those sentences it becomes clear it is not a crime.  Why don't you go back and actually read the fact check that I posted.  And, again, editing a tape to try to prove your point turns it into propaganda.

When a person's actual words are available with them speaking them I prefer to form my opinion from them rather than some website saying, "What she really meant was....".


Then why do you choose to ignore what they really said and hang your on opinion a dishonest editor?


I have no idea what that means. Where did they say other than they were selling human parts?


It means simply that the people interviewed DID NOT SAY THAT THEY WERE SELLING HUMAN PARTS. Due to deceptive editing those who made the video that was released made it seem like they did.

 

Multiple states had investigations trying to prove that PP was selling human parts and found that just the opposite was true.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/


Can you be specific as to how the words of the PP exec were changed by those "Darlings of Conservatives"??


From the first paragraph "But the full, unedited video they cite as evidence shows a Planned Parenthood executive repeatedly saying its clinics want to cover their costs, not make money, when donating fetal tissue from abortions for scientific research."

 

The fourth and fifth paragraphs:  "

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.”

 

From a researcher:  "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."

 

If you read the entire article you will see why this is not a crime, like it would be if they were actually selling body parts.

 

But, how did those "darlings of the Consevatives" change anything said in other parts?


Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
138
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
139
Views

Re: Darlings of Conservatives Charged With 15 Felonies

139 Views
Message 34 of 67

@rk9152 wrote:

@Snoopy48 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Snoopy48 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

If they were saying what you actually think they were saying, it would have been a crime and they would be facing charges.  After listening to the entire tape and not taking a few sentences out of context from the conversation before and after those sentences it becomes clear it is not a crime.  Why don't you go back and actually read the fact check that I posted.  And, again, editing a tape to try to prove your point turns it into propaganda.

When a person's actual words are available with them speaking them I prefer to form my opinion from them rather than some website saying, "What she really meant was....".


Then why do you choose to ignore what they really said and hang your on opinion a dishonest editor?


I have no idea what that means. Where did they say other than they were selling human parts?


It means simply that the people interviewed DID NOT SAY THAT THEY WERE SELLING HUMAN PARTS. Due to deceptive editing those who made the video that was released made it seem like they did.

 

Multiple states had investigations trying to prove that PP was selling human parts and found that just the opposite was true.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/


Can you be specific as to how the words of the PP exec were changed by those "Darlings of Conservatives"??


From the first paragraph "But the full, unedited video they cite as evidence shows a Planned Parenthood executive repeatedly saying its clinics want to cover their costs, not make money, when donating fetal tissue from abortions for scientific research."

 

The fourth and fifth paragraphs:  "

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.”

 

From a researcher:  "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."

 

If you read the entire article you will see why this is not a crime, like it would be if they were actually selling body parts.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
139
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
140
Views

Re: Darlings of Conservatives Charged With 15 Felonies

140 Views
Message 35 of 67

@Snoopy48 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@Snoopy48 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

If they were saying what you actually think they were saying, it would have been a crime and they would be facing charges.  After listening to the entire tape and not taking a few sentences out of context from the conversation before and after those sentences it becomes clear it is not a crime.  Why don't you go back and actually read the fact check that I posted.  And, again, editing a tape to try to prove your point turns it into propaganda.

When a person's actual words are available with them speaking them I prefer to form my opinion from them rather than some website saying, "What she really meant was....".


Then why do you choose to ignore what they really said and hang your on opinion a dishonest editor?


I have no idea what that means. Where did they say other than they were selling human parts?


It means simply that the people interviewed DID NOT SAY THAT THEY WERE SELLING HUMAN PARTS. Due to deceptive editing those who made the video that was released made it seem like they did.

 

Multiple states had investigations trying to prove that PP was selling human parts and found that just the opposite was true.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/


Can you be specific as to how the words of the PP exec were changed by those "Darlings of Conservatives"??

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
140
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
141
Views

Re: Darlings of Conservatives Charged With 15 Felonies

141 Views
Message 36 of 67

@rk9152 wrote:

@Snoopy48 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

If they were saying what you actually think they were saying, it would have been a crime and they would be facing charges.  After listening to the entire tape and not taking a few sentences out of context from the conversation before and after those sentences it becomes clear it is not a crime.  Why don't you go back and actually read the fact check that I posted.  And, again, editing a tape to try to prove your point turns it into propaganda.

When a person's actual words are available with them speaking them I prefer to form my opinion from them rather than some website saying, "What she really meant was....".


Then why do you choose to ignore what they really said and hang your on opinion a dishonest editor?


I have no idea what that means. Where did they say other than they were selling human parts?


It means simply that the people interviewed DID NOT SAY THAT THEY WERE SELLING HUMAN PARTS. Due to deceptive editing those who made the video that was released made it seem like they did.

 

Multiple states had investigations trying to prove that PP was selling human parts and found that just the opposite was true.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/unspinning-the-planned-parenthood-video/

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
141
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
144
Views

Re: Darlings of Conservatives Charged With 15 Felonies

144 Views
Message 37 of 67

@ChasKy53 wrote:


So you would rather accept videos that are edited so that the meaning more matches with your agenda or position, correct?

 

So I would rather accept the portions of videos that are germane to the topic.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
144
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
140
Views

Re: Darlings of Conservatives Charged With 15 Felonies

140 Views
Message 38 of 67

@Snoopy48 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

If they were saying what you actually think they were saying, it would have been a crime and they would be facing charges.  After listening to the entire tape and not taking a few sentences out of context from the conversation before and after those sentences it becomes clear it is not a crime.  Why don't you go back and actually read the fact check that I posted.  And, again, editing a tape to try to prove your point turns it into propaganda.

When a person's actual words are available with them speaking them I prefer to form my opinion from them rather than some website saying, "What she really meant was....".


Then why do you choose to ignore what they really said and hang your on opinion a dishonest editor?


I have no idea what that means. Where did they say other than they were selling human parts?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
140
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
138
Views

Re: Darlings of Conservatives Charged With 15 Felonies

138 Views
Message 39 of 67

@sp362 wrote:

Talk about the pot calling the kettle...  You are doing exactly what you are accusing me of, but in reverse.  You are taking a portion of a conversation and deciding that is what they meant when the entire conversation shows otherwise.
Of course - none of us have listened to the hours of tape on irrelevent topics. However, when the women say what they said, I can't believe that hearing them talk about their favorite desserts changes the meaning of the words.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
138
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
141
Views

Re: Darlings of Conservatives Charged With 15 Felonies

141 Views
Message 40 of 67

It will be very interesting to see how many counts they are convicted of violating - that is - if they don't cop to a plea deal first...

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
141
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Roundtable Discussion:
Ask questions and get advice from fellow entrepreneurs
Now through Nov. 22

Top Authors